Constancio

S. Asumen Jr.

------

------

Guest Introductions by

Top Back COver

About the Cover: Conceptually designed by the author, the cover depicts a collage based on a print reproduction in the internet of the Ship of Fools oil on wood painting by Hieronymus Bosch [Musee du Louvre, Paris, (c.1490-1500)] and a photograph of an original oil-on-canvass portrait of the author by Ziba Bastani (1971).  It is intended to convey what the author recognizes as the transcendental nature with which any consciousness is aware of itself, while being simultaneously oblivious of either the gravity or the dire implications of its ambient circumstances.

Middle Back Cover

About the Book: {From the Author’s Foreword}The material represents a due diligence attempt to chronicle, via a series of seemingly random and incidental episodes narrated in the first-person, the evolutionary journey of my consciousness from the edge of the wilds of Mindanao to the rough and tumble of the streets of Manhattan, with all the tedious yet not the least thrilling detours in-between. Random in the sense that I had to single out and focus on specific and discrete pivotal decision points which ushered in a definitely recognizable qualitative change in my perception of my unique attributes as an individual, on leaving such decision bifurcations.

Bottom Back Cover

For you, the valiant heirs of Prometheus,

Of Liebnitz, Kepler, and Copernicus,

We mourn our lose but celebrate the cause

That cost the ultimate measure of your

Devotion, proclaimed in blazing glory,

And sealed your rendezvous with Destiny.

In votive gratitude and homage pledge

To keep your torch aflame and let endure

Ages of unbegot posterity.

So every fragment that your ship had strewn

Would our ambitions amply leverage

And claim your vintage courage as our own:

     All wholesome sacrifice to Liberty

     The ransom price for immortality!

It has been commonly said (and betimes accepted as gospel) that the most hackneyed cliché embodies the essence of the distilled wisdom of the ages. A plausible argument can be made that the stubborn tenacity of a cliché transitions the practice of traditional therefore casual adherence to common sense into a timeless enshrinement of any aphorism or ritual in the hallowed pantheons of conventional wisdom, as originally coined by John Kenneth Galbraith of The Affluent Society fame. There may not be any specific GPS coordinates to locate that pantheon. But no less a luminary than the New York Times resident economist Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman had alluded to both its power and preponderance.

Conventional wisdom had it that the bureaucratization of national security would produce both efficiency and effectiveness. Thus when the Jamie Gorelick “Wall of Separation” was blamed for the breakdown of intelligence sharing amongst the various agencies which could have conceivably prevented the disaster of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was born. This was nothing more than a superimposition of another layer of bureaucracy upon an already dysfunctional mosaic of quasi-autonomous bureaus. DHS begot the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one of its primary tentacles of implementation. 

Since then the TSA's modus operandi had been primarily characterized by an effort to catch up with and prevent or contain the further deployment of the terrorists' latest weapons of attack as revealed by the last failed attempt gratuitously foiled by the perpetrators’ bungling incompetence. Lest I be misunderstood, it behooves to emphasize that I have nothing but respect and awe for the individuals who devote themselves to the service of their community and country in these agencies. I however contend that the barren rigidity brought about by bureaucratization corrodes the human dignity which is intrinsic in every human soul. Hence the various personages in these agencies devolve, in varying degrees, from being decent caring human beings into senseless and meticulously rules-driven insensitive therefore nonsensical bureaucrats.

This unintended consequence makes the TSA perpetually one step behind every aspiring terrorist.  How does that exactly make the travelling public safer, is anybody’s "suspension of disbelief," as more recently famously formulated with her avowed “willingness,” by then New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton respecting General Petraeus’ progress report on Iraq. Only a bureaucracy can seriously propose that profiling the various trinkets and array of gadgetry that the Jihadists had thus far deployed is a viable method to engineer effective counter measures to neutralize the threat of terrorism. Human beings with a modicum of common sense would propose to profile both the people and the modus operandi of the enemy as essential to the task of architecting an effective strategic counter measure to prevail over the enemy and ensure victory.

When the TSA institutionalized full body scans or a more thoroughly intrusive pat downs, as the latest fail-safe counter-terrorism preventive measure, the air travel public collectively sought solace in the mantra “better safe than sorry,” and willingly if begrudgingly adapted to the new security regimen as a way of life. Thus a new equilibrium of civil decency has been inducted and canonized, fait accompli, into the pantheons of conventional wisdom by bureaucracy.

The path of least resistance still remains ever reliable as the overriding determinant to the evolutionary trajectory of the equilibrium of the universe. Alas, to our collective misfortune the truism encompasses societal attitudes and their compelling attendant consequences. Thus the seductive inertia of “Being There” canonizes acceptance of the status quo as the latest variant of conventional wisdom that warrants the perpetuation of the catatonic bliss of ignorance and apathy. It conveniently eluded the national consciousness that the new intensive TSA pat downs had nothing to do with security. Rather it had been a subtle probe into how much government intrusiveness can the public tolerate without being incited into an open rebellion.

It was precisely in this context that the “Revolt of the Masses,” as unmistakably evinced by the last midterm elections, assume its full measure of historical significance. The institutionalization of incompetence as most fragrantly showcased by President Obama when he nonchalantly turned over the Presidential lectern to ex-President William Jefferson Clinton, encapsulated the new mindset that would most certainly crystallize in all its grotesque splendor as conventional wisdom for the Obama paradigm of governance, and its repugnant implications. 

So it came to pass that the Republicans after winning an electoral mandate conceded a $313 billion in superfluous spending to buy a two-year lease on life of the Bush era tax cuts. It used to be a nugget of conventional wisdom that when and where any policy benefited the national polity, such policy should be worth keeping in perpetuity until such time as the benefit would be negated by a changed configuration of reality. But political spin works magic on the delusional conscience of professional politicians. For reasons only they are biologically equipped to comprehend, every policy that has been deemed and proved to be beneficial to all has to contain a sunset provision. 

It seems to be the karma of Republicanism to maintain a congenital deficiency in the DNA that supports a backbone and a commensurate abundance of the DNA that compellingly urges to compromise whatever priceless evanescent vestiges of political capital and personal dignity one may have heroically salvaged, and wallow in the delicious agony of defeat on the intoxicating lap of victory. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon was the 71-26 grotesque ratification of the New START treaty, despite this terse condemnation by Sen. John Cornyn (R- Texas):

“I fear that the New START treaty will serve as another data in a narrative of weakness, pursuing diplomacy for its own sake or indulging in a utopian dream of a world without nuclear weapons divorced from hard reality."

Republicans just seem to be congenitally incapable of resisting the penchant to self-destruct without any prodding, or incentive of a prima facie political gain. Their urges to compromise seem as irresistible as the pre-pubescent initial awakenings of the libidinal hormones of adolescence.

The celebration of incompetence ever so vainly camouflaged by political spin as the hallmark of sophistication and pizzaz, lends the aura of credibility to a gullible nation, a prima facie façade of due diligence at promoting the national well being. The jury is still out whether the Bill Clinton deployment to the press briefing on the Bush era tax cut compromise would prove to be a stroke of genius for President Obama’s political comeback or the moral equivalent of a political hara-kiri, as laid out by Peggy Nonan:

The president must have thought that distancing himself from left and right would make him more attractive to the center. But you get credit for going to the center only if you say the centrist position you've just embraced is right. If you suggest, as the president did, that the seemingly moderate plan you agreed to is awful and you'll try to rescind it in two years, you won't leave the center thinking, "He's our guy!" You'll leave them thinking, "Note to self: Remove Obama in two years."

It all depends on how forthrightly and how much backbone the new breed of Republicans can muster to give the country the overdue wake-up call thereby enabling them to wrestle the helms of power to restore the country on the right track, after two years of the Obama regime’s conspiratorially unadulterated reckless plunder of the national soul, on the promise of a vaingloriously vacuous transformational post partisan national well-being. In the spirit of the Christmas season, when charity behooves to be the order of the day, I grant the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, and just hope that they shall see for the coming New Year the guiding light to gain prudence in all their political decisions.

For everybody else, regardless of political inclinations, goals, and prejudices, I send the following recycled wishful sentiments for the season from my family and myself:

                           Seasons’ Greetings

                              Often the truth we sadly miss

                             As we see only what we know.

                             Nor each occasion could reveal

                             The gravity of what we feel,

                             On things we dare and dare not do.

                             Yet, though in vain, let me express

                             One simple thought, one sincere wish:

                             That may with love and peaceful bliss

                             Replete you find the Holidays!

                             And may the seasons thereafter

                             Be seasoned with mirth and laughter.

                             The rare occasioned somber sky

                             May not but serve to amplify

                             The happiness of days gone by,

                             And glories of unyielding prime,

                             And promises of days that lie

                             Uncharted in the blue abyss

                             And daunting vagaries of Time!

                             May each grief find sweet redress;

                             Alien to fears, much less to tears,

                             May triumphs and exploits increase,

                             All through the fast succeeding years!

                             Merry Christmas& A Happy New Year!!

One might argue: Why get so annoyed?

Tough work to pursue, tougher still unemployed

What with inflation going up by the hour

Well, then, it is obvious, there isn't any choice;

Methinks it takes genius, takes cunning otherwise;

Some take the drudgery, all day, nine to five,

It has been commonly said (and betimes accepted as gospel) that the most hackneyed cliché embodies the essence of the distilled wisdom of the ages. A plausible argument can be made that the stubborn tenacity of a cliché transitions the practice of traditional therefore casual adherence to common sense into a timeless enshrinement of any aphorism or ritual in the hallowed pantheons of conventional wisdom, as originally coined by John Kenneth Galbraith of The Affluent Society fame. There may not be any specific GPS coordinates to locate that pantheon. But no less a luminary than the New York Times resident economist Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman had alluded to both its power and preponderance.

Conventional wisdom had it that the bureaucratization of national security would produce both efficiency and effectiveness. Thus when the Jamie Gorelick “Wall of Separation” was blamed for the breakdown of intelligence sharing amongst the various agencies which could have conceivably prevented the disaster of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was born. This was nothing more than a superimposition of another layer of bureaucracy upon an already dysfunctional mosaic of quasi-autonomous bureaus. DHS begot the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one of its primary tentacles of implementation.  

Since then the TSA's modus operandi had been primarily characterized by an effort to catch up with and prevent or contain the further deployment of the terrorists' latest weapons of attack as revealed by the last failed attempt gratuitously foiled by the perpetrators’ bungling incompetence. Lest I be misunderstood, it behooves to emphasize that I have nothing but respect and awe for the individuals who devote themselves to the service of their community and country in these agencies. I however contend that the barren rigidity brought about by bureaucratization corrodes the human dignity which is intrinsic in every human soul. Hence the various personages in these agencies devolve, in varying degrees, from being decent caring human beings into senseless and meticulously rules-driven insensitive therefore nonsensical bureaucrats.

This unintended consequence makes the TSA perpetually one step behind every aspiring terrorist.  How does that exactly make the travelling public safer, is anybody’s "suspension of disbelief," as more recently famously formulated with her avowed “willingness,” by then New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton respecting General Petraeus’ progress report on Iraq. Only a bureaucracy can seriously propose that profiling the various trinkets and array of gadgetry that the Jihadists had thus far deployed is a viable method to engineer effective counter measures to neutralize the threat of terrorism. Human beings with a modicum of common sense would propose to profile both the people and the modus operandi of the enemy as essential to the task of architecting an effective strategic counter measure to prevail over the enemy and ensure victory.

When the TSA institutionalized full body scans or a more thoroughly intrusive pat downs, as the latest fail-safe counter-terrorism preventive measure, the air travel public collectively sought solace in the mantra “better safe than sorry,” and willingly if begrudgingly adapted to the new security regimen as a way of life. Thus a new equilibrium of civil decency has been inducted and canonized, fait accompli, into the pantheons of conventional wisdom by bureaucracy.

The path of least resistance still remains ever reliable as the overriding determinant to the evolutionary trajectory of the equilibrium of the universe. Alas, to our collective misfortune the truism encompasses societal attitudes and their compelling attendant consequences. Thus the seductive inertia of “Being There” canonizes acceptance of the status quo as the latest variant of conventional wisdom that warrants the perpetuation of the catatonic bliss of ignorance and apathy. It conveniently eluded the national consciousness that the new intensive TSA pat downs had nothing to do with security. Rather it had been a subtle probe into how much government intrusiveness can the public tolerate without being incited into an open rebellion.

It was precisely in this context that the “Revolt of the Masses,” as unmistakably evinced by the last midterm elections, assume its full measure of historical significance. The institutionalization of incompetence as most fragrantly showcased by President Obama when he nonchalantly turned over the Presidential lectern to ex-President William Jefferson Clinton, encapsulated the new mindset that would most certainly crystallize in all its grotesque splendor as conventional wisdom for the Obama paradigm of governance, and its repugnant implications. 

So it came to pass that the Republicans after winning an electoral mandate conceded a $313 billion in superfluous spending to buy a two-year lease on life of the Bush era tax cuts.  It used to be a nugget of conventional wisdom that when and where any policy benefited the national polity, such policy should be worth keeping in perpetuity until such time as the benefit would be negated by a changed configuration of reality. But political spin works magic on the delusional conscience of professional politicians. For reasons only they are biologically equipped to comprehend, every policy that has been deemed and proved to be beneficial to all has to contain a sunset provision. 

It seems to be the karma of Republicanism to maintain a congenital deficiency in the DNA that supports a backbone and a commensurate abundance of the DNA that compellingly urges to compromise whatever priceless evanescent vestiges of political capital and personal dignity one may have heroically salvaged, and wallow in the delicious agony of defeat on the intoxicating lap of victory. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon was the 71-26 grotesque ratification of the New START treaty, despite this terse condemnation by Sen. John Cornyn (R- Texas):

“I fear that the New START treaty will serve as another data in a narrative of weakness, pursuing diplomacy for its own sake or indulging in a utopian dream of a world without nuclear weapons divorced from hard reality."

Republicans just seem to be congenitally incapable of resisting the penchant to self-destruct without any prodding, or incentive of a prima facie political gain. Their urges to compromise seem as irresistible as the pre-pubescent initial awakenings of the libidinal hormones of adolescence.

The celebration of incompetence ever so vainly camouflaged by political spin as the hallmark of sophistication and pizzaz, lends the aura of credibility to a gullible nation, a prima facie façade of due diligence at promoting the national well being. The jury is still out whether the Bill Clinton deployment to the press briefing on the Bush era tax cut compromise would prove to be a stroke of genius for President Obama’s political comeback or the moral equivalent of a political hara-kiri, as laid out by Peggy Nonan:

The president must have thought that distancing himself from left and right would make him more attractive to the center. But you get credit for going to the center only if you say the centrist position you've just embraced is right. If you suggest, as the president did, that the seemingly moderate plan you agreed to is awful and you'll try to rescind it in two years, you won't leave the center thinking, "He's our guy!" You'll leave them thinking, "Note to self: Remove Obama in two years."

It all depends on how forthrightly and how much backbone the new breed of Republicans can muster to give the country the overdue wake-up call thereby enabling them to wrestle the helms of power to restore the country on the right track, after two years of the Obama regime’s conspiratorially unadulterated reckless plunder of the national soul, on the promise of a vaingloriously vacuous transformational post partisan national well-being. In the spirit of the Christmas season, when charity behooves to be the order of the day, I grant the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, and just hope that they shall see for the coming New Year the guiding light to gain prudence and a generous dose of wisdom in all their political decisions.

For everybody else, regardless of political inclinations, goals, and prejudices, I send the following recycled wishful sentiments for the season from my family and myself:

                           Seasons’ Greetings

                                                Often the truth we sadly miss

                             As we see only what we know.

                             Nor each occasion could reveal

                             The gravity of what we feel,

                             On things we dare and dare not do.

                             Yet, though in vain, let me express

                             One simple thought, one sincere wish:

                             That may with love and peaceful bliss

                             Replete you find the Holidays!

                             And may the seasons thereafter

                             Be seasoned with mirth and laughter.

                             The rare occasioned somber sky

                             May not but serve to amplify

                             The happiness of days gone by,

                             And glories of unyielding prime,

                             And promises of days that lie

                             Uncharted in the blue abyss

                             And daunting vagaries of Time!

                             May each grief find sweet redress;

                             Alien to fears, much less to tears,

                             May triumphs and exploits increase,

                             All through the fast succeeding years!

                             Merry Christmas& A Happy New Year!!

--- Omar Khayyam, The Rubaiyat

Multiculturalism is a good reminder that when standards are relative, there are no standards at all.

--- Victor Davis Hanson, Multiculturalism

The erstwhile national motto, E pluribus unum, Latin for “Out of many, one,” was designed to proudly proclaim and celebrate the multitude of cultural tendencies inherent to the diversity of ethnic origins, heritage, sensibilities and loyalties extant in the national polity. The melting pot metaphor was deemed to have most appropriately described this diversity, with the view of promoting a most unique concoction for assimilation as engendered by mutual adjustments and adaptation of the various cultural milieu into a new coherent whole, thereby producing a unique national identity, resonating in a new national harmony of its own. 

The underlying assumption has been, that the right to be alive (life), the freedom to choose what you want to do or be in life (liberty), and the right to own private property (the pursuit of happiness) are God-given attributes and cannot, in the normal course of events, be taken away from the individual except under special circumstances when a special dispensation is justified by law. The cauldron in which the new unique national identity is to be brewed was to be the arena of commerce and industry, stirred by the drive to excel over the next door operator with unbridled equal opportunity to compete, to have the chance to accomplish far better than his/her peers, warranted and modulated by the rule of law.

When these diverse tendencies gravitated to aggregate themselves into two distinctly delineable currents of ideology, through a process of mutual assimilation and compromise, the polity was construed to have been polarized. The notion of polarity obtaining in societal organizations and institutional architecture is as ancient as the pharaohs of Egypt and the Greece of Anaxamander and Pythagoras. The philosophers of the Chinese Han Dynasty construed Yin-Yang as the essence of the unitary duality governing the inner workings of the universe.

But it is as a natural physical phenomenon that polarization is most readily understood. Most commonly elucidated using the esoteric mathematical formalism of wave mechanics, with the rigors of matrix and vector algebra at its disposal, polarization is more popularly epitomized by the behavior of the bipolar magnet. Alas the unitary power of duality eloquently illustrated by the magnet, i.e., the presence of opposite poles as a precondition to the viability of the magnet, does not translate as harmoniously when imported into politics. More often than not, in politics the opposing tendencies endeavor to annihilate each other.

The mistake that many scholars of political science commonly make is to attempt to express the degree of polarization using numerical metrics such as the Gini Coefficient and DW-Nominate Scores on inherently unquantifiable phenomena. This results in a view of reality so muddled up, they don’t know whether they are coming or going as illustrated by the following Jordan Ellenberg observation in Slate magazine (emphasis added):

And around 1985, something—nobody is exactly sure what—happened, with polarization sharply increasing ever since. . . . you can see the Democrats and the Republicans jerk apart, leaving an empty space between them that persists, war or no war, to the present day.

. . . Today's Congress is governed by the calculus of left and right—that and not much else.

It is painfully obvious to the casual political observer that what happened circa 1985 was Ronald Reagan’s 49-1 landslide victory over Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election. No other presidential campaign had the battle lines been as emphatically drawn as in that contest. 

Mondale ran a campaign on the promise of raising taxes and taking back the country to the glory days of James Earl Carter when the misery index, stagflation and economic malaise became part of the national political lexicon. Reagan invoked the puritan dream of John Winthrop, themetaphor of a shining city upon the hill as descriptive of the moral pillars of the ideals of Americanism, promoting the virtues of a citizenry free to pursue any endeavor within the bounds of the law, with minimal intrusion from a preferably innocuous federal government.  The nation responded unequivocally with the electoral landslide.

The Bush/Gore presidential contest of 2000 manifested a yet different kind of polarization, namely between the popular vote and the institutional safeguards for an equitable, amongst the states, electoral outcome as represented by the Electoral College. While every subsequent recount of the Florida vote vindicated the judicial decision on a Bush victory, the Democrats never stopped the spin to demonize the process, screaming foul play. Never mind that it was the Democrats who instigated the litigation.

As recently as the 2010 midterm elections, political polarization most pronouncedly manifested itself with the historically massive takeover of the House of Representatives and State Legislatures throughout the country. Whereupon the habitually affable Bill O’Reilly aptly observed,

So while the rest of the country has thrown the big-spending rascals out, the liberal power structure holds on in select areas no matter how dismal the economy is. . . .

Thus, the United States is not really united anymore. We are now a nation of coalitions. The tea party movement is largely supported outside the big cities, while the progressive base is mostly urban. If you listen closely to what the two groups are saying, there is no common ground at all.

Bill O’Reilly’s laments notwithstanding, the more sinister form of polarization started a few generations ago. This obtains between the educated elite and the historically proverbial hoi polloi. The phenomenon is a necessary consequence of the takeover of the educational system by the Progressives which I delved into at length earlier elsewhere. The de facto effects of the phenomenon are manifested in the divide between the ruling class and the heirs to Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority of a generation ago.

The indictment by Angelo M. Cordovilla in the American Spectator should serve most appropriately to drive the point home:

“. . . whereas within living memory school nurses could not administer an aspirin to a child without the parents' consent, the people who run America's schools nowadays administer pregnancy tests and ship girls off to abortion clinics without the parents' knowledge.Parents are not allowed to object to what their children are taught. But the government may and often does object to how parents raise children. The ruling class's assumption is that what it mandates for children is correct ipso facto, while what parents do is potentially abusive.”

It only remains for the parents to awaken as a political force and start fighting back to regain control of the education of their children for this phenomenon to crystallize into a full blown political polarization.

Another corollary political polarization derived from the takeover of our educational institutions by the Progressives is the well documented disconnect between the lawyerly culture of the ACLU types and the Federal judiciary on the one hand, and the popular culture on the other. In particular, Steven G. Calabresi succinctly summarized it as follows:

“. . . American popular culture overwhelmingly rejects the idea that the United States has a lot to learn from foreign legal systems, including even those of countries to which we are closely related like the United Kingdom and Canada. . . . this idea – that America is an exceptional nation, with an exceptional people and an exceptional role to play in the world – is deeply rooted in American history. American mass culture is thus sharply at odds with the Supreme Court’s elite lawyerly culture on the issue of whether U.S. courts have a lot to learn from foreign law.”

Similarly, when The Boston Globe demonizes Sarah Palin as a “polarizing but popular” political figure, it is an unmistakable effort by the punditocracy, as the megaphone of the educated elite, to deride the Tea Partiers as so much clutter and chatter of “the great unwashed.” Political polarization materializes when the Tea Partiers start fighting back and prove their mettle as citizens of the enlightened genre. That fortitude was sufficiently proved beyond the shadow of any doubt in the last election cycle.

That the citizenry appears to be so passionately engaged and involved on the critical issues of our time bodes well for the country. As I pointed out earlier elsewhere,

A national polity with a clear perception of what the country wants is precisely what the country needs at this critical juncture, when the statist regime reigns supreme. A lukewarm electorate is a fertile ground for mediocrity.

American exceptionalism is such a powerful force when the citizens subscribe to its veracity. Americans more than just believe it to be true. They see themselves as the living proof and embodiment of the concept. To further borrow from Calabresi’s astute formulation:

“. . . not only do Americans think of the United States as an exceptional country, but it has actually become an exceptional country as it has attracted immigrants with a unique constellation of ideological beliefs. Americans are more individualistic, more religious, more patriotic, more egalitarian, and more hostile to unions and Marxism than are the people of any other advanced democracy. . . .”

It seems a piquantly delicious irony of history that roughly three generations ago, or more precisely four-score years ago, Jose Ortega Y Gasset apprehensively prognosticated on the looming tragic consequences to civilization, as they knew it then, that would necessarily result from the impending Revolt of the Masses ( italics in original):

“. . . As the masses, by definition, neither should nor can direct their own personal existence, and still less rule society in general, this fact means that actually Europe is suffering from the greatest general crisis that can afflict peoples, nations and civilization.

“The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will. . . . The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated.

This is just so eerily reminiscent of President Obama’s contempt for the clingers of Pennsylvania folks who clung to their guns and religion to protect and preserve themselves from anybody who appeared to be different from them. In fact if we did not know the source off hand, it could have been misconstrued as a press release from the Oval Office.

  "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." – Barry Goldwater

Tuesday, November 2, 2010 marks the first crucial step we have to make to take back the U.S. Constitution, which from the very inception of the Obama Administration has been maligned, mocked, molested, abused, and brutalized. There is no more formidable shrine of liberty than represented jointly by both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Casting your vote in any election is one of the most fundamental steps we can take to galvanize and fortify that much needed defense. So get out there and exercise your responsibility of citizenship and cast your vote. Take your family, take your friends, take your neighbors. Offer your assistance to anybody who needs it to facilitate that person’s going to the polls.

Senator Goldwater may have gotten the short end of the Johnson landslide in 1964. But there is hardly any doubt that the spark of conservatism ignited by that campaign smoldered into the Reagan landslide in 1984. Likewise, the blatant disregard of protocols of civility so eloquently showcased in the processes leading up to the enactment into law of ObamaCare had awakened the fire in the belly of Americanism.

So after the polls are closed, the votes are tallied, doubtful results litigated, after the electoral dust settles we can regroup and recalibrate our bearings to take stock of how far ahead have we advanced the cause of liberty. After the Murkowski’s the Castles and the Crists of the world have had vented their last lament of entitlement denied, or God forbid, hurrah for vanity absolved as the case may be, we can once again be at peace with the reality, no matter how harsh may be, that elections always have consequences. And some of them may not be to our liking.

But as I had repeatedly pointed out elsewhere, any and every national polity always deserve the leadership they get regardless of the means by which they had gotten it, or the errors that happened unto them. Electoral accidents can happen and the same process which brought us the detestable Al Frankin, Barney Frank, etc. also brought as the venerable Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We just have to endeavor to assure ourselves that a next cycle would still take place.

Electoral shortcomings as the nation obtained in the ascendancy of Barack Obama, is not the worst thing that can happen to a country. There is always the next election cycle to look forward to and work for.

The problem mainly is that Islam has been at war with America (and the West), but we are not at war with them. Every time an attempt at mass murder manifested itself, foiled or successful, our so-called leaders, political and religious bend over backwards to proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and we are not at war with Islam.

Well, wake up, people. The sooner we acknowledge, with extreme prejudice, our enemies the better able we are to prevail over them. You cannot fight a war you are hesitant to acknowledge. You cannot win a war you only begrudgingly fight, with utmost hesitation. As I pointed out earlier elsewhere,

“Are we then to wait around for another generation of enlightened intellectuals to decide whether or not it is a war worth fighting and another generation to actually fight this war? Or shall we deny that there is a war being fought!   The events of 9/11 changed a lot of things. The principle of self-preservation was not one of them.

“When somebody comes to my house to cut my throat, my first order of business is to prevent it from happening.  I’m not going to debate on the merits and causes and motives of the mission.  I can take care of that after the mission has been successfully foiled.  It is too late to prevent 9/11 from happening.  It is imperative that we deter the perpetrators from making a habit of it.”

Burying our heads in the quagmire of political correctness in the name of religious tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism is a sorry excuse for the failure to exercise leadership. President Obama might have some excuse for doing his “apologize for America” international tour. Diplomacy is his convenient excuse, although a muddleheaded one. Rather, it’s incompetence masquerading for diplomacy.

On the local level, however, there simply is no acceptable excuse. We are down to fighting in the trenches. If we cannot defend our honor and pride on the local level, we simply run out of room to retreat and hide. Pre-emptive surrender is not an option for survival.

Not from the stars do I my judgment pluck;
And yet methinks I have astronomy,
But not to tell of good or evil luck,
Of plagues, of dearths, or seasons' quality;
Nor can I fortune to brief minutes tell,
Pointing to each his thunder, rain and wind,
Or say with princes if it shall go well,
By oft predict that I in heaven find:
Not from thine eyes my knowledge I derive,
Yet, constant stars, in them I read such art
As truth and beauty shall together thrive,
If from thyself to store thou wouldst convert;
Or else of thee this I prognosticate:
Thy end is truth's and beauty's doom and date.

                        --William Shakespeare, Sonnet XIV

Anybody familiar with this particular sonnet might venture to crucify me for altering two words therein. In my defense, I hasten to explain that having had neither the pleasure nor the privilege to look into her eyes, it would have been grossly presumptuous on my part to keep the “But from thine eyes . . . And, consant stars, . . .”  original. That could justifiably have been construed as doing Gov. Palin wrong. Consequently, as the bard himself prescribed,

“. . . I rather choose/ To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,/
Than I will wrong such honourable [mom].”

Substituting “Yet” for “And” is simply taking liberty with poetic license in my modest attempt at maintaining what I recognize as contrapuntal resonance and symmetry to the couplet. Likewise, this also acquits my using “mom” for “men” in invoking the Mark Anthony funeral speech.

These subtle but tedious technicalities aside, I concede that prognostication is a thankless task and not in the short list of my favorite vices. Nonetheless, that I consider her a political force to reckon with in the national stage is a matter of public record:

“Not even the engaging charm of Sarah Palin who was far more conservative than MacCain has been for at least 16 years, and had a far stronger executive resume than Obama ever had, could resuscitate the faltering Republican campaign to save the day.”

Not only did she energize the Republican Conservative base in the ’08 campaign, despite losing, she established her bona fides as a lightning rod to drive both political operatives and their media cohorts absolutely ballistic. In Ann Coulter’s ever so deliciously seductive formulation,

“. . . they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they're opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain's vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels.”

It is a priceless political asset to be able to drive your opponents to the edge of hyperbolic hysteria just by being yourself. Take away the oppositions’ capacity for a rational discourse and clarity of perception you assured yourself a strategic advantage.

Provided of course, you are equipped with a coherent vision for governance grounded on principles and reinforced with realistic programmatic details. To be viable for the 2012 presidential cycle Gov. Palin needs to sharpen her focus and make sure that she stays on message. She should articulate in the national stage with unmistakable clarity her vision for governance.  

She would need a dependable platform that would enable her to enunciate her vision in a proactively consistent manner. She has already proved to be a dependable magnate for financial support:

“Within the first few hours after Palin's name was announced, McCain raised $4 million in campaign donations online, reaching $10 million within the next two days. Which shortlist vice presidential pick could have beaten that?”

Living out her philosophy rather than philosophizing on life is what Gov. Palin is all about. The main reason she gets the vitriol of the traditional career feminists is her putting their hypocrisy in sharp contrasting relief to her reality. She has proved to the world and to the feminists’ shame that there need not be any conflict between motherhood and a professional career, politics included. Furthermore, it definitely did not take a village to nurture her brood of five, more than twice above the national average fertility rate for this country.

I have not met her in person but less than fifty pages into “Going Rogue” made me feel like I shared most of her adventures of growing up. I succumb to that exhilarating feeling of having gallivanted away the anxious exuberance of my formative years in the edge of the wilds with her, notwithstanding that I was born in the evacuation camps of WWII Philippines, roughly half a globe away, more than two generations ago, and a civilization removed from her narratives.

She is a breath of fresh air in a political atmosphere traditionally choked with the putrescence of political posturing on just about any issue imaginable. She is the only political figure to have inspired me to design and produce my own yard poster for her ’08 campaign which proved to be a solitary yard adornment in a neighborhood demonstrably intimidated to speak out against the Obama/Biden ticket for fear of being branded a racist.

Gleanings from the pantry of history

A review of the list of losing vice presidential candidates that spans from King, Rufus of MA, 1804, 1808 (Federalist) through to Edwards, Johnny Reid “John” of NC 2004 (Democrat) reveals

“. . . only one losing VP nominee returned . . . to . . . win the presidency. . . .” 

“Franklin Roosevelt was the unsuccessful Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1920, won the governorship of New York eight years later, and used that as a springboard to the White House in 1932. FDR remains the only losing vice presidential candidate in history to eventually become president.”

There is however, one historical fact to Sarah Palin’s advantage: She was the one losing vice presidential candidate who was a sitting governor. The governorship has been known to be a historical springboard to the presidency. But there are two “what if” scenarios that should come to pass before the stars can align favorably to Sarah’s karma, and allow these prognostications to come to fruition.

First, Secretary Hillary Clinton must mount an unsuccessful challenge to Obama for the presidential nomination via a grueling primary election reminiscent of Edward Kennedy’s challenge to President Jimmy Carter. Second, Sarah Palin must prevail in a hotly contested issues-intensive primary battle against at least two other contenders for the GOP nomination.

The former would effectively air out the ideological dirty laundry of the Democrats. The latter would sort out the viable principles and strategies for effective governance for the Republicans and enable Sarah Palin’s grassroots support to flourish. She already has effectively established a winning record during the 2010 Republican Primary cycle:

“Sarah Palin endorsed three dark-horse candidates in Republican match-ups this year, and all three won their primaries yesterday: Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California. No wonder Sarah's being stalked by Joe McGinniss.”

A batting average of an even 1000, appears to be a compelling prelude to a second act on the national stage. The Boston Globe went even further as to anoint her “the tea party movement’s adopted standard bearer,” while it hastened to add:

“The polarizing but popular Palin drew wild applause from the crowd with her 22-minute speech, in which she said the government has been on a ‘spending spree’ and warned of future tax increases. . . .

“The fervently antitax tea party movement is a new force in American politics, and its future impact is still being debated. The movement’s angry ranks remain a puzzle to Massachusetts politicians.”

Describing Gov. Palin as “polarizing but popular” is an exercise in futility couched in irrelevance. It is a lame attempt at hiding the fact that there is very little if any in Sarah Palin that has a faint hint at, or semblance of ambiguity. She is such a straight shooter, so charmingly blunt, that there is no mistaking her meaning. She says what she means, and means what she says, nay, she lives by her words. 

If by “polarizing” is meant forcing the voter to take sides on the issues, even if it means everybody is going to the other side, more power to her. A national polity with a clear perception of what the country wants is precisely what the country needs at this critical juncture, when the statist regime reigns supreme. A lukewarm electorate is a fertile ground for mediocrity. What we need is the passion of Omar Khayyam when he implored a few centuries ago,

XCIX
Ah, Love! could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

Just to dampen the evident enthusiasm for Gov. Palin, especially as she relates to the Tea Party movement, The New York Times made certain it pointed out that:

“. . . Several Republican candidates did not attend the rally, including Charles Baker, who is hoping to win the party’s nomination for governor. And several people at the rally said that while they liked Ms. Palin, they were not sure they would vote for her if she ran for president in 2012.”

Both The Boston Globe and The New York Times are flagship mouthpieces for the Progressive Liberal establishment. It is therefore predictable that they attempt to minimize the significance of both Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement. The Globe’s claim that the Tea Party is a new force in American politics simply betrays its ignorance if not deliberate distortion of history. The American Revolution was born out of a network of anti-tax grassroots movements.  The slogan “taxation without representation is tyranny” did not historically endure from a rogue journalist’s sleight of hand.

As I emphasized earlier elsewhere,

“It is incumbent upon the enlightened citizens, as typified by the Tea Party movement to shore up the political ferment fomented by its opposition to ObamaCare into a formidable political force sufficient to withstand the Obama onslaught and reverse the tide of his statist tyrannical regime.”

How any presidential contender is able to galvanize the Tea Party movement and claim its leadership mantle is the most crucial factor for the political viability of that aspirant. This is certainly as true of Gov. Palin as of any other contender. It is already a common knowledge that there is resonance between her and the Tea Partiers. 

Whether or not Gov. Palin chooses to run for President still remains to be seen. So far she had demurred from making such commitment. After a taste of the lucrative world of book writing, she may opt out of the rough and tumble of a national campaign. But should she decide to go for it, now is never too early to leverage that resonating relationship towards architecting a full-court press for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2012.

President Obama was slow reacting to the oil spill. He seems loath to send the National Guard to the border. . . .  Same thing with the economy.

Americans like strong leadership that appears to have things under control. Anybody seen that recently?

                                    --Bill O’Reily, The Chaos Factor

For a President who was committed earlier than day one of his presidency to “. . . begin again the work of remaking America,” the seeming preponderance of nonchalance in handling any crisis of national proportion seems out of character.  But a cursory examination of the history of ideology, especially of the Marxist-Leninist variety, would illustrate that the nonchalance that Bill O’Reily was rhetorically mulling about is indeed consistent with the modus operandi of the classic ideologue activist.

The incessant obsession with equality of outcomes as most recently propounded in connection with the G20 talks in Canada, was at best delusional. If you eliminate the motivation to compete, you are undermining the very essence of free market economics, which is the pursuit of excellence that you can leverage to your advantage.

The very notion of utopian Shangri-La is antithetical to the notion of excellence. For why bother to be better than your neighbor if there is no advantage to be gained by it? Even vegetation, if unwittingly, still ‘endeavors’ to get a better angle of exposure to the sun to optimize its utilization of chlorophyll and attain a more effective photosynthesis to propel and sustain a healthy growth and outflourish its neighbors, or even other segments of the same plant.

The point that needs to be emphasized over and over again, until it finally sinks in and gets factored into the national consciousness and political calculus of the policy making classes is plainly and simply this. The mandate to compete is inherent to the political DNA of the very concept of being an American. It is that very concept, as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, that the President is statutorily sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend.”

By contrast, while Lincoln’s admonition of

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, . . .”

has become part of the American cultural tradition, nowhere in the wealth of documentation on how the nation was founded and ought to be governed is prescribed an equality of outcome for any endeavors that individual citizens may choose to undertake. Take away the freedom to choose and you deprive any American of the very essence of Americanism.

Recall how in the Peter Sellers movie “Being There,” the most profound meaning was imputed by the policy wonk types to every trivial and idiotic platitude uttered by Chance the Gardener. The same attributive inertia has exactly been operational with the Obama phenomenon. When people swoon over the profundity of such meaningless pronouncements as “we are the ones we have been waiting for,” you can be dead certain that a segment of the populace is seized with the malady that can only be characterized as political dyslexia, if not outright dementia.

It is not so much that some people are mesmerized by the rhetoric of President Obama that is disastrous for the country. Rather it is the eventual creation of a political underclass which will perpetually be wards of the government that bodes disaster. This is the end that every policy initiative espoused by the Obama regime appears designed to accomplish. The “can-do” attitude that so pervasively permeates the American tradition is being systematically undermined and supplanted by a “could-obtain” (from somebody) attitude that could prove to be most tragically toxic for the country. As Angelo M. Codevilla so eloquently formulated, dependence economics entails that

“. . . our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. . . . modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency's value for all.”

 It is only in this context that the passive, betimes bordering on being obstructive response by the Federal government to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico can begin to make sense. Voting present on the oil spill simply allowed the repercussions of the accident to become exacerbated to its most harmful extremes. Being there and doing nothing allowed the situation to deteriorate in a manner that whatever and however little the government would subsequently do, could inevitably assume the illusory character of Providential benevolence and deliverance.

The repeated attempts at imposing a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling across the board is better understood in this context. This is consistent with the Regime’s pushing to enact the cap-and-trade legislation while the BP broken well was spewing tens of thousands of barrels of oil and gas per day into the Gulf of Mexico. It is sold as an urgently needed alternative energy policy notwithstanding that the scientific premises of global warming which underpins the entire carbon footprint narrative proves credible only amongst demonstrable charlatans, as I sufficiently demonstrated earlier:

“Consensus does not a science make. ‘Carbon footprint’ and ‘carbon offset’ are not scientific concepts. They are political constructs, concocted for propaganda, designed to politically and financially benefit their proponents. It has as much basis in reality as did mortgage-backed securities which obliterated the real estate market and the entire financial system needed a multi-billion dollar bailout.”

As I emphasized earlier elsewhere,

“. . . when the POTUS brazenly claimed in this year’s State of the Union Address of an ‘overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change,’ he was counting on what he perceived as the ignorance of the American people which elevated him to the Oval Office. Or, to be more charitable, he was reciting meaningless talking points platitudes, with the assurance that a rubber stamp Congress can push through every whimsical scheme he embraces. . . .

“The point is, there is money to be made by jumping onto the Global Warming bandwagon, provided you are on the taking side of the financial equation. Politicians and pundits of all shades and flavors conveniently embrace the Global Warming dogma not only as a matter of intellectual indolence, but more so as a matter of economic advantage.”

Voting present on anything is a most appropriate euphemism for the subterfuge of opting to do nothing of consequence that can possibly influence the unfolding of events. Or more precisely, it is Obama speak for obfuscating the landscape to make it appear to a credulous public that the regime is doing something worthwhile and consequential.  The approach works brilliantly under two conditions, namely, 1) when you don’t know what to do or what you are doing to change the situation, or 2) when the unfolding of events is trending towards your desired outcome, thus it serves well to let it ride.

The Obama regime’s response to the BP oil spill just illustrated a perfect combination of these two conditions. Containing the gushing broken oil well proved above the pay grade of anybody who matters in the administration. Moreover, an oil spill ravaged Gulf of Mexico is a godsend to the radical environmentalists who wanted to scuttle the oil industry to begin with. Furthermore, it fits ever so snugly into the Obama template of downsizing the fossil energy industry as it bolsters subsidizing the “renewable” energy sector, while he proceeds to engineer for posterity another glorious age of the Greening of America.

Make no mistake about it. This goes far beyond the Charles A. Reich, Woodstock Festival of the counterculture variety. As I warned in the earlier cited opus,

“Obama and his cohorts want to take us back to the windmills and dragons of Cervantes’ Don Quixote and the blissful world of Sancho Panza and Dulcinea del Toboso. . . . the intellectual bankruptcy implied in this attempt to take us back to the hunting and gathering mode of provisioning ought to outrage every American worthy of the sacrifice and noble visions of our Founding Fathers.”

Against such a gloomy prospect, it is imperative that a veto-proof majority in the house is secured come November 2. Even more crucially, the majority should go beyond numerical superiority. There should be a preponderance of principled representatives whose most urgent agenda go beyond getting re-elected two years thence. The task of undoing the damage unleashed by the Obama regime, demands reconstructing, brick by brick, the glorious edifice of freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers had bequeathed to the nation with this solemn covenant:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Rather than forwarding it in the manner of many “chain” letters which tends to be unwieldy more often than not, I decided to post it here in an attempt to augment its circulation. Have fun and enjoy the ride. Feel free to leave a comment if you must.

Third Grader Li’l Johnny Meets Barack

President Barack Hussein Obama was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the discussion on the word “tragedy.”

So our illustrious President started by asking the class for an example of a “tragedy.”

One little boy stood up and offered: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him that would be a tragedy.”

“No,” said Obama, “that would be an accident.”

A little girl raised her hand and volunteered: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.”

“I’m afraid not,” explained the President. “That’s what we would call a great loss.”

The room went silent. No other child volunteered. Obama searched the room: “Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy”?

Finally, at the back of the room, Little Johnny raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: “If the plane carrying you and Mrs. Obama was struck by a ‘friendly fire’ missile and blown to smithereens that would be a tragedy.”

“Fantastic!” exclaimed Obama. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy”?

“Well,” says Johnny, “It has to be a tragedy, because it sure as hell wouldn’t be a great loss . . . and you can bet your behind it’s probably not an accident either.”

Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.

. . .
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

--Robert Frost, Mending Walls

And the boy! He has seen the danger,

And, shouting a wild alarm,

He forces back the weight of the sea

With the strength of a single arm!

. . .

He sees no hope, no succor,

His feeble voice is lost;

. . . 

But he never thinks he can leave the place

Where duty holds him fast.

                        --Phoebe Cary (1824-1871), The Leak in the Dike

Peter, the legendarily celebrated lore hero of the Netherlands of yore had his instincts right. In order to avert disaster, one has to plug the leak by whatever means, even at the risk of life and limb. This common-sense derived pedestrian logic ever so familiar to any housewife who has to deal with an over flowing bath tub, has been apparently lost to those delegated the draconian tasks of capping the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those charged with stopping the flow of undocumented illegal travelers, a.k.a. illegal aliens, across the Mexican border can likewise learn from Peter’s impeccable inklings.

Between the two situations, I hazard to argue, and prove if needs be, that the oil gush is more benign than the porous border. Moreover, the ultimate solution to the porous border needs to learn from the solution to the oil spill for it to be enduringly viable. These are some of the pertinent wherefores.

To begin with, it behooves to examine the objective parameters of both situations. These constitute the configuration of forces and factors that are in play and need to be put under control. In contrast, the subjective parameters constitute the totality of knowledge and quality of human talent that are brought to bear to furnish the solution. Obviously, both the oil spill and the porous border require the deployment of appropriate configuration of subjective parameters to arrive at a viable and lasting solution.

Objectively, the drilling breach involves dealing with primarily the laws of physics. Besides the chemical composition of the effluent which influences such properties as viscosity and specific gravity, ambient factors as pressure, temperature, wind and water currents, seabed dynamics, and the vagaries of the weather are crucial components to the solution.

Additional complications stem from the fact that there are three levels of ambient physical parameters to deal with. Moreover, all three environs, namely, the sea surface, the body of the water itself, and the seafloor are mutually interactive with one another. Each one of them may require a specific arsenal of specialized skills and knowledge, with the necessary overlap to meet the demands inherent to attendant interactivity.

By contrast, the border walling problem involves a seemingly simpler land-surface condition. However, the treachery of the human wit becomes a major component to the objective problem. This is not even a remotely quantifiable entity and arguably proves elusive to traditional engineering solutions.

Some of the factors typically considered in planning for an offshore drilling operation have been documented as follows:

  “Prior to selecting drilling equipment for a project . . . consideration must be given to the weather conditions, water depths, drilling depths, rig mobility, availability and logistics of moving materials and supplies, means of transportation and numerous lesser considerations.”

With a history dating as far back as 1940, offshore drilling technology can certainly be considered as relatively mature. This is borne out by the following 2009 statistics when deep water and ultra deep water accounted for an aggregate of about 45% compared to 35% accounting for onshore finds:

“. . . deepwater (DW) and ultra deepwater (UDW) combined are becoming the predominant source of new oil and gas discoveries. From 2005 through 2009, giant and significant deepwater discoveries of oil and gas (41 Bboe [billion barrels oil equivalent], 2P reserves) were made . . . According to IHS, 2P reserves (proven plus probable) represent a 50% confidence level that the reported level is in-place and recoverable.”

The deepest drilling project I could find on record reveals, among others, the following pertinent statistics (1968 to 1983):

Amanda Griscom Little, writing in 2007 for Wired Magazine on Chevron’s Cajun Express facility volunteered the following instructive tidbits (my emphases):

“. . .  the world of ultradeep-sea drilling [is] the newest, riskiest, and most technologically extreme drilling frontier. Today, deep-sea rigs are capable of reaching down 40,000 feet, twice as deep as a decade ago: plunging their drills through 10,000 feet of water and then 30,000 more feet of seabed. One platform sits atop each so-called field, thrusting its tentacles into multiple wells dug into ancient sediment, slurping out oil, and then pumping it back to onshore refineries through underwater pipelines.”

 The second emphasis was added as a brief but cogent reminder that directional drilling, as the stressed operation is referred to in technical parlance, has been in the marketplace since the early 1990’s. The need to drill for oil further offshore and in ever deeper waters was resultant to our surrender to the lunacies of the environmental movement. The point about directional drilling is, drilling tangentially and even horizontally, you can locate the rig in shallower waters, where bottom ambient physical conditions are less treacherous, and let the drilling go out to sea, or whichever direction you need or want to go. 

The broader point is that the environmental movement’s fanaticism respecting pristine ecology prevents the oil industry from drilling right in our backyards, if need be. With the advent of directional drilling, it was not a matter of necessity that drilling had to be done vertically offshore. Rather the industry’s focus on offshore sites is an attempt at a painless avoidance of the onslaught of litigations, starting with getting the initial permits, from the environmental activists, co-opted into the bureaucracy especially at the radicalized Environmental Protection Agency.

The point that cannot be over emphasized is that the failure to stop the plume is not a failure in technology but a failure to deploy the appropriate complement of available Offshore Technologies that would be equal to the problem.  To illustrate with imagery from the movie, Die Hard, the pathetic attempt to contain the problem is analogous to deploying a group of traffic cops to thwart the attempted takeover of Nakatome Plaza by Hans Gruber and his sophisticated thugs.

This is not to absolve BP from responsibility. Contrariwise, it serves to point out that the incompetent recalcitrance of BP in managing this crisis is rivaled only by the arrogant incompetence of the Obama regime.  But President Obama being famous for voting “present” as a Senator, seems to have insisted to uphold his tradition. The White House Spinmeisters have been insisting that the federal government was there since “day one.” Being there, a phrase popularized by the Peter Sellers movie, has been adopted by this administration as a regime trademark.

Alas in situations fraught with gravitas, the governing class tends to gravitate towards complicated scenarios, rather than endeavor for a straight forward approach. Thus, to ensure a long-term solution to the crisis the White House has created a presidential commission to investigate the oil spill and deployed Attorney General Holder and his brigade of lawyers to determine who is legally liable and who to sue eventually. 

It is vintage Obama academic deployment and not co-incidental that the best known synonym for academic is “irrelevant.” But the country can finally sleep well and not worry about the spill. Hollywood has been deployed in no less a venerable personage of James Cameron of Titanic and Avatar fame.

Exercise in Irrelevance

There have been attempts at comparing the human and economic tolls of the BP mishap to that of Hurricane Katrina. There are vital differences between Katrina and the BP gush that bear stressing:

1)The potential energy of a hurricane is inherently erratic and unpredictable that of an oil reservoir inherently derivable from essentially knowable if not known parameters.

2)The location of the breach in Katrina was under local jurisdiction, from whom the federal authorities had to ask permission to intervene.  The site of the oil gush is Federal territorial waters under control by Federal authorities. To deploy sorely needed countermeasures local authorities have to ask permission and under the mercy of every whim of the federal bureaucrats starting with the President himself.

3)There are no known mechanisms or mature technologies to control the kinetic energy unleashed by a hurricane. There are enough mature technologies available to control the physical kinetic energy coming from an oil reservoir.

4) The Obama regime is vent on downsizing the U.S. economy starting with the energy sector. The Bush administration was never so inclined and so hostile to the energy sector. It would therefore be just another section of the Saul Alinsky playbook to ensure that the mishap bludgeons BP and other “big oil” entities into surrender. It fits right into the Rahm Emanuel mantra to “. . . never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

These and kindred factors make any attempts at a comparison between the ravages of Katrina and the disaster resulting from the oil spill an exercise in bogus journalism, intent at obfuscating if not outright excusing the incompetence in crisis management so far exhibited by the Obama regime.

Priceless Lessons from the Spill

The most important lesson from the BP oil mess ought to be obvious: no amount of mopping up averts disaster unless the source is successfully plugged. It needs to be repeated explicitly and clearly because it is a reality we seem to keep disregarding, habitually especially as it pertains to the influx of undocumented travelers through the southern border.

Like the BP sludge that has despoiled pristine territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico, destroying the livelihood of millions in the process, the influx of illegal aliens in the southern border is undermining the very concept of our national sovereignty. The wall has to be mended before any meaningful talk of any kind of immigration reform, comprehensive or otherwise, makes any sense.  In answer to Robert Frost’s question, mending the wall would be walling out intruders who do not respect our laws simultaneously as it would be walling in our self perception as a nation of laws.

Suppose, by a miracle of miracles, the country finally develops the political will to enforce the law and the spine to round up all those undocumented individuals and transport them to the Mexican border. What happens then if the Mexican authorities simply disown them? In the absence of evidence that they belong to any other country, the U.S. would be stuck with the bodies of living human beings. 

It would be a de facto reverse writ of habeas corpus, i.e., “you have the bodies, they are your problems.” Shall we have the moral courage and justification to just unload the people at the border? I hazard to guess that we do not. We have a long tradition of being a compassionate people. We shall have ended licking at the flat end of the immigration lollipop. 

It would be another national nightmare for which we need another messiah to deliver us from. It would most definitely be much worse than a few thousand barrels of oil polluting our pristine waters and shores. It would be polluting our collective national soul.