Perusing the blogs and the political wire this morning, one would think that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy just received a death blow from which she will be unable to recover.

I’m talking, of course, about her non-answer to the question of whether she agreed with the program being proposed by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

“Clinton on the Ropes!” screams Andrew Sullivan.

“Clinton Stumble Provides Dems an Opening,” opines The Note.

“Hill Trips Over Spitz Debate,” gasps the New York Post.

“Hillary’s Big Blunder,” says a satisfied Malkin.

To political junkies, Hillary’s answer to the question about drivers licenses for illegal aliens showed a chink in her armor:

McKinney said Clinton grew testy when pressed on whether she agrees with a proposal her home state governor has to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. She first expressed support for the idea. But when Dodd objected, Clinton grew defensive and said she wasn’t saying it should be done, although she recognizes why the governor is trying to do it even though she doesn’t think it’s “the best thing for any governor to do.”

Edwards pounced. “Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes,” he said. “America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”

Obama piled on. “I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it,” he said. He said he supports the idea.

Ed Morrissey sums up Hillary’s play nicely:

Hillary Clinton cannot have thought that the policy would go unremarked during the debate. In New York, it has created a firestorm of controversy for Governor Eliot Spitzer, who has seen his approval ratings plunge in the first months of his term of office, thanks to tone-deaf manoeuvrings such as this. With immigration policy on the forefront of both political parties this year—and with MSNBC so desperate for new material that they started asking about UFOs (see below)—Hillary should have prepared an answer for this question.

Clearly, she did not. And just as clearly, the result left her looking shifty, pandering, and unsure of herself. It also brought out her public personality problems—showing her to be cranky and rather unlikable when on stage. Worse yet, it made her look indecisive, a quality no voter wants in a President, and the same quality that made Kerry such a lousy candidate.

While all of this is true, aren’t we used to this sort of thing from the Clinton’s by now? These guys have made straddling a preferred sexual position. It gets them off every time with the majority of the American people. For the Clinton’s, there is no real history; only quicksand and painted over memories. Was Clinton really against welfare reform before he embraced it as his own? Not according to him. Was Hillary’s health care plan really defeated because the insurance companies and doctors ganged up on her and brainwashed the American people into writing their Congressman to reject it? Or did citizens not like the idea of the government making so many health care decisions for them?

There is a political art to the straddle and the Clinton’s have been masters at it for more almost 20 years. True, Hillary’s rather inelegant response to the drivers license question was perhaps not her best attempt at appealing to all sides of a question. But the point wasn’t to win the argument but simply not to lose it.

Did she anger anyone beyond the beltway elite and political class? I doubt it. Citizens from both sides of the debate heard what they wanted to hear which is what you get when you examine Clinton’s tactics on just about any issues but especially controversial ones.

Think about her position on Iraq. She mouths platitudes about leaving while slamming George Bush. Meanwhile, she makes it clear she will stay and if not finish the job, not withdraw willy nilly thus endangering American interests all the while slamming George Bush. She says she opposes the war but refuses to apologize for her vote authorizing it all the while slamming George Bush.

Do we see a pattern here? She has successfully made Bush’s policies in Iraq the issue not what she will do about the place once she gets into office. Perfect triangulation.

If Clinton loses any ground because of this flap I will be shocked. The beltway boys in the media may desperately wish to see a competitive race on the Democrats side given the orgasmic coverage that Obama is getting and would continue to receive. But it’s extremely difficult to see such a race developing since Obama has forsworn using the kind of attack politics that would give him a chance to get back in the race. His “campaign of hope” may be what the people crave. But beyond that, Democrats want to win very badly. Torn as they are in being tempted to give their messiah Obama a shot at the nomination, hard headed realism tells them – correctly – that Hillary would be a better candidate to go against the Republicans. Therefore, her little slip in the debate last night won’t matter a fig.

And Republicans are dreaming if they think they can nail Clinton to a cross of flip flops and double talk on any issue during the general election campaign. She’s too clever and is so good at parsing her responses that it will be like trying to nail down a Mexican jumping bean. Best that the GOP concentrate on her far left agenda while reminding people why they don’t want to elect another Clinton to the presidency. That way lies a better chance of success in what is still promising to shape up as a Democratic year.

The Rick Moran Show will go live in just a few minutes at 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM central time. Join me for a discussion of the “State of the Race” for president.

Both parties – all candidates. We’ll have the very latest state and national polls and some expert analysis from top pros. This will be you one stop shop for getting yourself up to speed on exactly where the race stands as we head into November, 2007 – one full year before the election.

You can listen to the show live by clicking the button below. A podcast of the show will be available around 4:30 PM.

If you’d like to call in and discuss the race for president, the number is (718) 664-9764.

UPDATE

You can download the podcast by clicking the button above. Or you can stream it by activating the player below.

Ever since George Tenet won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the award seems to have lost some of its luster. It’s much like the Nobel Peace Prize; once you have given the award to someone who exhibits the exact opposite qualities that should be recognized, all credibility in the prize is lost.

In the case of the mis-named Peace Prize, you can point to several recipients in the last quarter century who have been named champions of peace but were actually murderers and thugs. Yassar Arafat comes immediately to mind. Then there were to enablers of murderous thugs like Kofi Anan and Jimmy Carter. The moral universe inhabited by the Nobel Committee is not the same one you and I live in. They have forever cheapened an award that at one time, was recognized as a singular honor.

The same holds true for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 2004, the “Triumvirate of Failure” that included Tenet, Paul Bremer, and Tommy Franks all won the award. Bremer’s incompetence in Iraq has been well documented as has Frank’s wrong headed insistence on pursuing strategies that helped turn the population of Iraq against us and fire up the insurgency.

But it is Tenet – the most spectacular failure as a DCI in history – who should never have even gotten a whiff of the Medal of Freedom. As DCI, his responsibility was to see that our elected officials had the best intel available in order for them to formulate plans and policies to protect us from foreign threats.;

A glance at Tenet’s record of “surprises” he presented policymakers should make anyone who cares about the Medal of Freedom honorees weep in frustration:

• Failed – African embassy bombings in 1998

• Failed – No clue that Pakistan was ready to conduct nuke test – 1998

• Failed – USS Cole terrorist attack – 2000

• Failed – September 11, 2001

• Failed – Iraq WMD

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more screwups that are classified. Blunder after blunder can be laid at the feet of this man and yet, George Bush saw fit to elevate Tenet and place him on the same pedestal as Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, Elmo Zumwalt, Gerry Ford, and Irving Kristol. It was the most incomprehensible choice in the history of the award.

This is the burden recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom must carry this year; the realization that the award has forever been cheapened by naming an incompetent and vindictive public servant as a prize winner.

Be that as it may, there are several deserving individuals on this year’s list. Some of them include:

• Oscar Elias Biscet, Cuban human rights activist who is serving a 25 year jail term in Castro’s workers’ paradise for “disorderly conduct and counter-revolutionary activities.”

• Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. Collins importance to the project cannot be overstated. He fought long and hard to keep the project out of the hands of for-profit corporations who wanted to patent discoveries made before releasing the information to the scientific community. Collins won out and the spectacular results of his research – sequencing nearly 3 billion base pairs which has resulted in an explosion of knowledge the likes of which has rarely been seen in the history of science – is immediately available to any scientist in the world.

• Benjamin L. Hooks led the NAACP for more than 15 years. One of the only black leaders to endorse Republican presidential candidates, Hooks nevertheless felt GOP Administrations never did enough for the inner city poor or for public education. His self-help message for African Americans was also a cause of friction with many civil rights leaders. He sought to make the NAACP something more than just another Washington lobbying group by educating young blacks about the struggle in the 1950’s and ‘60’s for civil rights. In the end, he was less than successful in this effort as the NAACP has since become the most prominent proponent of the “victim culture” in the country.

• Brian Lamb, CEO of C-Span. It can be argued that Lamb’s singular vision of a network that broadcasts what is going on in the people’s house changed our politics forever. It’s not the numbers of people who watch the three C-Span networks that makes Lamb a deserving recipient. It’s the idea that democracy is a participatory form of government and that people must be well informed in order to make decisions on who should lead us. And the fact that C-Span has grown into a forum for not just legislation, but politics, books, film, and culture is a testament to Lamb’s remarkable leadership.

Other recipients of this year’s award can be found here.

I’m taking a break from political blogging today since I have two political columns to write later and don’t wish to spoil my mood this early in the day.

It’s getting harder and harder to find something enjoyable to write about when it comes to politics. How many different ways can you write “They all suck?” Or come up with amusing ways to accuse the left of treason? Or the right of being heartless monsters? I’ve exhausted the thesaurus coming up with hateful adjectives to describe the utter stupidity of it all.

Besides, the left hasn’t really done anything treasonous lately which has kind of put a crimp in my style. It is very hard to save western civilization from the perfidy of liberals if they don’t cooperate by doing something totally outrageous and unpatriotic. So I would hope all my lefty friends would get their heads together and come up with some really gross, spectacularly anti-American action like spitting on John Wayne’s picture or something.

I probably won’t have too long to wait if the past is any guide…

And how in God’s name can I maintain my undeserved reputation as a basher of extremists on both sides of the political spectrum if the religious right behaves itself for more than 24 hours and doesn’t call for jailing homosexuals or burning feminists at the stake?

Best leave the former to Obama. As for the latter, Halloween is coming up and maybe someone will mistake Hillary for a real witch. If I was her, I wouldn’t go anywhere near Salem for a few days…

So what’s a blogger to do? I suppose I could write about sports but given the state of my dearly Beloved Bears, that’s a very sore subject at this point. And does anyone beside me really care that the Red Sox won the World Series?

In the past, I’ve given my top tens on a wide variety of subjects; Star Trek, movie villains, movie scores, movie lines. It’s a fun way to pass the time and always gets me in trouble with my readers whose choices are different from my own.

In fact, my experience with ranking Star Trek movies and series reminds me today of writing anything about Ron Paul; the nuts come out of the woodwork and use the most vile, personal language to tell me I’m wrong. The fact that most Paul supporters are reminiscent of Borg Drones is also somewhat relevant, although I’d give the Borg the edge in original thinking.

At any rate, in wracking my brains for something to write it suddenly dawned on me that a list of my favorite heroes of all time (since I did a piece on my favorite villains already) would be an interesting exercise.

What I found to my surprise was that almost all of my heroes are mythic heroes – real or imagined people who represent the best in all of us – the kind of people we should aspire to be; selfless, brave, fair, and with a personality larger than life.

Indeed, some of my mythic heroes are not the most attractive of characters. But their personalities were so gigantic that they dominated their world and had their contemporaries marveling at their deeds.

My choices and the ranking of them is sure to start an good debate in the comments. I have lifted the comment moderation function so that we can get a good back and forth going.

10. John Wayne

Probably isn’t close to most people’s top ten but think about it; is there any other film actor whose personae has leaped beyond the screen and made an impact on the consciousness of a nation? He is both icon and voodoo doll, a symbol of all that is good and evil about the United States depending on your point of view. To this day, he is the quintessential American in many parts of the world.

He was in many ways an unlovely character in the movies. He was loud, brash, given to speechifying and could be ruthless in pursuit of his goals. But he was also generous, fair to a fault, courageous, and self sacrificing. The world could do a lot worse in judging America by the actions of John Wayne in the movies.

9. King Kong

Yes, “’tis beauty killed the beast.” But oh what a beast! Kong has heroic qualities every male should aspire to; he was chivalrous, gentle, emotionally grounded, solicitous of his mate’s feelings and very protective. I much prefer the 1933 Kong to Peter Jackson’s overwrought 2005 release although the latter day ape certainly looks and acts more human.

Kong’s tragedy was in the unrequited love he felt for Fay Wray. It was a relationship that was impossible – not because they were different species but because of his size. And, of course, he could never fit in her world any more than she could live in his. But as a mythic hero, Kong had few equals in film history.

8. Roland

To the Italians, he is Orlando. In Spain, he is Rolando. To a half dozen other European countries, he exists in myth as the ultimate knight. Anyone who garners this much admiration has to make the top ten list.

Some believe Roland was a real person who died fighting the Muslims in the 13th century. If so, I hope he had his magic sword and horn with him when he perished. The Song of Roland may be one of the most inspiring works in western culture. I picture him in my minds eye as a tall, tow headed figure who fought for justice and against oppression.

7. El Cid

Yes, he was a real man (Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar) whose deeds were immortalized in one of Charlton Heston’s greatest roles. A hero in battle for both Spain and the Moors, at first glance, he may not be the most lovely of historical figures. He was vain and apparently something of a thief not to mention his desire to carve out his own kingdom later on in his life.

Ah, but the legend of El Cid is what concerns us. And the mythic Cid was every bit the hero. A tireless fighter for King Alfonso and Spain, he served his King even when he knew his sovereign was wrong – a sign of fealty that was probably not the case in real life but is certainly appealing. The film also depicts the legendary scene of Rodrigo’s death when, after getting shot by an arrow in a battle against the Berber invaders, he makes his wife Jimena promise that he will be at the head of his troops the next day no matter what. Jimena keeps her word after the Cid dies during the night by dressing him in his best armor and strapping him to his horse, sending him out at the head of his troops and leading them to victory.

Defeating an enemy while you are dead would get you on this list even if he had been a real jerk.

6. King Arthur

So much has been written about this guy that even the legends get confusing. In popular culture, you have your choice among a singing Arthur, an ex-Roman knight, an earnest demigod who has the help of a wizard to keep power, or Sean Connery dressed in a real cool blue tunic with Richard Gere not really wanting Julie Ormond but just unable to help himself.

I prefer an amalgam of the legends as portrayed in L’Morte D’Arthur. A great warrior as well as a respected leader, Arthur inspired those around him to be their best and live up to an impossible standard – the effort itself being life’s reward. As far his example of chivalrous behavior and sacrificing himself, their are elements of the life of Jesus in the story that are quite compelling.

5. Robin Hood

The legends and songs have worn well over the centuries. He is an “everyman” hero in that his deeds are used to underscore qualities in many eras from the age of chivalry to the present.

Like Siegfried and unlike Roland, his stories have remained constant through the ages; his love for Marian, the archery tournament, his first meeting with Little John – all the familiar parts of the narrative shown in a half dozen films about Robin Hood were told around medieval campfires and by Troubadours.

4. Samson

My favorite guy in the bible, bar none. He seems so real a person, afflicted with vanity and hubris as well as an independent streak that you kind of get mad at God for punishing. After all, it wasn’t his fault that he lost his hair.

But for making the case of man as mythic beast, Samson wins hands down. Slaying an entire army with the jawbone of an ass? Perfect metaphor for war, don’t you think? And taking your enemies with you when you go is a nice touch.

3. Odysseus

One of the more complex mythic heroes in that his deeds certainly make him a standout on anyone’s top ten list but his faults were equally gigantic. Overweening pride, over confidence in his own abilities (even thinking himself equal to the Gods), and a rather unattractive trickery to his methods all combine to paint him as an untrustworthy but courageous warrior.

But it was his long, eventful trip home after the Trojan War that makes Odysseus one of the most remarkable figures in literature. Taking everything the Gods could throw at him and triumphing in the end (with the help of a couple of friendly deities) pegs Odysseus as one who overcame incredible odds to succeed. And once home, his sweet revenge on his wife’s suitors is one of the most shocking scenes imaginable.

2. Beowulf

The film will be out next month and I’m not particularly anxious to see it given Hollywood’s treatment of classic literature (Brad Pitt as Achilles? Really now!). But the character of Beowulf has no rivals for the sheer power of his personality and awe inspiring deeds.

He not only killed the monster Grendel but Grendel’s mother too! And if the unnamed author had thought of it, it would have been great if he had slain the monster’s father as well so marvelously drawn were the fight scenes.

Defeating Grendel by tearing his arm off after battling him hand to hand for the entire night is just great storytelling. No human weapons had any effect on the the monsters so Beowulf had to rely on his strength and courage to defeat the both Grendel and his mother. The victory made Beowulf an object of worship by the people which, while unseemly, seems about right given the ferociousness of both.

What makes Beowulf stand out for me was the nature of the enemy; terrifying and pitiless. His victory over the monsters remains the most heroic acts of courage in western literature.

1. John Carter of Mars

Surprise! I told you that these were not necessarily the most scholarly choices or even the most logical. These are my favorite mythic heroes and for my number one, I choose John Carter, Edgar Rice Burroughs swashbuckling, impossibly perfect earthling who is magically transported to Mars where for 10 pulse pounding, mind blowing books, he saves the planet as well as his “incomparable” wife Dejah Thoris.

The best adventures are contained in the first three books where his skill as a swordsman and the sheer audacity of his personality unite all the creatures of Mars – 4 armed green men, black skinned men, white skinned men, and the dominant red skins – in a one world government.

Carter exhibits all the attributes of a mythic hero; handsome, strong, protector of the weak, fair minded, decisive, and the greatest swordsman who ever lived. And his wild Martian adventures make a splendid canvass that Burroughs paints his portrait of the perfect hero over. A truly remarkable series of books that has enthralled generations of youngsters since they came out before World War I.

Well, that’s my list. Let’s see you do better in the comments.

Osama Bin Laden was once again in our gunsights. We had several different methods with which we could have dispatched him. We had an armed drone, a SEAL team, the Air Force had a bomber – and according to Colonel David Hunt, an analyst for Fox News, we didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t pull the trigger:

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys — now, pull the damn trigger.

Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.

You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no other reason than incompetence.

Very serious charges indeed. Taking Colonel Hunt at his word – or at least the word of his source(s) – it may have been helpful for the Fox News military analyst to give us a hint as to why we didn’t pull the trigger. The Colonel makes a charge of incompetence. Fine – prove it. Or shut the hell up.

Hunt gives us a clue, however, as to what he considers “incompetent:”

We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

We are in a war with terrorists. We are in a war with countries that support terrorists. We are in a war with people that fly planes into buildings and who never, ever hesitate to pull the trigger when given the chance to kill us. We cannot win and, I will tell you this now, we are losing this war every damn time we fail to take every single opportunity to kill murderers like Usama bin Laden. Less than two months ago, we lost again.

Hunt’s accusations need to be examined for their authenticity, certainly. But before accepting his charges, it might be best to also look at Colonel Hunt’s idea of what exactly constitutes “incompetence.”

The military and Administration are incompetent for “allowing” Pakistan to become a safe haven for al-Qaeda, and “allowing” them to reconstitute? What an ignoramus. The only way al-Qaeda was ever going to be wiped out is if we had received the permission of the Pakistani government to go into the NWFP - the tribal areas where the writ of Pakistani or any other law has never run – and take out al-Qaeda sanctuaries. That permission was not going to be forthcoming from President Musharraf for the simple reason that it was politically untenable for him to give it. The result of our incursions would have been the kind of nationwide unrest that overthrows tyrants and strengthens radicals. In this case, al-Qaeda and Taliban allies could very well have achieved power if we had been so stupid – a prospect that would have included Islamists with their fingers on the trigger of 70 nuclear weapons.

Going in without Musharraf’s permission would have set off a firestorm of criticism around the world. And despite the fact that the left is urging we take this very course, the minute we were to go in, charges of Bush “widening the war” and “Cambodia Redux” would have been heard from most of these very same folks – including Colonel Hunt.

So we were forced to accept an alternative – that Musharraf would go after the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda with his own army. This he attempted to do in 2004. After a 5 month campaign of playing hide and seek in the rugged terrain with the terrorists while fighting many of the tribes who had allied themselves with his enemy, Musharraf was forced to beat a hasty retreat and sign some humiliating “peace” agreements. These treaties gave the Taliban easy access to Afghanistan and allowed al-Qaeda to set up shop safely in the Waziristans while basically kicking the Pakistani army of the area.

Blaming Bush and the military for the internal dynamics of Pakistani politics and how that extremely delicate situation impacts our mission in Afghanistan was something I thought only idiots on the left were stupid enough to do. Evidently not.

Of course, the left is all over this story saying that there is no way in hell that it’s true. After all, the source is Fox News, right?

So everyone, what is the excuse this time? Must be Clinton’s fault I guess and remember, this is post 9/11.

As always, I have a source to back up what I say. That is more than most of the “righties” around here can ever do.

Bu-bu-but that “source” is FOX NEWS! I thought we couldn’t believe anything we hear about the Administration from Fox. Surely there are plenty of lefties out there who will dismiss this story outright because of it’s source, right?

Absolutely astounding. Uh huh… Absolutely astounding. But, yet not at all surprising to hear that BushCo botched another opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden.

Not even a teeny, tiny bit of skepticism? From a network nicknamed “Faux News?”

I’m sorry. For a minute there, I thought Faux News sounded rational.

Oh wait. They did.

Of course, they are completely oblivious to this kind of towering hypocrisy. Totally clueless. They see nothing untoward in condemning Fox News when it reports something they disagree with but accept and comment on things they find agreeable.

And what exactly are they agreeing with? A single sourced story where the correspondent either refuses to divulge or doesn’t know the entire circumstances surrounding the targeting of Bin Laden. Why didn’t we fire? Colonel Hunt chalks it up to “incompetence” without offering a single bit of information to back it up. Not one.

And the lefties are agreeing with him – despite their being totally in the dark, along with the rest of us, as to what criteria Hunt is using to make the charge.

Has there ever been such stupidity, hypocrisy, and benighted callousness toward any honest intellectual standard whatsoever?

Knowing the crew in the White House and Pentagon, it would not surprise me in the slightest if the incompetence charge turned out to be true. But maybe we should have a little evidence before reaching that conclusion?

Or do you want to live you life like an rabid left wing hater who allows ideology and unformed judgements rule their thoughts?

The fires in southern California are still burning out of control in some places. People are still fleeing in advance of the inferno as the blaze has consumed nearly 2,000 homes and threatens thousands of others. A billion dollars in damage so far and there is no relief in sight for the residents and officials who are living this nightmare.

Meanwhile, it’s business as usual for the left, trying to score political points off of tragedy. This time, a couple of right wing pundits have chimed in, to the approving nods of some conservatives who have learned well the lessons of Katrina; it’s never too early to blame someone for nature’s handiwork.

Thousands of our fellow citizens are sitting in shelters not knowing if they have a home to go back to. Firefighters from all over the west and beyond are exhausting themselves to save lives and property. Federal, state, city, and local officials are working around the clock, doing everything they can to alleviate suffering, battle the numerous fires threatening the area, doling out assistance, and planning for the aftermath.

But none of this matters at the moment. Instead of doing everything we can to support these efforts, leaving the finger pointing and political gamesmanship until a decent interval has passed and life has returned to some semblance of normalcy for the afflicted, the professional bomb throwers on the right and the usual suspects on the left (almost everybody) are gleefully throwing around baseless and unproven charges of culpability.

They are enlisting the destruction of people’s lives in their battle to prove one thing or another about the President, or Republicans, or Democrats, or the War, or environmentalists. And for the left’s part, they are employing the age old political tactic of raising the spectre of race and class warfare; that the rich, white residents of San Diego County are being helped in a more timely and significant manner than the poor, black residents of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

First of all, anyone who tries to draw parallels between a Hurricane and a fire is an idiot. Hurricanes tend to be somewhat wetter than fires for one thing. Secondly, the fire is not blocking access to the shelters in the city or other designated areas so that help can get where it is needed when it is needed in a much more timely manner.

Beyond that, I found this analysis interesting:

In addition to the reverse-911 system, authorities shut down schools, halted mail delivery and urged people to stay home and off the roads if they were not in danger.

Another factor separating these fire from other disasters has been wealth. Unlike many of the poor neighborhoods flooded by Hurricane Katrina, the hardest-hit areas in California were filled with upscale homes, with easy access to wide streets. Less wealthy areas — including rural enclaves and horse farms that stretch through the mountains east of San Diego — benefited from easy road access and small crowds.

The authorities didn’t wait to evacuate citizens from endangered areas. And apparently, wonder of wonders, the city of San Diego had a disaster plan and is sticking to it! Amazing what happens when you actually follow a carefully laid out plan rather than wring your hands wailing “Whoa is us” and go on the radio, blaming your incompetence on the racism of others.

Police roadblocks are preventing wide scale looting – not even residents are allowed back into areas no longer threatened until they can be protected. As far as we know, there have been no mass rapes of babies at Qualcom Stadium where around 10,000 residents have sought shelter. No murders or suicides there either that we’ve heard about. Food, water, and the amenities all seem to be plentiful at the moment.

In short, the difference between the fire and the flood is night and day – partly as a result of the competence of local officials but much more so because the two types of disasters present different types of challenges that are taking place in a different part of the country in different settings (densely populated urban area vs. the more open suburban/rural setting of southern California). Anyone who tries to draw some kind of parallel between the two tragedies or posit some race or class reason for the differences can safely be dismissed as agenda driven screwballs. There’s no “there” there.

But this hasn’t stopped the left from trying for a Katrina repeat. And this time, the right got the drop on the left as far as the race to politicize people’s agony.

Both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have made comments trying to blame the left in some way for the tragedy. Beck’s point about the environmentalists opposing the clearing of brush and the deliberate setting of controlled fires may or may not be a valid point. But couldn’t it wait until after the disaster had been dealt with and all people and property were safe and secure?

Similarly, the lefty blogs have been full of comparisons to Katrina, intimations that the response to the tragedy is “proof” of racism and class differences, and the idea that if only we weren’t fighting the Iraq War, the National Guard could have prevented all this or, as Bill Richardson puts it, “Where is the National Guard?”

Today, as the fires rage, California has National Guard men, women, and critical equipment thousands of miles away in Iraq.

Richardson gives us a twofer in his article, reminding us that the entire reason so many died in New Orleans and why this fire is still burning is because of the War in Iraq.

I liked him better when he was lying about his Minor League baseball experiences.

There’s no evidence that the National Guard in California would be making a difference if the units serving in Iraq were here at home. But that won’t stop the left from making the argument anyway. Nor will they wait until the tragedy being experienced by the residents in southern California has passed before trying to score their political points with the public.

It didn’t used to be like this. No one would have dreamed of trying to politicize tragedy prior to the presidency of George Bush. But we’re in a different political ballgame now with no boundaries and few rules to live by. So we can expect this kind of idiocy from both sides from now on.

Both sides should be ashamed of themselves.

My Zsu Zsu is really a remarkable woman. Gorgeous, strong, motherly, and a stand up comedian all rolled into one.

Yesterday, I also discovered that she is certifiable. As what, I’m not sure. Perhaps you can tell me after reading the following.

Sue works the third shift so when she walks in the door at 7:00 AM, I’m always hard at work, blogging away. Yesterday after coming into my office, greeting me in her usual effusive fashion, she disappeared into the living room where I heard her moving around opening boxes and other stuff.

I usually take a break around 8:30 so we can sit and talk for a while before she goes to sleep so you can imagine my surprise when I walked out into the living and saw a clear plastic rectangular shaped box with a black top sitting on the bookcase.

“What is it?” I asked.

“What’s what?” she returned innocently.

I don’t know how well you might know your lover but I know my Zsu Zsu and that look on her face, the lack of eye contact, the slight “I’ve got a secret” smile immediately had my antenna going up. She’s gone off and done something unpredictable again, I thought. I was right.

“That box on the bookcase. What is it?”

“That’s Suzie our Salamander.”

“Our who?”

“Oh, Ricky…”

Anytime your woman uses her little nickname for you it’s supposed to be so endearing you forget you’re mad at her and just stand there as your heart melts like a slice of Velveeta over an open grill. And it almost worked. That is, until I saw the cats.

The youngster Snowball was sitting on the entertainment center already eyeing the little rodent – er, reptile with a hungry eye. Sitting stock still and watching the unsuspecting creature with that laser like cat uber concentration that must of frightened the hell out of our ancestors when meeting up with her distant saber tooth cousins, you could almost see the wheels turning in that remarkable mammalian brain. Fifty million years of evolution, all to have the capacity to formulate a single, serviceable thought:

“Lunch.”

And Aramas was on the coffee table, gathering his back legs preparing to leap onto the bookcase in order to get his dibs in for this movable feast. Now Ari is an old man and not the leaper he once was (although like many of us, he doesn’t recognize his limits and keeps missing what he’s aiming for). I was sure if the old boy tried to make that jump, he’d probably knock the box off the bookcase and not only would Zsu Zsu lose her Salamander to the cats but we’d have this crappy sawdust all over the floor.

“NO!” I firmly told Aramas. He gave me one of those baleful looks cats use when they glance at you as if to say “Are you kidding? Leave me alone, human.” Meanwhile, he jumped down and began to look for an alternate route to his meal.

This is when I turned to Sue and tried to explain. I told her that cat’s are, by nature, curious and that sooner or later, they would find a way to get the little gecko.

“It’s a Salamander,” she sniffed. “I caught it outside in the parking lot after work. It’s mine.”

I asked her what good the damn thing was. At least cats have the virtue of being interesting, even when they’re doing nothing. This thing was ugly, slimy, and had a brain the size of a mouse turd. It was barely aware that it was alive.

I was watching Little Miss Lizard while saying this when, almost too fast for the human eye to follow, the little alligator lunged forward and snagged a cricket in its mouth. One gulp and it was gone.

“Kewl,” I said.

“So I can keep it?” my darling asked like a little girl. (Even if I had said no she would have kept the damn thin anyway).

“It wasn’t a question of me allowing you to keep it,” I said. “What are we going to do about the cats?”

We had temporarily taken our eyes off of Snowball and Aramas (my old girl Ebony is much to ancient and dignified a beast to have any interest in a Salamander) so when we looked, we saw both cats on the bookcase, one on either side of the box. And Aramas was already testing to see if he could get his paw through the hard plastic that was separating him from his repast. The stupid lizard clearly saw Aramas but appeared oblivious to the danger.

“DOWN!” we both screamed at once. Startled, they disappeared faster than you can say “bath time.”

Gently, I tried to tell Sue that eventually, the cats would figure out the only way in to the Salamander’s lair would be either through the top of the case or simply by knocking the whole box on to the floor. Both solutions would mean one dead gecko and a huge mess to clean up.

I could see she was disappointed so I thought I’d cheer her up:

“Honey, don’t worry. You would have gotten bored with this thing after a week or two.”

“Not true,” she said. “How do you know?”

“Sweetheart, the damn thing doesn’t do anything. It just sits there and lies like a rock in the water waiting for food to jump into its mouth. You might have gotten a turtle or something,” I grumbled.

“Well I like her and I’m keeping her.”

I knew that tone of voice. That’s her “I will brook no more argument and if you want some anytime soon, you’ll let me have my way.”

So now we have a Salamander named Suzie whose life expectancy is probably measured in days if not hours. We placed the lizard’s home on top of our planter where we have trained the cats not to go. But given the temptation (and knowing the beasts the way I do) all the conditioning in the world is not going to save the dumbass lizard from ending up as cat fricassee.

I just damn well better be sure I don’t say “I told ya so” when it all goes south.

I have once again opened the blog to comments.

All comments are moderated. The rules are simple; insult me or other commenters, you’re out. Non germane comments will be deleted. If you want to spout conspiracy theories, go visit the Ron Paul website.

Read what I write. Not just the first couple of paragraphs. If it is obvious that you haven’t read my post and comment anyway, your comment will be deleted.

No hijacking the thread to go off topic. Off topic comments will be deleted.

In short, everyone is on a short leash.

The driver of the yellow Mercedes Benz truck in Beirut that awful day 24 years ago knew precisely where to go. According to intelligence reports, two members of what was then the underground terrorist organization known as Hizbullah had mapped the layout of the Marine barracks so that the suicide bomber could carry out his mission to maximum effect. He knew the Marines pulling sentry duty had pocketed their ammo clips thanks to some ridiculous rules of engagement. And he was aware that there were no barriers protecting the structure so that his truck laden with 12,000 pounds of explosives would only have to crash through ordinary wood and plaster in order to be positioned perfectly so that detonation would have catastrophic effects on the building.

The truck had apparently been prepared with the help of Syrians and Iranians in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon where several Revolutionary Guard units had been stationed under Syrian protection. An NSA intercept revealed at a trial that convicted the Islamic Republic of Iran of being behind the attack, stated that a message sent from Iranian intelligence headquarters in Tehran toAli-Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian ambassador in Damascus and directed the Iranian ambassador to get in touch with Islamic Amal which has since been identified as the military arm of Hizbullah at the time, and instruct him to “take spectacular action” against the Marines.

When the bomb detonated, it may have been the largest non-nuclear explosion in history up to that time (we used the “Daisy Cutter” in Afghanistan which weighs 15,000 lbs). The entire barracks building was lifted off its foundation and when it came down, it collapsed in a heap of cinder blocks, plaster, and dust. A few seconds after the blast, another suicide truck bomber crashed into the French military headquarters detonating a similar device. All told, 241 Americans lost their lives in the blast. Another 58 French paratroopers died in the other attack that day. It was the worst day for the Marines since the battle of Iwo Jima and the worst day for the US military since the first day of the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam.

While it is not a rock solid certainty that Hizbullah, acting on direct orders from Iran, was behind the attacks, the preponderance of evidence certainly points that way. At the time, Hizbullah was in its initial stages of formation, being trained by Revolutionary Guard units who had infiltrated Lebanon through Syria. At first, Hizbullah was not an independent actor in Lebanon, receiving its orders directly from Khomenei’s Iran. The US had just given Sadaam Hussein more than two billion dollars in aid to fight Iran and the thinking is that Khomenei wanted to get back at the US for our support of Iraq. When US forces pulled out the following February, it was simply gravy from the Iranian point of view.

So for 24 years, we have been in an undeclared war with Hizbullah and, by extension, Iran. Or, at least Iran has been at war with us. We have pretended that no such conflict exists under successive US presidents, Republican and Democratic, liberal and conservative. Occasionally, history intervenes and tries to rouse us out of this stupor but so far, to no avail. In 1984, Hizbullah attacked our embassy, killing 5 Americans. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked by Hizbullah and a Navy diver was savagely beaten to death. They kidnapped and murdered CIA officer William Buckley and Colonel William Higgins, a Marine serving with the UN at the time. (They were kind enough to forward videos of the murders to our government). They fired on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. They have operated around the world, killing Jews wherever there’s a soft enough target to hit.

To this day, Hizbullah is beholden to Iran, getting all of its funding and weapons as well as its training through the Revolutionary Guards. They receive an estimated $250 million a year – by far and away the largest recipient of Iranian foreign aid. Their fighters are trained in Iran, indoctrinated in Iran, and are more loyal to the “Islamic Revolution” than they are to Lebanon.

And yet, there are those who are serious when they proclaim they don’t want us to “start” a war with Iran.

This is worse than madness. It is deliberate, self deluded suicide not to recognize Iran as deadly enemy of the United States. Bombing and invading is not the answer, although as the last option available, it may come to that. But we should have absolutely no qualms about attempting to undermine the government of Iran and work for regime change – peacefully if at all possible. But ultimately, the only peaceful solution would be if the Iranian people themselves overthrew the corrupt and messianic mullahs who currently run that country.

It was 24 years ago today that Hizbullah, acting under what is believed to be the direct orders of Iran, made their largest and most successful attack against America. Their masters in Tehran have since been challenging us at every turn, testing our resolve and going so far as to assist our enemies in Iraq. The question now isn’t if a showdown will occur but when.

I don’t know if violence can be avoided. I know we must try to do so because the consequences of war with Iran for the entire world would be profoundly dangerous and destabilizing. But the threat Iran poses is intolerable and must be dealt with – one way or another.

UPDATE 10/25:

Reader Mike emails with a correction:

The “Grand Slam” bomb of WWII, weighing 22,000 lbs and dropped from a British Lancaster bomber, was larger.

And for that matter, accidental ammunition explosions of WWI and WWII, in Halifax N.S., Texas, the Bay Area and IIRC, Eniwetok Atoll, each involved several thousand tons of munitions.

I should have mentioned above that the statement about the barracks bomb being the largest explosion ever up to that time was actually from a quote by the trial judge in the suit against the Iranians.

Obviously, he didn’t know what he was talking about – any more than I did.

Thanks to Mike for the correction.

One of the interesting things about maintaining a blog is that ultimately, it devolves into a conversation with yourself about what you think regarding a variety of subjects. Some liken blogs to “thinking out loud” and that may be true to an extent. But there is a difference between writing and thinking – a very large difference.

I believe, as Sir Francis Bacon did, that “Reading maketh a full man, conference, a ready man, and writing, an exact man.” Writing forces you to condense your thinking, to slough off extraneous concepts not germane to the subject until you are left with the very essence of your thoughts, allowing an examination and ultimately, a judgement regarding their efficacy relating to your own worldview and ideological principles.

In this way, blogs allow both the writer and the reader to trace the growth of ideas and concepts – buttressing some, discarding others, and amending still more while trying to stay true to a coherent set of principles – a set of core beliefs that would require considerably more than atmospheric changes or transient events to alter.

No human mind is capable of being entirely consistent. We are not, after all, machines. Emotions are constantly in play as we wrestle with our consciences while seeking to remain faithful to our own intellectual self-image. Blogs are extremely useful in this regard because they allow the writer to hold up a mirror and examine their reflection over a long period of time. How has our thinking changed? Where have we taken a different road? Are our principles still intact, our beliefs still valid?

I hope you will forgive this rather lengthy digression into esoterica but to me, this is the interesting part of the journey to self-discovery; trying to ascertain how we think as well as discovering what we think is why writing makes us “exact” in our efforts to know ourselves better.

I bring all this up because I have written extensively over the last three years about the nature of modern conservatism and how it is slowly becoming irrelevant to large segments of the American electorate – largely as a result of the unrealistic and indeed, fanciful adherence by conservative politicians, pundits, and even some intellectuals to ideas and principles that have become as outmoded in their own way as Marxism.

Generalizing the problem, many conservatives are mired in a Reaganesque fantasyland where the mantra “small government, low taxes, less regulation, and strong national defense” is repeated ad infinitum as if saying it loud enough and often enough makes it true – despite the fact that except for a strong national defense, the rest of these “principles” are as outdated as central planning and a command economy.

The essence of the problem is that both liberals and conservatives today see government as almost a living thing to be hated or loved depending on one’s point of view. Government is not alive, although it is close to existing as a force of nature so large and nearly uncontrollable it has become. Instead, government should be seen as a utility to be organized as best as can be humanely done so that it becomes a servant of the people and not their master.

Believing that we can roll back the size of government and make it “small” is a pipe dream and, along with the idea that we can demand government do a million things and not raise the taxes to pay for them as well as ask government to protect us from impersonal corporations who seek to destroy competition, exploit workers, endanger our environment, foist their dangerous products on us, and generally wreak havoc on our lives and families without someone looking over their shoulder is absurd.

The idea that the market will fix dangerous working conditions for miners or force companies to end exploitive work rules and policies in service industries is just not tenable in a 21st century industrialized democracy. Neither will the market clean up toxic waste, sensibly protect the environment, establish minimum standards for drinking water and breathable air, or ensure that some of the remaining green places left in the United States can be enjoyed by our grandchildren.

These are not luxuries that we can afford to privatize or do without. They are as vital to our survival as the new Air Force fighter being developed. The question that should occupy conservatives is not whether we should have strict standards for drinking water but rather how do we reconcile conservative principles with the needs of the people in a modern society?

For conservatism to survive and even thrive, a new paradigm must be realized that recognizes we live in a different world than the one inhabited by our ancestors and that many of the old verities we cherished are just no longer relevant to what America has become. For better or worse, the United States is changing – something it has always done and always will do. Without altering most of the core principles of conservatism, it should be possible to change with it, supplying common sense alternatives to liberal panaceas for everything from health care to concerns over climate change.

Obviously, there is no lack of ideas in this regard if you read the policy prescriptions appearing on the pages of Heritage, AEI, Cato, or other places where academics and policy wonks gather to supply these alternatives. But there seems to be a disconnect between the thinkers and the doers – politicians, pundits, and activists. Having read most of the Republican candidates stands on issues, outside of Fred Thompson’s detailed critique of entitlements and his ideas on a muscular kind of federalism, there isn’t much in the way of deep thoughts being generated in this campaign so far. In fact, there appears to be little in the way of original thinking at all; just a rehash or recycling of projects and programs that wouldn’t stand a chance of passage in Congress.

Now I am not saying that conservatives should compromise their principles to gain success in the legislature nor am I saying those principles should be abandoned in order to gain electoral victory. But there is a difference between having a vital conservative movement that shapes and informs government and one that has no relevancy whatsoever to modern America.

This is where my thinking has taken me these last three years – a recognition that conservatism needs to have its best and brightest strike out and find new ways of defining what it means to be a conservative in 21st century America. Obviously, my poor efforts here on this blog amount to little except some relatively unformed, nebulous thoughts on what I see as a need for this change. I make no claim to being an intellectual or even that thoughtful. But where else can you pour your brains out and examine the contents but a blog? That is what I’m doing here and I hope you take it for what it’s worth; the musings of a concerned conservative who is unhappy with the state of the right as it stands now.

Michael Tomasky at the Guardian got me thinking in this direction this morning:

That is, Americans have now experienced a conservative government failing them. But what lesson will they take? That conservatism itself is exhausted and without answers to the problems that confront American and the world today? Or will they conclude that the problem hasn’t been conservatism per se, just Bush, and that a conservatism that is competent and comparatively honest will suit them just fine?

Conservatives and the Republican presidential candidates hope and argue that it’s the latter. They largely endorse and in some cases vow to expand on the Bush administration’s policies – Mitt Romney’s infamous promise to “double” the size of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, notably. Like Bush, they vow that tax cuts, deregulation and smaller government will solve every domestic problem. Where they try to distinguish themselves from Bush is on competence. Romney talks up his corporate success, Rudy Giuliani his prowess as mayor of New York.

Is it the messenger or the message that’s at fault?

Just asking…