WILL THE REAL FASCISTS PLEASE STAND UP?

How many times did Ronald Reagan's enemies resort to accusing him of being a "fascist" when RR bested them in debate? Remember how often Barry Goldwater was slandered, and more recently, George Bush and Dick Cheney. All have been so vehemently and unceasingly tarred by Liberals as high-handed Nazis it would have put a smile on Josef Goebbels face.

And howzabout the many Conservative guest speakers on college campuses who have been attacked & hooted down for being fascists by students & professors doing precisely what fascists do. Are we seeing here in America increasingly blatant reincarnations of brown shirted thugs like those who stomped out dissent in pre-WWII Germany? And, if as I claim, these people are knowingly engaging in Gestapo tactics, what then are the real facts about fascism at home and abroad: And which of today's major competing political ideologies, and their berserk internet constituents, has more in common with modern fascism?

To begin, fascism is a term that requires agreement on it's meaning if it is to be fairly debated. Wikipedia tells us that the "integral parts" (the "pros"of fascism) are: statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism and collectivism (I would add "secularism").  As for the "cons", fascism opposes political & economic liberalism. So, within these many different “isms” how would you assign them today, at home and abroad? Remember that it was H.G. Wells who, with sincere intentions, coined the term "Liberal Fascism", (shades of "Benevolent Dictatorship") by which he thought the good impulses of liberalism could be best served by pro-active...dare I say it...fascist governance. And in that connection, Mr. Wells reminds me that the playbook of Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, really should be called for what it is. Liberal Correctness.

Abroad there are so many "tin horn" tyrants that still follow on the fascist model, that it makes a mockery of the bogus "democratic community of nations" we call the UN. Here at home it's the left-wing intelligentsia using the platform of the Democrat  party that plays the "fascist card" most often in their political diatribes. They  care less about the truth & more about political power, so they slander all who disagree with them as "racists", "sexists", "homophobes". Consider the ranting of Democrat party leaders, for example, claiming our military operates like barbarous Nazis, at the direction of a crazed Nazi Commander in Chief etc.,etc.

All of this would be laughable nonsense if it was just the loony ravings of some long hair street rebels, rather than high profile officials in our government. But it isn't funny. It's serious stuff. And it apparently works well enough to expect  that people who live in glass houses will continue throwing stones as long as we don't throw back.

Jack Mason, 30 Hunting Country Trails, Tryon, 859-8356

Monday, Jan 14, 2008

Does anyone doubt that Americans at the top of the income heap are targets of certain left wing opportunists? I think it's abundantly evident in the media & the political haranguing of the you-know-which political party. Is it not the greedy rich that Liberals cite as the monopolists of American wealth, the ones whose affluence is undeserved and whose good fortune is enjoyed at the expense of their less fortunate neighbors? Accordingly, the wealthy, even though they carry almost all of the tax load, are decried as mere lottery winners who should pay increasingly more of the taxes that lubricate our entitlement society. Never mind that punitive taxation can disincentivize those most able to invest in & expand our economy. Never mind that small businesses and the "little guy" could wind up being those most hurt by soak-the-rich & we'll-show-them-whose-boss tax policies. Let's storm their high-rises & make em' pay till it hurts!  Yeah, and let's do it not because we really believe it's right, but because we know it will get us elected.

Presumably this is a  message, emotional & irrational as it is, that still has enormous appeal to those who can be manipulated into seeing themselves as economic and class victims: And to the extent that real or imagined "poor" people carry their sense of being oppressed into the voting booths, to that extent will the '08 election be profoundly influenced. And if you don't think that selling victimization pays, you should check Jesse Jackson's bank account and the '08 DNC's television ads.

The cynic observes that truth matters only to politicians insofar as it serves their ambitions. Methinks this is true. But to my mind it is more true of pander politicians of one particular ideological persuasion. The wobbly "Independent" wrings his hands claiming that "they all do it". Sure, they all do it...but is it not possible that one party does more of it? Or is our political establishment made up of equal opportunity rascals? Isn't it possible that one party can claim majority stock in the business of "get even"  politics?  When you hear pompous pundits & politicians waffling, "Yes, America may be great, our economy great, our soldiers great..."BUT...BUT"... Can you guess what side of the aisle these wafflers sit on?

And when we consider just who these rich guys are that we want to get even with, shouldn't we take into account the top 1 percent of taxpayers (you know, the really rich ones that pay nearly 40% of all taxes) and the IRS stats that reveal that more than half of the top 1% gang in 1996 were missing from the top 1% roster in 2005? And howzabout the even higher income dudes in the top one-hundredth of one percentile...and how it happens that three quarters of these big dogs fell off this list during the same time period?  Our economy didn't falter during this decade, but some high rollers did, which is as it should be in the not-so-popular-with-lefties free market.

So, what's my point? It's simply that the wonderful country we live in is not a static, the rich-stay-rich, the poor-get-poorer nation as was so common throughout most of history, and as is whined about by so many America bashing critics today. No, America is still the only major country where the door of opportunity opens wide for good people with good ideas, permitting success & riches irrespective of one's family or "connections". And might not this explain why so many people around the world would come to America in a heart beat, if they could?  So, to my mind the changing roster of top dogs in America proves that in the US of A , the poor can get richer, and the rich can get poorer, and that those who try to tell us otherwise are...well, I think you know what I mean. 

Jack Mason, Tryon, NC Nov 27, 2007

For many years Liberals have relentlessly opposed spending money on America’s defense. Their most recent occupant of the White House, following in this tradition, dodged an Army uniform and said that he “loathed” the U.S. military. And then, as President, he went on and proved it. Liberals ridiculed and resisted every effort Ronald Reagan made to revitalize our armed forces and develop new defense technologies, but our Cold War victory vindicated him. Ditto for Bush Sr. when he won the Gulf War.

Democrat’s willingness to risk America’s security is a matter of historical record. They know all too well that spending tax dollars on “pander butter” instead of guns, yields more votes, and more power: In a benign world that might be tolerable, but not in these dangerous times.  Since 9/11, “It’s the economy, stupid” is only a political half-truth.

Left wing contempt for our military feeds on the myth that America is a bully who sacrifices minorities as cannon fodder in bogus wars against “sovereign” states, like Iraq. Appealing to old stereotypes, the Chris Matthews, Phil Donahues, and Jesse Jacksons, et al, tell us young African American soldiers are going to do all the dying if we dare to take on Saddam Hussein. Vietnam, they claim, proves this point. But does it?

In 1997 Tom Wicks wrote in The Wall Street Journal that U.S. Army statistics debunk the racist accusation that black soldiers died in unfair numbers in Vietnam. The sad bottom-line of Viet Nam was 86% of those killed were white soldiers, a greater proportion than their numbers in the general population.  Equally tragic were the African American GIs killed who were 12.5% of total casualties, consistent with their percentage of total population.

Wicks reports that although African Americans account for 30% of today’s volunteer Army, 79% of those assigned to front line units, like the infantry and special-forces, are white, and 9% are black.  The other 12%, we can surmise are Asians, Hispanics and women. So, if his numbers are correct, the makeup of the most dangerous deployments in the Army refute predictions that young black people are going to be disproportionately put in harms way.

Because left wingers have never let the truth interfere with their agenda, I have no illusions that they will abandon their divisive lying to a gullible public. Yes, honorable American servicemen, particularly young blacks, are being used as fodder—propaganda fodder for Liberals.  Will Rogers said it best—“Its not the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t true.” 

Jack Mason

October 9, 2002

Me, and millions of Americans like me live lives pretty much like we always expected we would. We still have in place the essential, familiar, viable institutions we grew up depending upon. In a sense it all turned out the way it was supposed to. The road may have been bumpy, but we’re still on it.

Yes, we do have to struggle with changing tides of culture, politics, lifestyle etc. Yes, the dream has often been endangered by war, economic disaster, and spiritual malaise. And yes, there are surely going to be more barbarians at our gates to repel, as repel them we will. But always we survived, keeping alive the dream first dreamt by our ancestors. We can still dream for our future, and for our children’s future. Our game plan seems to be working, even if the game is not yet over.

All of this colors our worldview in a way that some people in this world just don’t understand, or mistake as triumphalism. Yes, our blessings set us apart from most people on this planet, but it doesn’t make us better, just different.

We are different than the billions of poor wretches born into corrupt systems that don’t work, that offer no hope, no redemption, and no future; billions who never had a dream, and never expect to; billions out on the cold street staring through the window at us in our warm houses.  Their only ironic advantage is that they have had centuries to get used to it. With remarkable courage they bear the unbearable, smiling through their misery, patiently awaiting rescue.

We are different than those who set themselves against us in the Cold war who thought they were the wave of the future; who challenged our resolve in a game of nuclear “chicken”, and who boasted they would bury us. How must they feel, their dreams shattered, their workers paradise now a den of thieves? They paid an awful price indeed for buying into a bogus ideology that in failing so dismally mocks their lives, their history, and their pride.

In our history, now largely faded from memory, only in the post Civil War South did Americans ever experience such self-inflicted calamity.  

If we shouldn’t take joy in the humiliation of our former enemies—and we shouldn’t—we also can’t shrink from the lesson that our continued good fortune must not be taken for granted. Or we could wind up like countless poor souls, swigging vodka to ease the pain of having lost it all, and for what?  For the folly of mistaking a nightmare for a dream.

JM August 2006

"To talk through one's hat" is an expression that's been around a long time. It certainly was a common put-down for spouting nonsense during my growing up years. But precise origins of the phrase are unclear. One fanciful explanation suggests that it refers to a man in church who holds his hat over his face while feigning prayer. It's also possible that "talking through one's hat" is tied to another phrase, "to talk off the top of one's head," meaning to offer opinions without facts or thorough consideration. Whatever its origins, this expression seems to persist because it lays the hammer to pretentious baloney peddlars.

In today's politics, it is my opinion that no one is better at talking through his hat (or is it his hair?) than John Edwards. I say this because on June 7, while on the campaign trail, he advanced the loony idea that the War on Terror is a sham manufactured by Bush for political purposes & has no more merit than a "bumper sticker". In his view our response to Islamofascits shouldn’t be soldiers with guns, but 10,000 civilian "Peace Corps" type volunteers. Presumably these young Kumbaya apostles will go amongst the America hating jihadists all over the world, and talk them out of their fanaticism. Duh! And we thought only character actors in sitcoms "talked through their hats". 

JACK MASON, JUNE 2007

SEEING IS BELIEVING...OR IS IT?

Clearly, we are a nation divided. We’re divided by an enormous chasm separating those who claim radical Islam is a mortal threat, and those who hedge; giving the impression they think it’s more  manageable with  words not military muscle; more a dangerous but controllable nuisance. Forget Republican or Democrat affiliations. This urge to turn away from the real horror staring us in the face exists in both parties, and is at the root of the raging argument over the Bush Administration’s incursion into the mid-east.

These stunningly polarized views pit Americans who are certain America has made a huge Texas sized mistake against those who are convinced we had no choice. One side believes our country, and particularly George W. Bush, are to blame. The other side is certain we’re being swept up in the tide of a long developing, inevitable, fanatical and hateful Muslim counter-Crusade against everything America stands for. The result is an emasculating paralysis in American foreign policy that makes our friends scratch their heads & our enemies smile.  

To be sure, Democrat politics has played a role in the opposition to the war, but after what they've seen & heard from the Islamofascists, continuing to be blind and deaf... can only be attributed to whistling-past-the-graveyard denial, suicidal naivety, or political criminality.

Perhaps we’ve gotten too comfortable because 9/11 and video recorded beheadings seem like long ago and isolated occurrences. Bush may very well be a victim of his own success for keeping Homeland terrorism at bay. Since American shopping malls aren’t being bombed every day are we kidding ourselves into thinking we’re off the hook? Are we delusional about what follows if we abandon Iraq? Do we really believe it will be business as usual?

These are no longer small distinctions. This is not a benign argument over whether taxes are too high or too low. The danger is real, or it isn't. It won't go away by just calling it fear mongering. This is it.

Only time will tell who has it right, but my sense is that our monkey-no-see drift towards rationalizing defeat in Iraq today will  guarantee disaster tomorrow. Today’s opinion polls, political opportunists, Harvard & Hollywood pundits... if they're proved wrong... will be of little consolation standing in the wreckage of all we hold near & dear.

Jack Mason, Tryon, NC, April 26, 2007                                              

Those who advocate sticking it out have raised the horrible specters of what will happen if we don’t persevere. I think that by now everyone knows that the Hawks are convinced that quitting the struggle will bring even more calamity to the U.S. They say it will embolden our enemies, ignite a much wider war in the entire middle-east, and put the safety of the U.S. homeland at greater risk. In this regard their fears can be corroborated by the jihadists who clearly don’t shrink from telling us they’ll slit our collective throats at the first opportunity. Devious about motives the terrorists are not.

But now that I know what the Hawks are certain will happen, I’d like to hear from the anti-war crowd about what they believe will follow on to our departure before the Iraqi democracy can stand on it’s own; not forgetting how that fragile democracy was purchased with the blood of our own young people, or dismissing what would likely follow in the wake of leaving before the job is done.

My letter isn’t cloudy about where I stand on these matters, but that wasn’t my purpose in writing. I sincerely want to hear opponents of the War explain how the dreadful horrors the Hawks predict are bogus. I’d very much like to know what “redeploy” advocates really believe will be the consequences of surrendering Iraq to the enemies of democracy? I’d like to hear the evidence that the dire predictions of Conservatives are overblown, and concocted to politically exploit a nightmare that doesn’t really exist? And if “redeploying” delivers any other long term advantages to America, I’d also like to hear about them.

For my money, if the Dems can logically, civilly & persuasively prove Conservatives have it all wrong, and not just with sneers; then I for one am prepared to listen, as should all patriotic Americans. If that can’t be done then I think that also tells us something, dontchathink?

March 16, 2007

The mischief began a long time ago in the Garden State, and continues to this day. But NJ is not the only state where democracy has been adulterated. Nor is it the only state given to political chicanery & corruption. It’s a cancer that is metastasizing all across America. Its symptoms are minds frozen blue, attitudes stained permanently red, the derelictions of an inadequately informed electorate; and those that know better, so fatigued and discouraged they surrender to impotence and cynicism.

I’m aware that registered Democrats & registered Republicans are not the only constituencies determining election outcomes: That there are also “independent”, above-the-fray folks who are supposed to be the leveling factor that wins the day for whichever side is supposed to be closer to having the right stuff. And to some extent that’s true, I’m sure. But what happens if “independents” are no longer really “independent”. What happens if they aren’t actually “independent” in the first place…but just like to think that they are? Partisans don’t kid themselves about their partisanship, but I’m wondering if “feel good” independents do?

Politics is growing more vile, as is manipulated ignorance. It grows in direct proportion to the exploitive power of money. It grows in direct proportion to civic indifference. It grows in direct proportion to media misinformation degenerating into propaganda. But most of all, it grows in direct proportion to the embrace of the perverse slogan “Ask not what I can do for my country…ask what my country can do for me”. 

So, increasingly, elections are being determined by a mindless whats-in-it-for-me electorate. I’m aware that America has survived the fatuous hot-air & mendacity of yesterday’s political hucksters, and by the grace of you-know-who, we’ve somehow managed to do the right things to keep our democracy afloat. But that was yesterday & we weren’t facing a global threat like Islamofascism. The big unknown today is how long can we endure gridlock, not only in Washington, but on Main Street? 

Much will depend on who we choose as our next President. One man or woman alone will not be able to open all our rapidly closing minds, but he/she must help us find ourselves, rediscover our commonweal, and inspire the solidarity without which we are certain to be menaced beyond our wildest nightmares. It’s time to take care if business, not getting even.   

March, 12, 2007

The Prime Minister of Australia claims Al Qaeda is praying for the Dems to win in 2008. Wow! But before the rope is knotted to lynch me for daring to quote Mr. Howard, just maybe we should weigh the implications behind his slam on the Dems.

It seems to me that the PM has it in his head that a Democrat in the White House would embolden the likes of Bin Laden and other fanatical jihadists & that this could be disastrous for the future of America, and the free world.  Now, we all know the Prime Minister has his political prejudices... and that I’m writing & you’re reading this letter with our own biases…but maybe it’s time to discard our political blinders and face the really “Big Questions”.

To me the Big Ones come down to these. Is Islamic fundamentalist terrorism a manageable and containable fury, being overblown for Bush’s political advantage? Is world wide terrorism something Democrats can more effectively deal with by talking more and fighting less? Do we really believe George Bush is the enemy? Can we win by withdrawing? Are consequences for pulling out of Iraq no “big deal” in regard to how this would effect our day-to-day lives here at home? Should we backdown from a struggle to the death (if that’s what it is) just because the polls tell us “we’re tired of it?”

As for myself, I’ve heard enough blathering about yesterday. Tomorrow is all that counts now. In my opinion this rearview  political folly obscures the Big Questions that  bear on the choices we have to make in selecting our next Chief Executive.  They are, I’m thinking - should we, or shouldn’t  we do everything in our power to strangle terrorism in the cradle? Or should we return to our pre 9/11 naiveties, and take the chance of giving the monster the time to grow & the opportunity to kill our grandchildren?

So, if to fight, or not to fight are the Big Questions, then Democrats who oppose fighting need to tell us where we draw the line...how we can have our cake & eat it.  If any Democrat reading this can tell me how we can achieve victory over our enemies without being willing to spend our treasure & spill our blood; or if any Democrat can explain why we need “exit strategies” in the War on Terror when our enemies have foresworn “exiting” not before, and only after they have brought America to it’s knees; or if any Democrat can persuade me that we can choose to lose in Iraq and the US will be none the worse for it…I’d have to throw in with him.  

But that said, the recent Democrat sponsored Congressional “non-binding resolution”... makes me think Mr. Howard has it right, after all. 

Jack Mason

30 Hunting Country Trails,  2/18/07 

At the risk of sounding crotchety, I'm writing to express my alarm regarding the growing number of tattooed ding-a-lings that I see on the road, one hand pressing a cell phone to an ear, the other hand fumbling to navigate in and out of 70mph highway lanes...all the while yucking it up with some bozo on the other end of what’s very likely a mindless conversation. More often, but not exclusively, these reckless dare devils are giggly teeny-boppers, who are  hardly in control when they have both hands free, let alone when  credit card sized telephones are plastered so tight against their ears that they can only be removed surgically! But let’s not kid ourselves; they’re plenty of adult dimwits also caught up in this deadly telephonitis.

I know...its progress and I should just get with it instead of being a grumpy old Luddite.  Get a life and all that sort of rubbish...but I'm afraid this craziness has my short fuse burning hard and fast, so please indulge me in my vicarious road rage.

Not only does it worry me that these hip-hoppers are foolishly tempting fate...but when it's my butt they put at risk, methinks I'm entitled to a wee bit of road rage, wouldn't you agree? And if there’s any doubt that this stuff is reaching frightening levels…just check with policemen all over the country: They know because they’re the ones who pick up the pieces on the highways.

On another point, this lethal foolishness gives me pause to wonder what these boobs are saying to each other? How in the world was whatever they're gabbing about… gabbed about... before they had cell phones with which to do so much gabbing??? Kind of makes one wonder if the Amish folks don't have it right.

Jack Mason Tryon, NC                                                                                                                                                                                   859-8356

2/3//07

Last night’s TV news informed us that Democrat big-wig James Carville is calling for Democrat big-mouth Howard Dean to resign. Carville contends that Dean’s mismanagement of DNC money in congressional campaigns yielded 30 seats in HR for Dems, when it could have, and should have (according to Carville) won the Democrats 50 seats, or more. I have no idea how accurate Carvilles’s numbers are, but his political savvy is well respected…so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt & concede that he may have a point.

Beyond the accuracy of Carville’s complaints, his argument for canning Dean bases on and demonstrates the awesome power that paid advertising has in shaping American public opinion; not to mention the bias of a shameless media and chaos on the internet. The vote swinging influence of slick 30 second TV muggings isn’t just marginal to election outcomes anymore…they’re absolutely central to final tallies. And make no mistake about it, the GOP would also wage the same type & scale television campaign if they were convinced it would bring them victory.

The absence of truth-in-political-advertising is not new. It’s been a part of our process for a very long time, and it hasn’t always been pretty. Outrageous slander, character assassinations, and blatant lies have characterized American politics since way back when. Just ask ‘ol honest Abe.

But what I think is new is the wholesale manipulation of public opinion that now occurs on a scale grander that ever before in our history. The old art of using advertising to hopefully sell the public on a certain point of view has now become the new communications science that guarantees the sale. Spend a little more here and a little less there and you’ve suddenly secured an election in a way that makes old fashioned campaigning on issues look foolhardy.

So when Carville seeks Dean’s scalp he’s also opening our eyes to a conundrum that was far from resolved with campaign finance reform legislation. What these reforms were supposed to correct have become even more corrosive…even more ruinous to a democracy dependant upon an intelligent and informed electorate. 

As a Conservative, I’m strongly opposed to abridging free speech, but I’m also worried that unless we do something constitutional to take elections off sale to anything-goes-politicians…to prevent cynical hucksters from determining election results…we could be looking at government of the partisans, by the partisans, and for the partisans…a corruption no political party can escape, and no democracy can endure.

Jack Mason, Nov 18, 2006

Chuck Ross, the man local Democrats love to hate is once again being pilloried. This time a Mr. Rob Cooper tries to beat up on him in the Nov 25 Bulletin…and I’m responding not only because Chuck doesn’t deserve such trashing…but to accuse his detractor with attacking him personally instead of rebutting his ideas.….a tactic favored by people who think a letter to the editor is a platform for slinging mud at those whose ideas they don’t like.

Consider the content of Cooper’s letter. Void of civility, short on specifics, long on bombast, it can only be read as a screed. Yes I said screed, or what the dictionary calls “a long, monotonous harangue”…in this case his own words say it all, words claiming Col. Ross and his letters are… “Vitriolic and uninteresting”...that Ross suffers from “tunnel vision”...that he’s “longwinded” and an “overly simplistic diehard political follower”…that his letters “fairly drip with sarcasm”… that “no one can out diatribe Chuck Ross”…and then in some sort of fuzzy clincher Cooper declares that “Ross preaches to his choir”…and since the President has lost America’s trust, Ross and his “choir are fast disappearing”?

And this rubbish is supposed to constitute debate; sophisticated persuasion?

Cooper, by the end of his own diatribe or what the dictionary defines as “a bitter, abusive denunciation” still hasn’t supplied the reader one concrete idea or one concrete example to support his heavy handed assault on Col. Ross’s integrity or his letters to the Bulletin. No, all he gives us are churlish put-downs, larded with the foolish fantasy of a boxer who thinks he has his opponent on the ropes, when in my judgement it'll take a better man than Cooper to come out on top in a fair fight with CR.

We all know that passion is part of being partisan, that partisanship means playing hardball. We’re all adults prepared to get as much as we give, and that’s well and good in a fair fight.

But after reading the Nov 25 Cooper letter, I have to ask in Cooper’s own words if all of his ad hominem chippiness is really acceptable to “the intelligent readers of the Tryon Daily Bulletin?”

Jack Mason, Tryon, NC, Nov 26, 2005                                             859-8356

 On a sunny Sept morning, the Islamic world crashed into our lives. We now have to balance a fitting response to this savage attack, with a fair and sober understanding of the culture that nurtured it.  For most of us clueless Americans it means a crash course in the complexity of Mohammedism, and corruptions like fanatic Islamic nationalism. It means understanding that there are xenophobic, violent and inhumane Arab traditions that conflict with the teaching of Mohammed but are nonetheless the entrenched convictions of many Islamic clerics, some Islamic elitists, and an unknown number of illiterate Islamic peasants. The contradictions posed by the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed, and the barbarous behavior of terrorists like Bin Laden, seem to be of no concern for our new enemies. 

Apologists can counter this modern reality by charging the Crusaders with unspeakable atrocities. We can call to mind the bombing outrages of Zionists who killed innocents in pre-Israel Palestine. We can be chilled by the outrages of IRA thugs or the Godfather movie scenes of multiple assassinations committed at the same time Michael Corleone is sanctimoniously taking part in the Catholic ritual of Baptism. All these examples from western civilization display our own capacity for rationalized depravity, and they remind us that imperfect people exist everywhere in this imperfect world. But the over arching truth in America today is that these kinds of evils have no large constituencies, and are reviled by the vast majority.  This may not be so in the Arab world.

Our survival is not going to be helped by being naïve about seething hatred of America by “misguided” Muslims. Our survival will not benefit from undercounting our enemies, or pollyannish braying about non-judgmental brotherhood. Our survival is going to have to trace back to Billy Martin’s advice about how to successfully manage a baseball team.  Peppery Billy said, “on any team of 40 players, 15 players will love the manager, and 15 players will hate the manager. 10 players will not have an opinion. And, so the secret to success is to keep those 10 uncommitted guys away from the 15 who hate you!”

The baseball metaphor may sound glib, but the underlying lesson about winning the hearts and minds of undecided believers in Allah, is not. Our future depends on the hope that there are at least “15” Muslims already on our side, and that we can keep the “undecideds” from throwing in with the bad guys. To me that seems to be the most difficult part of the challenge in front of our President and his administration.  May God help them succeed.

Jack Mason, Tryon, NC, 28782

True Believers of both wings of American politics, in contrast to their many differences, do share one thing. They’re both consumed by a visceral despise for the leader of the opposition, and with a fury that fixates not so much on ideas or philosophy, but on revulsion for an individual person. Egged on by 24/7 media “exposes”, Republicans hate Bill Clinton, and Democrats hate George Bush. “Hate” may be a vile word that makes us squirm, but since the shoe fits, I think we have to wear it.

Some might say this is not new, and therefore not alarming. They’ll say that’s how it’s always been and not to worry. But I do. And although True Believers don’t yet constitute the majority in general elections, they do dominate Primary elections that select our candidates. Down the road the red and the blue states will likely only deepen in color.

I worry because I think democracy can tolerate, even thrive on legitimate quarreling over methods of achieving liberty & justice for all. But raging hatred and character assassination in American debate today is so bitterly venal, it defies reason and sneers at compromise. It divides us when we need to be united, and it renders us impotent in times of national crisis. It’s the ugly stuff of Hitlerism, Stalinism, and countless other “isms” that have stained human history.

I apologize if this sounds like overstatement, but it stems from the angst of someone who admits to being vulnerable to the seductive gospel of True Believers, as indeed I think we all are. And that’s our problem.

Jack Mason, 2005

Now, Mr. Reid is either ill-informed, or doesn’t care about being no more original than an Elvis imitator. For example he urges us to “transition” the Iraq mission to “counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection” The fact that these tactics are already being implemented doesn’t prevent him from positing this as a new idea which tells you something about his respect for the intelligence of the American people.

He goes on to make it sound like an innovative thought when he says the Administration should “work with Iraqi leaders to disarm militias, and develop [a] political settlement,” for secular violence. No kidding! Does he really expect us to believe our people working with elected Iraqi leaders aren’t already pursuing these goals? 

Reid’s third proposal is for “convening an international conference to support a political settlement and to help the economy and rebuilding effort”. Once again he’s just parroting what U.S. and Iraqi leaders have already tried in vain to accomplish…i.e., pushing the international community to help us to get Iraq back on its feet.  Success in attracting assistance from other nations hasn’t been for lack of trying…but it looks like its stoked Mr. Reid’s appetite for subordinating our self-interests, and Iraq’s future, to the hostile anti-American prejudices of the UN.

The fourth urging from ‘ol Harry is for a fuzzy “new direction” that sounds a lot like a bugle call for abandoning Iraq by the end of 2006; regardless of how it might jeopardize the fledgling Iraqi democracy and dishonor the sacrifices of our brave young soldier heroes. His words urge an unclear, murky “phased redeployment”, but one of the signatories to his letter, John Murtha is very plain on the subject. Murtha calls for an immediate withdrawal to Okinawa, 5000 miles from Baghdad. So, this is the Democrats only new idea?  The President wrote back, “No way”… 

As I see it, Iraq is a battle in a war that is far from being over. The execution of that battle hasn’t always gone according to plan, but that doesn’t disqualify the plan: Nor does it mean we’ve lost the war. What Reid & Co. are doing is masquerading copycat proposals as unique, and an “exit strategy” that would certify our defeat in the eyes of the world. They’re either clueless or chasing votes. So, who’s got it right, or at least is trying to get it right?  Who’s coping instead of carping, and who’s willing to take political risks to do the right thing? I think you know…

Jack Mason                                                                                                     

      Tryon, NC                                                                                                Sept 8, 2006  

To Bulletin reader…I wrote this opinion letter to the BULLETIN in Sept 2002, but never sent it in. At the time I thought it was a little too idealistic; a bit of a stretch. In today’s world I think it’s right on...

JM

A CASE FOR DEMOCRACY

Way back in 1795, the philosopher Immanuel Kant theorized that democratic governance was the best insurance against war. With extraordinary vision he prophesied in Perpetual Peace that the institutions and culture of free societies would reject armed conflict as a means for settling disputes with other democracies. Two hundred years later the facts confirm that he was right. There have been no major wars between democracies.

Although free nations don’t engage in war with each other, there are plenty of examples pitting democracies against non-democracies, and even more conflicts where both belligerents were non-democracies.

So, might not this evidence provide an answer to how we should proceed in our struggle against Islamic terrorism? Although our new enemy is not a single nation state, terror organizations are enabled by countries that are under the thumb of non-democratic regimes. Would those enabling countries be less likely to spawn this kind of madness if they were open, pluralistic governments?  Probably; and I think the best justification for going after Saddam bases on the reasonable expectation that a free Iraq will not be hospitable to terrorism; a development that could clearly be in our own national best interest.

Afghanistan currently demonstrates how a nation liberated from despots can transform from being a threat to an ally, even though a relapse is always possible if we don’t finish the job. But at least we now have a chance of redirecting this sad part of the world from the certain path-to-hell that we were on until we booted the Taliban/Al Queda.  

Maybe then the free world will see the honor & wisdom of joining with us to dangle carrots wherever possible, and to use sticks wherever necessary to bring government-by-the-people to all the downtrodden. Surely, it isn’t difficult to understand that free people are unlikely to wrap their bellies with bombs if their hearts are filled with hope and opportunity for a better future—and that even imperfect democracy has a better chance of delivering on those aspirations than tyranny. If Europe, blinded by its snobbish contempt for our President, can’t see this, then America must have the courage to take on the job of affirming freedom as the most basic of human rights, and provide real, not just lip service support to this principle.

The time has come to reject the myth that some people are “not ready”. The time has come for the U.S. to cease winking at dictators because they’re “our guys”. The time has come to put our credibility on the line for electoral democracy, and recognize that doing the right thing is the only way out of the madhouse of terror.

Then we might see mobs demonstrating in the streets for America’s help instead of America’s extermination.    

Jack Mason,  9/15/02

While surfing cable TV this week, I came upon the annual Friar’s Roast on the Comedy channel. The roast subject was Hugh Hefner, the aging king of Hollywood hedonists, and founder of Playboy magazine. What I saw was shocking, even to a crusty old Marine like myself…especially since this was broadcast on non-pay programming.

Hefner was center stage, seated in the “roasting” chair that was situated next to a speaker’s platform and microphone. With glitzy mirrors and flashing colored lights spotlighting the grinning “roastee”, men in tuxedos and bow ties took turns trying to be funny, showering him with moronic gutter jokes about his age, his anatomy, and his lifestyle.  The bleeped “f” word spewed out of their mouths like bullets flying out from machine guns aimed at an adoring audience of show biz celebrities and anonymous gorgeous women in sexy evening gowns. The True Believers of the Playboy culture.

It was pitiful watching the beautiful Bunnies laughing at a stream of raunchy Hefner stories that ridiculed woman as empty-headed sexual doormats. The ponytailed, jaded men in tuxedos, rolling in the aisles howling at chauvinistic smut were bad enough, but to see these Playgirls giggling at their own demeaning was particularly embarrassing. Shades of Monica!

I certainly have told jokes that lampooned sex. I certainly have employed bawdy language, and I’m certainly no prude. But it appears to me that a large segment of our population today buys into the idea that no obscenity is off limits, even to audiences that include children. Pop culture no longer balks at bringing locker room humor into the living room where both men, and women, use language that used to be reserved for drill sergeants. And all this repugnant coarseness comes from people who have been given much and who should know better. Nowhere was that more evident than at the Friar’s Roast, an old and respected tradition that has sunk into a sad sewer of unfunny bad taste.

Jack Mason, Nov 5, 2002

·         American culture is uniquely American in many ways.

·         We have mixed cultural ingredients drawn from our own experience and those imported by our immigrant population from other   parts of the world.

·         Like a nouvoue cuisine the blend of these ingredients has become the recipe that shapes our cultural tastes.

·         Two areas of particular American devotion are sports and politics.

·         In those two areas are many similarities.

·         Our sports divide into participants, players coaches etc, and fans.

·         Our politics also have players and fans.

·         Fans are partisan supporters of teams based mainly on geography. Political supporters are devoted to party ideology because of background and geography.

·         Fans include sophisticates and boors, as with party supporters.

·         Coaches are fair and unfair, Tom Landry and Woody Hayes.

·         Some teams play fair and some play dirty.

·         Some referees favor home team.

·         Most sports fans and political supporters know little of details regarding sports or politics.

·         Sports and politics are hallmarks of our culture.

·         Sports fans are like political partisans.

·         Some fans are sophisticated students of the game like some partisans are well- informed advocates for their political bias.

·         Some sports fans are hooligans as are some political activists

·         American culture is uniquely shaped by our own experiences and those imported along with immigrants who came to us from all corners of the world.  Like a nouvoue cuisine, the blend of these experiences is the recipe that flavors our cultural tastes. Football and democracy are examples of cultural institutions that exemplify our unique way of life.

JM

On the heels of the election fiasco, the media pundits blather ad nauseam about the urgent need for bi-partisanship.  Leading Liberals sternly remind us that the evenly split vote underscores this urgency. They have warned us of the dire consequences for failure to  questions that deserve national debate. For example..

Do Democrats and Republicans truly consider bi-partisan governance, and coalitions, a serious option? Is bi-partisanship even possible?  Given the early signs, the Black Caucus walkouts in the House, assertions of an illegitimate Bush presidency, fierce ad hominen attacks on Cabinet appointees, etc. I think the answers become obvious..

Witness the pronouncements of Sen. Kerry (D-Neb) who recently said that bi-partisanship cannot be subordinated to “Principle”. This was his excuse to resist the appointment of John Ashcroft!  As a point of logic, he is probably correct. But, that logic cuts in both political directions and conflicts with the basic mechanism of “BP”. We used to call it compromise. . So, the bottom line dilemma is how do our competing political camps separate out their “principles” from their more flexible and arbitrary “positions”? What political “positions” are negotiable, and what political “principles” are beyond compromise?

These questions play out in an America divided more politically, culturally, and regionally, than ever before in modern history. Partisan animosities have hardened and escalated to an unprecedented and maybe even dangerous level. Victory seems to have replaced accommodation as the objective of the competing ideologies, and transforms our politics from a debate to a struggle.

I am not without my own bias, and assigning blame for this calamity would be easy for me to do. But on the other side of the fence, there are good people who would surely see it through a different prism. So, where do we go from here?  Some would say we get on board the good ship, “Moderation”.  But by today’s conventional wisdom “moderates” are wimpy fence straddlers that betray “principle” for expediency, and are reviled by both parties.  The only fans of “moderates” are the folks in the biased media, and then only if the “moderates” happen to be Republicans!

The irony is that Al Gore may have been lucky to lose this election, considering the mountain George W. has to climb. The Democrats hope to be lucky by employing the strategy of vehement intransigence to embarrass and handcuff Bush’s presidency, and ultimately win back the Congress and the White House. But will America be lucky enough to survive the politics of slash and burn? What do you think?

Jack Mason, Jan 8, 2001

The recent flood of scandals involving business shenanigans and clerical abuses exposes a flaw in our justice system that seems to confirm that some people are simply above the law. Time and again we see the powerful getting away with murder, theft, lying under oath, and even the defilement of children. It is probably not entirely a new phenomenon, but it does seem more brazen and out-in-the-open than I can remember. How did this ever happen in a country founded upon “the rule of law”? How can we win a war over terrorism that sneers at our principle of justice for all, when we are weakening the main supporting wall of that principle?

In part, I think it is the result of a culture that views the law as a game. A game where justice is not the primary object, but the clever manipulation of technicalities that rewards lawyers and judges who slyly peek out from under the blindfold of justice. Where the rich and the celebrated can skate free of punishment if they have enough money and influence. Remember that famous statue of the robed woman holding a balance scale, her eyes shielded from bias and chicanery? It appears she has been removed from her pedestal, and put away in the attic. Replaced by the slick smile of Johnny Cochran.

I know the rebuttal to this argument would point out that ours is an “adversarial” system based on the idea that justice is a prize of battle between competing prosecuting attorneys and defense lawyers. So be it. But what happens when the powerful are represented by a “dream team” that is the equivalent of the Chicago Bulls going up against Landrum High School? What happens when vigorous prosecution is forsaken because of political or financial expediency? What happens when celebrity becomes a formidable defense in itself?

O.J. is traipsing around the country playing golf, Enron big-shots are building mansions with money burgled from their stockholders and employees, Clinton is making a small fortune on the rubber-chicken circuit, and priests and bishops who conspired to rape young boys are telling us its none of our business. Are these not proof that our laws are being used more like a sword than a shield?

I have no profound answer to this dilemma. I can only hope that personal integrity and character will trump shrewd, but legal, mischief, and that all Americans will demand a return of the blindfolded lady in the robe to the pedestal of honor above our courthouses.

Jack Mason

June 29, 2002