There must be, however, a modicum of compassion for her now. With the sudden emergence of Barack – make that Barack! – Obama as a likely candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, she’s gone from Hillary the inevitable to Hillary the unenviable.

Senator Obama says he’s thinking of running. What he really means is he wants Democratic voters to think of him running. And to ask, nay beg, him to accept their coronation.

There’s Obama on Oprah. There’s Obama on the cover of Time. There’s Obama persistently being hyped on cable news show as serious presidential timber.

On one program the other day, the media’s excitement was conspicuous. Chris Matthews told viewers that Senator Obama “can stand before a crowd and make them feel magic.” A Time reporter noted that the Illinois senator “really is really good.” Not to be outdone, a BBC correspondent expressed her opinion that Barack “has all sorts of charisma. He is ridiculously good looking!”

Assuredly, his pals in the mainstream media are doing what they can to peddle Obama. Yet there’s no doubting his appeal to rank-and-file Democrats as well.

Why? In a word, baggage.

Barack doesn’t have a lot. At least not a lot that’s generally known. He’s immunized himself to a certain degree by already admitting marijuana and cocaine use. That’s one skeleton that won’t tumble out of the closet.

By contrast, Mrs. Clinton needs a platoon of skycaps to lug her baggage around. Her involvement in her husband’s last-minute pardons, her brothers’ involvement in her husband’s last-minute pardons, FBI files, missing billing records, fundraising improprieties, Whitewater, her health care reform fiasco, Vince Foster, Webster Hubbell, and who hired a bar bouncer to run White House security are just a few of the choice topics that would be reexamined if she secured the nomination.

Even her most enthusiastic admirers have to know what she’s in for.

Mrs. Clinton also has something else Mr. Obama doesn’t: a six-year record of voting in the Senate. Those thousands of pieces of legislation she’s voted on will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.

Her liberalism will be evident. While this will help within her party, Democrats who, for a change of pace, want to win the presidency may wish to present a more moderate image.

All this doesn’t mean Mr. Obama will be waltzing to the White House. It’s true that he only has two years of casting votes in Washington. Still, his own liberalism will soon be obvious.

The National Journal’s evaluation for 2005 shows Mrs. Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of her colleagues. Mr. Obama’s liberal composite score was even higher, at 83 percent. Again, that might be beneficial in seeking his party’s nod, but not in November.

Mr. Obama’s record as a state senator in Illinois will be inspected. He voted for tax increases, abortions and mandated sex education from kindergarten. He opposed pornography filers on school computers, and when a vote came on banning strip clubs and porn shops within 1,000 feet of schools and churches, the best he could do was vote “present.”

Republicans will exploit that, as well as his admission that “We (Democrats) are trying to decide what our core values are.” For a smart man, the senator sure seems vague much of the time. Trying to figure out what his core values are is tricky.

His campaigning skills are untested. Mr. Obama secured his U.S. senatorial nomination in 2004 only when the frontrunner’s campaign collapsed because of scandal. Four years earlier, he tried taking a congressional nomination from former Black Panther Bobby Rush and lost by a 2-1 ratio.

Can Senator Obama survive the scrutiny brought by a presidential campaign? Can he endure the barrage of questions, even those from fawningly friendly reporters?

A generation ago another press darling, Teddy Kennedy, enjoyed widespread popularity. A 1979 Harris poll had Kennedy with a 56 to 39 percent lead among Democrats over incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the 1980 nomination. Teddy couldn’t handle the close attention, however, and his challenge fell short.

Mrs. Clinton has her failings – and I’m eager to point them out – but she won’t wilt in the glaring lights of a national campaign. Even if reporters don’t call her ridiculously good looking.

As someone without a dog in this fight, I’m looking forward to the pantsuit and the empty suit duking it out.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the October 26, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

Republicans can still win. To do so, they need to nationalize the election.

Most voters believe, understandably, that Congress is doing a lousy job. Simultaneously, they think their own member is doing OK. But who is your Congressman going to vote for to lead the House?

Archliberals will be running things if Democrats take over. The GOP needs to constantly argue that case.

A Democratic majority means Californian Nancy Pelosi will become the House speaker. Most citizens don’t know much about Ms. Pelosi. They will learn plenty in a hurry when she pushes her radical agenda.

Ms. Pelosi has said she doesn’t “really consider ourselves at war” with terrorism, that it’s actually just a struggle. Moreover, she’s claimed this year’s election “shouldn’t be about national security.”

Maybe she’s trying to cover up her votes as the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. In the years prior to 9/11, despite her having inside knowledge of the threats confronting the U.S., she regularly voted against intelligence funding.

On budgetary matters, Congresswoman Pelosi is a big spender’s big spender. Her 2005 evaluation from the National Taxpayers Union, which includes every vote of significance involving taxes, spending, debt and regulatory burdens, was 11 percent. For this she was assigned a letter grade of F. It couldn’t have been too much of a disappointment though. Going all the way back to 1995, that’s been her grade.

The nonpartisan National Journal calculates that last year Nancy Pelosi voted more liberal on social policy issues than 96 percent of her colleagues. Naturally, she’s dependably pro illegal immigrant, pro abortion on demand and pro big labor bosses.

She holds a special place of contempt for the Boy Scouts of America. The president of the U.S. serves as honorary president of the Boy Scouts. In 2000, she and ten other members of Congress wrote to President Clinton, requesting he resign from the Boy Scouts because of the organization’s “unacceptable” policy of banning homosexuals from leadership positions.

The House at the time had over 200 Democrats. Even so, the Clinton letter was so over the top that fewer than a dozen Democrats would sign it. And Nancy Pelosi was one of them.

Her ascent to the speakership would be only the beginning. Joining her would be the new chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, New York’s Charles Rangel. Ways and Means has principal influence on tax policy, trade, Social Security, Medicare, and welfare.

Mr. Rangel hates tax cuts and loves tax increases. Consequently, he also gets an F from the National Taxpayers Union.

Congressman Rangel is extraordinarily partisan, declaring once that “If (Bill) Clinton dropped dead tomorrow, they would dig him up and open a grand jury investigation.”

More ominously, Mr. Rangel is a fan of Fidel Castro and has tried for years to life the embargo against the Communist tyrant’s Cuba. Visiting there in 2002, he touted Castro as “a proud, brilliant man” and praised “one of the best and most sophisticated health care and medical research systems in the world.” Evidently he hadn’t heard about Cuba’s shortage of aspirin and other medical necessities.

Another Democratic chairman will be Michigan’s John Conyers at the Judiciary Committee. He’s fixated on impeaching George W. Bush and has even held a mock impeachment with him pretending to be the chairman. Moreover, Representative Conyers has a burning desire to make certain that convicted felons are allowed to vote.

A Democratic victory will mean California’s George Miller will take over the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. He gets terrific ratings from the National Education Association, the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union. One reason is he supports making it considerably easier for unions to organize by curtailing secret ballots. He also believes that pouring more money into education will automatically improve it, a view not supported by experience.

A few paragraphs back, I mentioned the letter from 11 congressmen asking President Clinton to relinquish his honorary role in the Boy Scouts. George Miller was one of the signers, which is suggestive of what to expect when he assumes a position of more authority.

Ms. Pelosi has stated her intention of having Florida’s Alcee Hastings run the House Intelligence Committee. Like the others, he has impressive credentials. He was a federal judge who was impeached and removed from office for soliciting bribes.

Let’s not forget California’s Henry Waxman. As chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, he’ll set the priorities on investigations. One, no doubt, will be the war on terror. Mr. Waxman’s termed domestic surveillance “illegal,” which must spread joy throughout terrorist cells around the world.

A Democratic majority in Congress will enable archliberals to do irreparable harm. Republicans need to pound that point home in the dwindling days of the campaign.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the October 19, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

There are shrinks who maintain forgiveness is essential for one’s emotional stability. They believe it infinitely preferable to obsessing over the past offenses, be they real or imagined, of other people.

More importantly, forgiveness is mandated by Christianity. Jesus taught his followers to forgive. When Peter asked Him how many times he should excuse his brother, the answer was seventy times seven.

Pardoning others is also an element of religions other than Christianity. Yet rarely do we see as dramatic a display of that virtue as we did in the aftermath of the killing of little girls last week in a Pennsylvania Amish schoolhouse.

The murderer’s widow was invited to the children’s funerals. The Christian Science Monitor quoted an Amish woman: “It’s our Christian love to show to her we have not any grudges against her.”

A grandfather of one of the little girls visited the father of the killer in an effort to console him. When the perpetrator was buried, about half of those in attendance were Amish.

Donations for the victims, the hospitalized survivors and their families flooded in from around the country, and some even came from overseas. A woman familiar with the Amish’s independent ways said that receiving those gifts isn’t in keeping with their faith.

It was decided, however, that in this instance the contributions would be accepted because it might be unChristian to deny folks wanting to help that opportunity. Moreover, the Amish are giving a quarter of the donations to the family of the murderer.

This capacity to separate the sinner from his heinous sins is incredible, at least to this simple mind. In pardoning the executioner of their little girls, the Amish are reflecting the bright light of God’s love for humanity and His forgiveness for our transgressions. They’re setting a powerful example.

Another illustration of a forgiving soul passed away last week. John “Buck” O’Neil, the great Negro Leagues star and the first black coach in the major leagues, died at 94.

Mr. O’Neil had a fantastic career with the Kansas City Monarchs. Later, he helped put players like Lou Brock, Ernie Banks and Billy Williams on the national stage.

Buck became famous to new generations as the result of Ken Burns’ documentary “Baseball.” In his 80s, he was suddenly in demand more than ever.

Seeing him on TV was a delight. He had an infectious smile and was seemingly filled with an energetic optimism that belied his years.

Here was a man whose grandfather had been a slave. Buck O’Neil lived a good portion of his life in the era of Jim Crow and all of its injustices and indignities.

When he unaccountably wasn’t elected to the Hall of Fame, he refused to dwell on the inequity of it all. He instead spoke of a couple of disappointments that were worse than not going into Cooperstown. Not being allowed to attend Sarasota High School or the University of Florida hurt him more, he said.

For all that he endured over the years, it would have been easy for Buck O’Neil to have been an embittered, unhappy man. To wallow in self-pity. But he chose forgiveness over resentment, hope over despair.

Last summer he represented 17 other Negro Leaguers who, unlike him, had been voted into to the Hall of Fame. In a speech, he touched on his philosophy of life:

“And I tell you what, they always said to me, ‘Buck, I know you hate people for what they did to you or what they did to your folks.’ I said, ‘No, man, I – I never learned to hate.’ I hate cancer. Cancer killed my mother. My wife died 10 years ago of cancer. I’m single, ladies. A good friend of mine – I hate AIDS. A good friend of mine died of AIDS three months ago. I hate AIDS. But I can’t hate a human being because my God never made anything ugly. Now, you can be ugly if you wanna, boy, but God didn’t make you that way. Uh, uh.”

Buck O’Neil lived a life very different from that of the Pennsylvania Amish who lost their children so tragically. What they had in common, though, was an indomitable willingness to forgive. Most of us mere mortals can only aspire to that virtue. Especially those with Irish Alzheimer’s.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the October 12, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

“The page testified that . . . (the Congressman) invited him to travel abroad during the August recess. The page agreed, and the two took a 2 1/2 week trip together abroad. According to the page’s testimony, they engaged in sexual activity every two or three days during this trip.

“The page was 17 years old during the time he testified that he had a sexual relationship with (the Congressman); the relationship may have begun when the page was 16. . .

“Two other former pages, both male, have stated under oath that (the Congressman) made sexual advances to them . . . while they were serving as House pages. One was 16 or 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident; the other was 17. . . .

Moreover, two former supervisors of the pages in the House admitted to investigators that, years earlier, they’d been warned about the Congressman’s conduct. One claimed he hadn’t pursued the matter because he “wasn’t sure whether or not he (the page) had mistaken a friendly gesture for an advance or not.”

According to the other supervisor, he did nothing “because I didn’t feel I had any means of doing anything more, either through the chain of command that I worked for or through any other set of circumstances, and that the best thing was that everyone be warned of it and stay clear.”

There were suspicions that the cover-up possibly went all the way to the Speaker of the House’s office. A year before action was taken, a Congresswoman had called for an independent investigator to look into allegations of drug and sex abuse by House members. The Speaker declined, saying that “If the Congress cannot conduct an honest and comprehensive probe of these charges and punish those found guilty of these illegal acts, then the Congress has no right to make the laws that govern this nation.”

The Congressman who took the young male page overseas wasn’t the reprehensible Mark Foley. It was the reprehensible Gerry Studds, a Massachusetts Democrat who was censured by the House of Representatives in 1983 for his sexual misconduct. The Speaker of the House back then was Tip O’Neill, another Massachusetts Democrat.

Studds should have been removed by Congress and referred for criminal prosecution. He wasn’t.

On the day Studds was censured so too was Illinois Republican Dan Crane, who’d had sex with a 17-year-old female page. Saying that we pay for our sins in life, Crane very emotionally apologized for his transgression.

Censure requires that the Congressman come to the well of the House while the Speaker reads the censuring resolution aloud. Crane faced his colleagues; Studds stood with his back to them.

Studds was defiant in other ways. He “regretted” what happened, but showed little remorse. After being shoved out of the closet, he announced he was a gay American. The Democrat garnered support from homosexual activists, some of who were angry that his “private life” was being exposed.

How private is one’s life when 17- and possibly 16-year-olds are involved? They’re not adults. Except possibly in the mind of Studds, who said on the House floor:

“I repeat that in my judgment the mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults, which occurred 10 years ago, should not by any conceivable standard of fairness, rationality, rule or law warrant the attention or action of the House of Representatives of the United States.”

Unlike Foley, Studds didn’t resign. When asked if he would continue in Congress, he laughed, “Of course.” He was greeted with standing ovations when he returned to his district.

Studds did have to give up a subcommittee chairmanship. Still, California Congresswoman (now Senator) Barbara Boxer declared that she continued to look to him as the unofficial chairman of the subcommittee.

He was re-elected six times after his censure. When he decided to call it quits, President Clinton personally called him and asked him to reconsider.

In some jurisdictions, Studds would have gone to jail for statutory rape. In Washington it’s a little different. He went on to collect his more than $90,000 first-year pension.

I’m not suggesting that Mark Foley should have toughed it out like Studds did. Sure, at least at this point it doesn’t appear that his offenses came close to matching those of Gallivantin’ Gerry. Nevertheless, Foley should have resigned and so should anyone else – Republican or Democrat – who was aware of his sordid instant messages to children and did nothing to protect them.
Quite clearly, this isn’t the first time such a scandal has erupted in Congress. Maybe it’ll be handled better this time.

Democrats, including the senior insufferable windbag from Illinois, Dick Durbin, are doing their best to make the Foley scandal a major election issue, suggesting that they’ve suddenly become the party of morality. Not many people will fall for that twaddle.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the October 5, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

The Associated Press reported last month on “the luxuries that executives of the Legal Services Corp. have given themselves with federal money – from $14 ‘Death by Chocolate’ desserts to $400 chauffeured rides to locations within taxi distance of their offices.”

The story also noted that the corporation’s own inspector general questioned whether the agency’s headquarters is too large and if too much is paid in rent. Then there was that $220 taxi ride taken in Ireland by LSC’s president who was there for a conference.

Those wasted tax dollars represent only the tip of the iceberg. Since its inception, the Legal Services Corporation and the way it has operated have been extremely controversial.

Those of us with long memories can recall when conservatives, led by President Ronald Reagan, tried to abolish it because of its often radical actions.

Legal services in Oregon represented Planned Parenthood in challenging a state law that limited the number of abortions a woman could have paid for by welfare. In Pennsylvania, an LSC grantee fought a law that required parental or spousal consent before an abortion could be performed.

LSC grantees opposed welfare requirements such as naming the father of an illegitimate child or being a citizen in order to receive aid. They helped alcoholics and drug users apply for Social Security disability benefits. In Massachusetts, an LSC grantee published a brochure advising welfare recipients they could stay on the rolls by using lottery winnings to prepay rent, take a vacation, or buy a special gift.

A Georgia LSC grantee sued the state to force it to pay for a sex change operation. Other legal service grantees argued that minors not wanting to live at home are entitled to their own welfare benefits, that public housing administrators should be forced to rent apartments to minors, and that children be given legal standing to sue their own parents.

In Pennsylvania, a convicted rapist sued for custody of a child he fathered when he raped a 13-year-old girl. He had an extensive criminal record and a psychologist testified any child in his care would be in danger. An LSC grantee represented the rapist.

Legal Services has a special place in its collective heart for criminals. It filed petitions for the release of one man from a maximum security mental hospital who had slashed his grandparents’ throats. In Florida, it sued a jail for segregating HIV-positive inmates from the general population. This was because the policy supposedly violated the privacy of the HIV-positive prisoners.

Drugs and crime are often rampant in public housing. Yet when various housing authorities tried to evict drug dealers, LSC grantees were there to protect them. One tenant in Philadelphia set fire to her own apartment and was scheduled to be evicted. Legal Services attempted to prevent that from happening.

LSC grantees notoriously participated in political advocacy, something explicitly forbidden. In California, for example, it lobbied against a proposed state income tax cut.

A decade ago, Congress tried to reform the Legal Services Corporation. The changes didn’t take.

Audits done a couple of years later revealed massive misreporting in the number of people LSC claimed to have helped. In one General Accounting Office review, more than a third of the cases claimed could not be validated.

In 1996, Congress wanted to make certain LSC funds were used for legal representation, not lobbying. It also wanted to end legal representation for aliens not physically present in the U.S. Yet another clear intent was the prohibition of funding class action law suits.

All these efforts failed. Former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese told a congressional committee in 2002 that “it has become clear that Legal Services Corporation remains uncommitted to reform, unaccountable to the courts, and unresponsive to Congress.”

One reason conservatives are displeased with Congressional Republicans is their unwillingness to use their majority status to dump the Legal Services Corporation and other failed remnants of the war on poverty. The best they and the president offer are puny reductions in a budget that should be zeroed out.

The Legal Services Corporation deserves to die. And not by $14 “Death by Chocolate” desserts.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the September 28, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

The Associated Press picked up on the theme. Its 9/11 coverage included the observation, “Critics say Americans have squandered the goodwill that prompted France’s Le Monde newspaper to proclaim ‘We are all Americans’ that somber day after the attacks. . . ”

Going unmentioned was a question later posed in that editorial: “Might it not then have been America itself that created this demon?”

Also on the squander case is the formidable intellectual Ms. Rosie O’Donnell. On “The View” the conversation turned to the purported world support for the U.S. after 9/11. Rosie opined, “And it’s hard to believe that in the five years since, that’s all gone away. And we have sort of squandered, the, you know, the world’s. . . ” She was interrupted by another cohost, who assured her the matter would be discussed another day. No doubt it will be.

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman observed the tragedy’s anniversary by expressing her surprise “that America would lose our status as the good guy in the struggle against terrorism. I didn’t imagine that our government would squander the righteous role won for us the hard way by victims falling from the twin towers and firefighters racing to their deaths.”

So we can take our choice. We squandered the world’s good will. Or we squandered the world’s sympathy. Or we squandered the world’s support. Or we squandered our righteous role.

There’s one problem, though. The United States never enjoyed all that much good will, sympathy, and support or maintained a perceived righteous role.

The party line is that whatever the United States squandered was wasted by the ill-advised policies, primarily our involvement in Iraq, of George W. Bush.

The fact is the U.S. was widely disliked and distrusted even immediately after 9/11. I’m not speaking here of the dancing in the streets that we saw in some parts of the world. No matter the circumstances, there are always going to be people who rejoice when Americans are killed.

Two months after the attack, the Pew Research Center and the International Herald Tribune gathered the views of 275 influential people from around the world. These opinion leaders came from politics, media, business, culture and government.

The results of these interviews, taken only weeks after 9/11, don’t show much good will, sympathy or support,

Two-thirds of the Western European opinion leaders said that most or many of their populations believed it was a good thing for the U.S. to know what it’s like to be vulnerable. In Eastern Europe and Russia, Latin America and Asia, the numbers were even higher.

When asked if U.S policies and actions were a major cause of the attacks, more than a third of the influentials in Western Europe said most or many of their citizens feel that way. Again, the findings were even worse in other parts of the world with Eastern Europe and Russia at 71 percent and the Mideast at 81 percent.

Major reasons expressed for disliking the U.S. included it being too powerful, its alleged creating of gaps between rich and poor, its multinational corporations and American support of Israel.

Adding insult to injury, a significant percentage thought that their citizens believe the United States overreacted to the terrorist assault.

These responses were gathered shortly before the end of 2001. Iraq wasn’t invaded until 2003.

So where is the love? The answer: not many places, at least for Americans.

Maybe individuals around the world felt some empathy for the thousands of folks slaughtered that day. The reality, though, is that, then as now, the United States as a nation isn’t widely liked. Yet it’s a love-hate relationship with many foreigners desperately wanting to relocate themselves and their families here permanently.

All that supposed good will liberals speak of was never squandered because it didn’t actually exist. Saying differently may make a good talking point for those not paying attention, but that’s about it.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the September 21, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

As reported by Fox News, the senators were satisfied with their inspection. Inmates have access to a pharmacy, an operating room and a dentist. Five thousand vaccinations have been provided, as well as 22 prosthetic limbs. Almost 300 operations have been have been performed on prisoners.

One interrogation room the senators saw included a La-Z-Boy recliner. This isn’t for camp personnel. It’s for detainees being questioned.

Fox News didn’t mention if prisoners can send out to Starbucks for a latte, but maybe Durbin and his ideological soul mate Kennedy will sponsor legislation mandating that.

Last year Durbin complained about the air conditioning being adjusted to too cold or too hot for the prisoners. He also grumbled about loud rap music played at them.

Those methods are a continuing affront to liberal sensibilities. Just last week, the New York Times wrote of the 2002 apprehension of a bin Laden “henchman.” The article noted the terrorist was “subjected to coercive interrogation techniques – he was stripped, held in an icy room and jarred by earsplittingly loud music. . .”

Former KGB operative Vladimir Putin would laugh to hear those depicted as coercive interrogation techniques. Compared to his Communist predecessors and their Nazi counterparts, Putin’s own KGB was running a spa. And his organization didn’t even provide comfy chairs and dental care.

It’s probable that a few of our military personnel in Guantanamo Bay have sometimes gone too far in their treatment of detainees. That doesn’t mean, though, that mistreatment is the norm.

Certainly, there are constant provocations. One of the commanders mentioned that last year guards were pelted with spit, urine or fecal material more than 900 times, or about twice per prisoner. The Associated Press recently reported that fans, shower sandals, radios and parts of toilets and sinks have all been fashioned into weapons to attack guards.

Yet Durbin and other liberals prefer to focus on how the prisoners are treated.

The Fox News report was consistent with earlier ones indicating the detainees at Guantanamo Bay aren’t likely to be mistaken for concentration camp victims.

Right around the same time that Durbin started fretting over how we’re treating these poor folks obsessed with the thought of killing us, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.) held a press conference detailing the many horrors to which the inmates are routinely subjected.

A not atypical meal for them consists of lemon chicken, rice, broccoli, carrots, bread, and two types of fruit.

Prisoners are given prayer rugs and beads. Copies of the Quran are provided in more than a dozen languages.

They have a library. According to a BBC account last month, the library has more than 4,000 books. Harry Potter is a favorite.

Five times a day a prayer call is made over the loud speaker system. Hundreds of directional signs pointing to Mecca are posted. Yellow cones are placed in corridors as a reminder not to disturb prisoners while they’re praying.

In July Senator Durbin visited Guantanamo to see for himself what’s going on there. He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about a session he observed:

“The interrogator sat down, opened a bag, handed the detainee a Subway sandwich. He lit up, and started eating the sandwich and started talking.”

Still Dick is not satisfied. Even after his visit, Durbin wants the facility shut down quickly. He speaks of “the powerful negative image of Guantanamo around the world.”

It’s too bad that he can’t see the powerful negative image of the barbaric terrorists who want to kill us. La-Z-Boys and Subways aren’t going to win over their hearts and minds.

Marquis of Queensberry rules simply don’t apply. September 11th changed all that.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the September 14, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

At least that’s one of the conclusions derived from a recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll. More than a third of the respondents stated their belief that it was either very likely or somewhat likely that “people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

No doubt a good portion of folks who see things that way are apt to blame George W. Bush for everything bad, including yesterday’s thunderstorm. Moreover, the survey noted that individuals who regularly use the Internet are more prone to believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy.

The Internet disseminates an incredible amount of information. It also disseminates an incredible amount of misinformation.

The moon landing in 1969 was faked. The Ku Klux Klan has ties to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Or maybe it’s Snapple. Or perhaps it’s Marlboro cigarettes.

President Kennedy was killed by the CIA. Or the Mafia. Or anti-Castro Cubans. Or Lyndon Johnson. Or Nazis.

The survey’s 9/11 conspiracy advocates tended to be young adults, many of whom have evidently been amply indoctrinated by the nut cases holding tenure on college campuses.

The same Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that an even bigger percentage of folks believe there’s a government conspiracy to withhold evidence of intelligent life on other planets than believe the 9/11 scheme.

Seeing results like this makes me wonder about any evidence of intelligent life on this planet.

I’m not saying that there are no conspiracies. I think there have been some in the past and very probably are some right now. The word “conspiracy” comes from Latin for “breathing together.” It’s natural that people with similar values and objectives are drawn together.

But to think that “the government” could pull off something of the magnitude of 9/11 in total secrecy is to attribute to the bureaucracy a level of proficiency that is completely uncharacteristic of bureaucracies.
Generally, a bureaucrat’s job is nothing more than just a job. The burning desire much of the time is to stay out of trouble and stick around long enough to pick up the next cost of living raise. Risking one’s life or freedom to destroy fellow citizens isn’t in the job description.
If the U.S. government were involved, how many people would have been needed to accomplish the task? Dozens or hundreds or maybe even thousands. Yet we’re to accept that every single one of them, and their families and friends, have managed to keep what would be the biggest secret in history? They’ve turned their backs on the fame and fortune their disclosures would generate.
The lack of credible evidence of a plot doesn’t deter conspiracists. Indeed, that deficiency is viewed as another example of how extraordinarily successful and wide ranging the conspiracy is.

We saw the results of a conspiracy on 9/11. A relatively small number of al Qaeda operatives joined together to murder thousands of people. These men weren’t merely doing a job that included suicide as an ancillary duty. They thought of themselves as warriors doing God’s work.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the State Department and Popular Mechanics are among the entities that have produced reports refuting assorted 9/11 conspiracies. Their efforts and others will fall on deaf ears.

There will always be people who embrace conspiracies, no matter how loopy. When the world has seemingly gone insane, some individuals find comfort in theoretical explanations, even explanations that are outrageously convoluted, that help to make sense of the insanity. Replacing the rational with the absurd fills an emotional need.

I once had dinner with the late Congressman Larry MacDonald, a Democrat from Georgia. He said something worth remembering. If a man walks up to you and says that he’s just seen a purple elephant strolling down the street, don’t waste your time trying to convince him that he didn’t. There’s absolutely nothing you can say or do to persuade him otherwise, and he’ll only become more adamant about his vision. He’s simply too detached from reality for intervention to make a difference.

That’s how I feel about individuals who are so positive that the U.S. government orchestrated the killing of thousands of our own countrymen. It doesn’t make any sense, but convincing them of that isn’t possible. Having a new grassy knoll to hug is reassuring to them.
This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the September 7, 2006 Reporter Newspapers.

Organized labor’s most treasured value, solidarity, has been smashed. Six million union members have left the 15-million-strong AFL-CIO for the more militant Change to Win breakaway group.

“Look for the union label” was a song featured in an advertising campaign of the late 1970s. Americans by and large have stopped looking for the union label, on jobs as well as clothing.

Years ago, saying something was made in America meant more than it does now. Items that are higher priced than goods from overseas and only marginally better in terms of quality, if that, make such products less attractive to the consumer.

Half a century ago, more than one-third of American workers belonged to unions. Now, among private sector employees, membership has fallen to under ten percent.

The expanding U.S. economy has shifted from industries that traditionally have been strongly unionized. There are, though, other reasons for declining membership.

On average, union members earn more than other workers. This isn’t all the result of negotiated contracts. Even without representation, craft workers like carpenters and electricians would earn above average wages because of their above average skills.

And while members are often doing very well, some union bosses are doing even better. The leader of the National Education Association earns over $400,000 a year. The head of the Service Employees International Union, comprised of janitors and other service workers, pulls down almost $250,000 in total compensation while the secretary-treasury receives over $220,000. The president of a California United Food and Commercial Workers local made just under $195,000 in 2004.

Fringes aren’t too shabby either. An Ironworkers’ local ponied up more than $52,000 to buy its retiring president a new car.

When unions make mistakes, the penalties are paid by the rank-and-file through their dues. Last month in California, a jury ordered a union to pay more than $17 million in damages to a network of hospitals for defamation. The union, which had been in a dispute with the chain, spread false charges through a mass mailing.

In May, the National Education Association and its Alaska affiliate agreed to pay $750,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit initiated by three former NEA-Alaska employees.

The NEA has money to burn. It spends millions of dollars every year on political activities and in “contributions, gifts and grants.” Some of the fortunate recipients are the Democratic Leadership Council, the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network, the Reverend Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the National Women’s Law Center, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and Norman Lear’s People for the American Way.

I’ll bet the average teacher, who earned slightly under $47,000 in the 2003-2004 school year according to the NEA, wonders why dues are going to such organizations.

Probably for the same reason that the AFL-CIO is going to shoot $40 million to elect Democrats this fall.

Many unions either don’t realize that their members aren’t left leaning or the unions simply don’t care. There’s a huge gap between organized labor’s leaders and members whose dues are going to causes and candidates the rank-and-file doesn’t support.

One of the few bright areas for organized labor is government workers. Already earning more than their private-sector counterparts, and with unrivaled job security, a significant number of government workers have decided they need a union to get them even more.

And unions are now interested in helping illegal immigrants gain amnesty. Obviously, there’s a hope that these workers can be organized and turned into dues paying members.

In the end, “undocumented workers,” as organized labor prefers to call them, may well represent the future of unions in the United States.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the August 31, 2006 Oak Lawn Reporter.

You can choose your friends, but not your family. A number of politicians have found the axiom all too true.

Mrs. Clinton’s brothers may yet play a role in her pursuit of the presidency. And she is indeed already in pursuit, if Time magazine’s cover article this week is to be believed.

Mrs. Clinton is putting the machinery in place. Her husband is ‘“thinking about (her presidential prospects) all the time,’ says one of Hillary’s advisers. ‘He’s thinking about it and talking to a lot of people, promoting Hillary. This is something he is very focused on.’”

Time magazine wants to help. This is the tenth Time cover she’s been on. Even Princess Diana didn’t receive such royal treatment.

Moreover, the article makes no mention of her two brothers, Anthony and Hugh Rodham, both remarkable men. Anthony made the news only weeks ago.

The Washington Times reported that a bankruptcy judge has frozen Tony Rodham’s bank account. A court-appointed trustee is demanding Mrs. Clinton’s brother repay more than $100,000 in loans he obtained from a carnival company, United Shows of America, Inc.

How did Tony, who has described himself as a consultant – Gee, could he be a little vaguer? – get his mitts on carnival cash?

This is just a guess, but it may possibly have had something to do with two presidential pardons granted by Rodham’s brother-in-law. These weren’t part of Bill’s last minute specials; he approved them months before he left office.

In 2001, the New York Times described what happened:

“Former President Bill Clinton’s brother-in- law Tony Rodham helped obtain a presidential pardon for a Tennessee couple last March over the objections of the Justice Department, Mr. Rodham and lawyers involved in the pardon said today.

“Mr. Clinton pardoned Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo. The Gregorys, who live outside Nashville and own United Shows of America, a carnival company based in Smyrna, Tenn., were convicted of bank fraud in 1982, accused of using the assets of a bank they owned to give loans to friends.”

The article went on to say that neither Rodham nor the Gregorys would disclose their financial relationship. Justice Department officials strongly objected, but Tony wasn’t clowning around. The carnies received their pardons.

Now he’s in the news again, which may not be good for Sister Hillary’s ambitions. It might remind voters how her brother Hugh Rodham had taken $400,000 in exchange for getting other people pardoned. One ran a cocaine ring. The other was convicted of business fraud and three years after his pardon from Clinton was sentenced to 18 months in prison for not paying millions in taxes.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton denied any knowledge of Hugh’s enterprise. They insisted he return the money, which he did. Or at least said he did.

Then there was Hugh and Tony’s excellent Russian adventure. They wanted to grow and export hazelnuts from Georgia. Not Billy Carter’s Georgia, Joe Stalin’s Georgia. The scheme ran into trouble when the boys involved themselves in some tangled Soviet intrigue and brother-in-law Bill’s administration nixed it.

Whenever trouble surfaced, Hillary and Bill routinely denied they knew what the Rodham boys were up to. That’s not easy to accept. After all, Hugh and Tony were close enough to go on the Clintons’ honeymoon with them. For a time, Hugh listed the White House as his home address.

I began this by citing a few siblings who’ve embarrassed their presidential brothers. That’s nothing new and the Republic survives.

What’s different about Mrs. Clinton’s brothers is that they’ve almost certainly affected presidential decisions. Will they do that again if Hillary gets elected president?

It’s a reasonable question. She may have to keep them under wraps until after her White House run so she doesn’t have to answer it.

Surely she’d have her hand full with the Rodham rascals, emboldened by Sis’s success. Add to the mix her brother-in-law, Roger Clinton of the Ne’er Do Well Finishing and Pardon Peddling School, and you have a recipe for scandals that would make her husband’s administration look respectable. Well, almost.

This Michael M. Bates column appeared in the August 24, 2006 Oak Lawn Reporter.