Everybody’s talking about Reagan. Why we need him back. Why his policies that worked in the 1980’s won’t work now. Why the Reagan revolution is dead. And so on.

 

The people who point out that his problems are different than ours have a point. He faced double digit inflation, soaring interest rates, and high marginal tax rates. None of those conditions are present today.

 

Which leads to another point. Did Reagan just appear in 1980? Of course not. His seminal speech was way back in 1964. What happened in 1964? The economy was booming and LBJ was winning a landslide victory, which enabled him to enact all kinds of legislation and new programs. After all, there was plenty of money to go around, right?

 

Now, as then, times were good. And now, as then, the conservative message is going over with a thud. No one wants to hear talk of fiscal responsibility or the conservative work ethic or self reliance or anything like that. The argument isn’t how to get revenue, it’s who’s going to spend it, and on what. And so far, there’s been enough to go around to fund both Democrat and Republican pork barrel projects to make both parties flush with cash. The only people who think the economy has been bad over the last 6 years are the Democrats who were out of power most of that time. In the last 25 years, we’ve only had 2 mild recessions, nothing like the decade long recession of the 1970’s.

 

How long did Reagan have to wait before the country caught up with his message? 4 Presidential administrations, the Vietnam war, oil shocks, communist advances throughout the third world, and the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. 16 years worth of stagflation, price controls, and failed policies by both Democrat and Republican presidents. Because if you think about, times have to get really bad before people realize they need to change.

 

Want another Reagan? You might have to wait 16 years or so for another one. Or maybe longer. It'll take a lot more than a stock market correction for him to reappear.

Newt Gingrich is raising his voice again, commenting on the current election cycle. His main point, shared by other Republicans, is that the Reagan revolution is over. Gingrich seeks to redefine conservatism in the face of new realities – chief of which seems to be that there is no clear successor to George W. Bush in the Republican party.

 

Why is there no clear successor? People offer different reasons, but my take is that despite his reputation, George W. Bush is only half a conservative – at least on domestic policy. Certainly his resolve in the war on terror echoes some of Reagan’s peace through strength message. But if you look at both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush on the domestic front, their path diverges from the Reagan revolution.

 

Reagan’s domestic efforts had three main prongs. Cut taxes, scale back government spending, and reduce the regulatory burden on business. Since Reagan never succeeded in cutting spending, his domestic agenda rested on the two remaining prongs, both of which were pursued throughout his eight years in office.

 

When George H.W. Bush took over, he pretended to oppose tax increases, but immediately reversed Reagan’s policies on deregulation. He sent new initiatives to Congress – Clean Air bills, environmental regulations, and more. Then, he reneged on his tax pledge, which led to disaster as conservatives revolted and voted for Ross Perot.

 

George W. Bush learned only a partial lesson from his father – don’t raise taxes! But the other half of Reagan’s message – reducing regulations and getting government out of the way so business can function – has been lost. Today we are buried under a new Homeland Security bureaucracy, mandatory diversity classes, endless procedures to follow to hire/fire employees, and a No Child Left Behind program that has doubled Federal spending on education.

 

The 2008 candidates – Guiliani, Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, and Romney, all promise to keep taxes low. But like both Bush Presidents, they are blind to Reagan’s message of deregulation and freedom. Until that message is renewed, Reagan’s successors will fail to measure up to his legacy.

A few observations on the Republican debate tonight.

 

I was amazed by McCain’s comments on the deficit and spending. He claims he saved 6 billion dollars. Out of the trillions that have been spent? That’s all? But the really unbelievable comment was that in 25 years in Washington, he never took a budget earmark or pork barrel project for Arizona? Ever? Is there no Federal money going to Arizona?

 

I was not amazed by Huckabee’s shameless pandering to single mothers, children, and raising “hope”. He talked about getting the job done. That means more spending. And he thinks he’s catching flak by being over the target. His target is obviously democrats, because that’s who his message is tailored to.  

 

Giuliani played the leadership card. Strong national defense, economic sanctions against Iran. Caution in our dealings with Pakistan. Making a broad outreach to people outside the party like Reagan did. A serviceable performance but not overwhelming.  

 

Thompson was witty with lots of one liners. Policy wise he is very similar to Giuliani, the difference being that he is 100% pro life. A similar result to Giuliani, a good but not overwhelming performance.  

 

Romney was sort of drowned out by the others. His best point was that the same people in Washington will do the same thing they’ve been doing. Overspending. Immigration. Etc. But he said that he will change Washington? How? Even Reagan couldn’t do that.

 

For a marginal candidate, Ron Paul made some good points. He’s right that we’re borrowing money, and then shoveling it out to both Arabs and Israel alike. When will it end? I don’t agree with his Robert Taft position – Taft would not have had us in NATO at all. But there needs to be a middle ground between intervening everywhere and total isolationism, which is what Paul is pushing. And he’s way too alarmist – talking of war with Iran and how the economy is so terrible.

 

He mentioned that the government is robbing money from Social Security. He’s right, but you can’t stop government from robbing money from social security or gas tax money or education money. Once they have it the cash, they can do anything they want with it. You have to stop them from getting it in the first place. Which means we need to oppose all these new entitlements and stop doubling the size of the Federal Education bureaucracy.

 

My last point is about the media. The moderator asked if polls showing 2/3 of the people of Pakistan oppose their leader, should we support them? And he made the point several times. This is outrageous. The media is pushing the overthrow of Pakistan, just like they pushed the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. How did that turn out? Same stupidity, 30 years later. I guess Fox wasn’t around back then to see Carter’s mistakes. It’s one thing to have politicians push dangerous policies. It’s quite another to have the media do it.

 

 

Looking at Fred Thompson’s campaign, I’ve been wondering what his strategy is. He has good ideas and calm demeanor that inspires trust. But for someone with good ideas, he hasn’t done a good job getting the message out. He ran a few ads in Iowa, but pretty much skipped New Hampshire. Supposedly he will make his stand in the south.

 

Maybe that’s true. But it struck me today that maybe Thompson isn’t running for President. Perhaps he’s really running for Vice President.

 

Think about it. Thompson has never put forth the energy level to run for President. He doesn’t have the money, staff, or message to run nationally. But running a nominal campaign for President gets his name out there to be considered for the Vice Presidential spot. And if the Republican candidate is Guiliani or McCain or Romney, Thompson’s presence on the ticket can be a conservative balance to a liberal Republican ticket.

 

Much as I would like Thompson to get the nomination, I don’t think it will happen. But his presence on the ticket as the Vice Presidential nominee would make me feel better about the more liberal Republicans who are likely to get the nomination.

 

 

For the first time in a long time, there is no Republican front runner. Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee - they've all got flaws. No one has emerged from the pack. Why?

Look at the prior Republican nominees. Reagan, both Bushes, Dole, Ford, and Nixon were well established candidates, either governors of large states or Washington insiders with track records in Congress or appointed offices. All of them ran well in elections except for Dole.

The current crop of candidates is short on experience, particularly Romney and Guiliani. McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson have track records, but no national appeal because none of them hail from major states like Texas or California.

And there's lots of pressure to create a front runner. Despite tying McCain in Iowa with 13% of the vote, people want Thompson out. Romney is under pressure after losing to Huckabee. Guiliani didn't even bother to campaign there.

The other thing is, the candidates don't have well defined agendas. That's why they pale in comparison to Reagan or even Nixon and Bush. No one is sure what Huckabee or Romney will do. Thompson's record is probably the most consistent, but he is too low key, with no Reaganesque ability to get the message out. McCain has done too many deals with Ted Kennedy to be taken seriously as a conservative.

What about Guiliani? Can you imagine Reagan or Bush or Nixon skipping both Iowa and New Hampshire? Isn't Guiliani's whole campaign based on the assumption that he can run in all 50 states? Apparenty he can only get elected in 48 states, based on his effort level in the first two. And if he doesn't get his campaign started soon, he might not get elected anywhere. 



 

Why are people rushing to Obama? Because they don't like HIllary's track record. They know she will raise taxes, they know she will implement big government programs, and they know she flip flops on foreign policy.

Obama, by contrast, has virtually no track record, so no one can dislike him yet. Until Hillary's campaign starts hammering him on the fact that he has no experience.

But that's the Democrats problem. Every time they nominate someone with a track record, the track record destroys them as a candidate. Once people got a close look at John Kerry and Michael Dukakis and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean, they wanted no part of them.
 
So what's the altenative? Nominate someone with no track record, like Obama or Jimmy Carter or BIll Clinton. Then, run them as an outsider to deflect the fact that they have no experience. It's an imperfect strategy, but that is the only way they can win the Presidency. The last Democrat with a track record to win was Lyndon Johnson, and we all know how that turned out.

It says something about the state of the Democrats when their experienced candidates can't run and they have to turn to outsiders. Isn't that a rejection of the party and what it stands for? The only way for them to win is to hide their true intentions, until the outsider wins.

 

 A couple of days ago, I watched Three Days of the Condor. I’d seen it before, many years ago. It’s a mix of action movie, espionage thriller, and conspiracy mystery. In the movie, John Houseman talks briefly about his youth in intelligence work after the Great War, and longs for the clarity of those times instead of the doubt and uncertainty he faces.

 

I had to laugh. Here is a film, in the middle of the Cold War, filled with ambiguity and intrigue about America’s role in the world and CIA evil plots and oil and so forth. The funny thing is, people in the present time long for the Cold War as a time of clarity!

 

Really? No one had doubts about the future? They didn’t have loud and noisy nuclear freeze demonstrations or assassination attempts on world leaders? Everyone was on board with the plan to take down the Soviet Union? No one argued for peaceful coexistence with the communists? If everything was so clear then, how come people are still arguing about who won the Cold War?

 

Hollywood has long capitalized on feelings of doubt and ambiguity and self reflection. While entertaining in the movies, it has little relevance in historical comparisons. The people facing the Great War and the Cold War and the Napoleonic Wars were just as uncertain as we are, with similar doubts and swirling conspiracy theories. The “Good Old Days” don’t exist, except in imagination and wishful thinking.

Well, the initial results are in. Obama beat Hillary by 9 points in Iowa, while Huckabee beat Romney in the Republican primary. And there's interesting lesssons on both stories.

Romney spent big bucks in Iowa, canvassing the state and attacking Huckabee at every step. And what did he get? A crushing defeat. He'd of done better to stay out altogether like Guiliani did, because you can't put that level of money and effort into a state and lose that badly This doesn't mean Huckabee will win, but it likely means that Romney will not.

On the Democratic side, Obama's victory was a landmark victory for a black candidate in a state with maybe 3% black voters. You'd think the media would be all over a minority victory. After all, that's a liberal staple - minorities don't have a level playing field and no opportunities. Shouldn't they be trumpeting his win as a great statement of a new epoch dawning in American history?

But they're not. Why? Because they're bought and paid for by HIllary. All the coverage last night was either about how HIllary's campaign is fine, or an abundance of stories on Huckabee to take attention away from Obama's victory. And it'll be interesting to see how HIllary counterattacks.

The Japanese were right

 

When the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, they were convinced that Americans were too weak, too divided, and too complacent to fight back. They were right – just 50 years too early. The America that they foresaw has come to pass. Elitist, divided, complacent, subverted by wealthy influence from other nations in Europe and Asia. The biggest story is the mortgage bailout deal, brokered by the government because people who made stupid decisions can’t pay for them. Rather than suffer the consequences, the government throws the burden on those who made conservative financial choices and lived within their means. It’s insidious, rewarding those who have poor judgment and punishing those who have any business or financial sense. It’s like bailing out people who built houses in the path of hurricanes, or in a flood plain, or on a mountainside. If people can’t make sound financial decisions or assess risk, how can they fight a war? Remember, these are the same people who whine about Iraq on a daily basis.  

 

The seeds of this were built in the 70s, where labor was ascendant and government bailouts became commonplace. Big labor controlled the auto industry, where workers had the best blue collar salaries in America, lavish benefits, and generous retirement programs. And it wasn’t enough. They complained about the supposedly terrible workplace conditions and resisted every effort to make the industry competitive with the Japanese and European auto imports. Take this job and shove it! And when you’re not shoving those jobs, the government had better protect those jobs, because no one should be laid off or fired, regardless of how lousy their performance is.

 

The inevitable result is the dumbing down of people and a slackening of standards and personal responsibility. After all, if the government will bail you out, why be responsible? Be reckless, go to Vegas, bet it all on black! The government will confiscate other people’s money to save you. And the crime of it is, these people have no idea how to run a business or create wealth. Everything they have is a result of the entrepreneurial spirit that created this country, and they are systematically destroying it.

 

And what’s the result of this? The Chrysler bailout only postponed the inevitable. Labor destroyed the auto industry in America. Ford and GM stocks now have “junk” ratings. And there’s a lesson to be learned here. Jobs cannot be protected by government intervention. The way to keep your job is to improve your skills and stay competitive, whether you run your own business or work for an international conglomerate. That’s why Unions are the poisoned utopia, providing short term instant gratification (protect my job, sue the boss) in exchange for long term pain (the destruction of entire industries).

 

Sure, the government can put a bandaid on the mortgage crisis. They can manufacture claims of deceptive loan practices to take the heat off of greedy borrowers who gambled wrong on the housing bubble. Once again, instant gratification strikes again. Just remember, the long term price is that bailout money comes from increased fees for those who get stable, fixed mortgages. People like you.

 

Bourne Ultimatum

 

Today, we went out to see the Bourne Ultimatum. It was very entertaining, with nonstop action. Which is a good thing because the plot made no sense.

 

Much of the movie shows a CIA deep cover anti-terrorism unit trying to track down Jason Bourne from their New York Headquarters. It demonstrated the issue of centralized control and the problems that come with it. For example, I started counting the number of times the CIA operations leader said "What the hell is going on? or Where the hell is he?" Well, you're not giving operational control to your people on the ground, or at least to a local operations center. So what do you expect when you try to micromanage things from New York?

 

The other thing is, I know too much about Information Technology to enjoy this movie. Supposedly the CIA operations center can get into every camera, every phone(except a recently purchased one) and every computer system they need to. A firewall is only mentioned once(incorrectly, since denial of access in the real world is done by account authentication or file/folder privileges, not by firewalls). And no mention of different technology platforms is made, it makes no difference whether you have Sprint, Nextel, Blackberry, or any other type of phone or service, "they" can access it all.

 

In another instance, a computer is shown with Norton protection. I had to laugh, because I've tried Norton - good luck trying to do anything quickly while it scans EVERY item on your computer. Or the time a character said "Give me EVERYTHING you have on so and so on screen one!". Have fun sifting through all those files on one screen.

 

But it's even more than that. The implication is that the government can spy on you everywhere. This omits the main fact of modern life - your voice is too small to be heard. You wish you were important enough for the government to spy on, but in reality you're just a number in the queue buried by thousands of others. As long as you pay your taxes and avoid murder, child molestation, and racist epithets, no one will ever notice you.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/19/07

“Contested” immigration bill

 

Today, there’s a story out about a “contested” immigration bill in France. The legislature approved a bill that requires language tests and possible DNA testing for potential immigrants to France. The reason the article is “contested” is that it “may make it more difficult for families to join loved ones in France.” Accusations of Xenophobia are rising, particularly because the bill also establishes minimum income levels to ensure that immigrants have financial support. Meaning they won’t just show up and use up services for free.

 

The really bothersome part of this is the idea that “families” are being kept apart. France did not force the first member of the family to sneak into the country. They willingly split up the family, using one member to gain residence or citizenship to use as leverage to get the entire family in. There’s enough to go around, right?

 

 Sorry, but there’s no free lunch. That’s why the legislature passed this bill, because there isn’t enough money to support all of these people. You see, France is our future – when taxes are so high that there’s no more money to confiscate. They have universal health care and generous benefits and long vacations, the utopia that liberals promise us in the United States. For the entitled citizens, working in France is optional – they can go on public assistance when they turn 18 or they can choose to work. But there’s a price tag to all these benefits, and the butcher’s bill is coming due. They have all the money they’ll get, and it’s not enough – even with a minimal defense budget provided by the presence of US troops in Britain and Germany.

 

Sure, right now in the United States the economy is good, and the only thing both parties want to fight over is how to split up the pie. It’s just assumed that revenue will continue to increase as it has for the last 25 years. Problem is, spending has outstripped tax revenue for most of that time. Which reveals the old adage – the more they get, the more they spend. Until they get to where France is right now. Faced with the inevitable, the forces of self righteousness cannot admit that they were wrong about their utopian vision. No, it’s racists and xenophobes and right wing wackos and conservatives who are trying to take their candy away – there MUST be more money somewhere! Isn’t there? That’s the most dangerous liberal assumption of all, that there’s always money to grab from the defense budget and the rich and the greedy businessmen.

 

Which brings up another issue – redistribution of wealth. Remember the tobacco settlement? All the self righteous talk of getting the tobacco companies to pay for the health care of those addicted to smoking? Where’s the flood of money into the health care system to lower medical premiums? Last I checked, our medical costs still go up every year.

 

Well guess what? The money was taken from the tobacco firms, but the lions share didn’t go to healthcare. No, it went to advertising firms for anti smoking ads. And to the legal firms who piled up the billable hours pushing the case. Which means that wealth was taken from greedy tobacco businessmen and given to greedy advertising companies and greedy lawyers. Last I heard, redistribution of wealth was supposed to be from the top down, not sideways.

 

It’s like the state lotteries – a token amount goes to schools, and the bulk of the money goes to administrative overhead. Or the money from gasoline taxes. A token amount goes to fix the roads, and the rest gets diverted elsewhere. Talking about health care and schools and families is just leverage to get you to enable the diversion of funds.

 

That’s the truth about the 21^st century, a hard emotional sales pitch up front, which provides instant gratification to liberals and the feeling that they’re dong the right thing, followed by the diversion of funds from their intended purpose.

 

So next time you hear the hard sales pitch, count me out – I know where the money’s really going. And I’m not interested in instant gratification.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

10/23/07

 

 

Today, I saw that pop singer Gwen Stefani performed in Malaysia, with the proviso that she covered up - no midriff baring tops, long pants, and sleeves. This satisfied Muslim dress requirements, which she agreed to do.

 

Think about it. What if Christian groups had asked her to "cover up" in the United States? The media would have been outraged, charging Christians with religious oppression and violations of the free speech amendment and so on. And Stefani would continue to perform in her skimpy outfits here to loud cheers from the liberals.

 

What's the difference between Muslims and Christians setting decency standards? If you listen to the liberals, it's all about diversity. But the real reason is fear. Muslims, after all, have threatened and killed people who disagree with them. Despite the media's rhetoric about how "dangerous" Christians are, no one has anything to fear from them. This is shown by liberal’s contemptuous disregard for Christian attempts to set parental controls on television, video games, sex education in public schools, and a host of other decency/obscenity related items. Under assault on multiple fronts by the media, the ACLU, corporations, feminists, Hollywood, gays, government, and the diversity police, Christian influence is fading rapidly. 

 

The problem is, Christians forgot the realities of the world - force rules. They bought into their own rhetoric about peace and love and including everyone. The Muslims have not - their religion is backed by force. Neither has the ACLU - they have armies of lawyers and sheriff's deputies to enforce their will. For all the talk about the power of the religious right, it's liberals who have society's levers of power in their hands.

 

Corporations understand this as well. For all whining and complaining that companies do about Microsoft, they fear them and understand what will happen if they don't pay the licensing fees. Corporations that are no longer feared, like GM, Ford, and Chrysler, are disappearing. Look at the leaders of society. In sports, you have the George Steinbrenners and the Al Davises. In the media, you have Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner. All effective leaders, no matter how charming and photogenic they are, inspire a little bit of fear. Name one Christian leader who is feared today. Anyone?

 

The whole idea of separation of church and state in the West has defanged Christianity. And without some sort of force to back it up - meaning troops, lawyers, sheriff's deputies, or a defined place in government - Christianity will wither away and die.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/24/07

Today, I’m reading an article about Lily Allen, the British pop star who had her United States work visa revoked. She’s all unhappy with Bush, dropping swear words at him as liberals like to do. And it brings up comparisons to the Dixie Chicks, who famously slammed Bush, and then infamously faded from sight, complaining about their “freedom of speech” all the way.

The thing is freedom of speech only guarantees you the freedom to say what you want. It does not prevent you from the consequences. If you lie under oath, you may be charged with perjury. If you lie in business dealings, you may be charged with fraud. If you make disparaging comments about other people, those other people and their friends may respond with disparaging comments about you. They may even stop doing business with you. If you want to make boatloads of money performing in a foreign country, it’s probably not a wise move to disparage that country or its leaders, even if other performing acts have done so and gotten away with it. Because you might end up on a plane back to your own country, with diminished revenue prospects, whining all the way.

But that’s the underlying problem with liberals. While we see a land of opportunity to make a successful career, maybe start a business and raise a family, they see it as a chance to “get over”. To push the boundaries with shady lawyers and edgy performances. And according to them, why not? After all, corrupt politicians and greedy businessman get away with it, so why shouldn't liberals take advantage too? Everybody’s doing it, join in the fun!

The thing is, the middle and lower classes are seeing the politicians and wealthy get away with things, and are not at all happy to see someone else skirting the law too. Middle America still demands honesty and fair dealing, not only from the wealthy, but from everyone else too. This confounds liberals to no end - they expect to be cheered like bank robbers during the depression, and end up with their albums thrown in the trash and their public image besmirched. When reality finally strikes, they expand their insults and hatred to include their "disloyal" fans, who they never liked anyway, except when they cashed their checks.

Another problem for liberals is their own ideology getting in the way. Every time they get caught by the law, they complain that they were "singled out". Now remember, liberal ideology states that 'everyone is doing it". That means that law enforcement has cause to arrest everyone, since we're all supposedly engaging in illicit behavior. So why complain about the law - they have every right to arrest you, and you committed the cardinal sin in a large society - you got noticed. You stuck your head up and got hammered down. But that's the price you pay for making "STATEMENTS" that you want to change the world. If you don't want the border officials and other agencies paying you special attention, stop calling press conferences begging for special attention.

Because you see, liberals aren't all that unhappy about being singed out - at least they made headlines! Because the worst thing for them is the existence that you and I have, a quiet life with nobody taking notice of you. Even if they have to take their medicine when they don't want to.

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/20/07

 

Mortgage and stock market crises

 

More stories are appearing about the mortgage crisis and sub prime mortgages. And with the stock market down last week, the gloom and doomers have added that to their list of woes. Which begs a question. Why does a market correction in housing and/or the stock market cause such fear?

 

Let's say you bought a house for $150,000. Market appreciation raised the value to around $300,000, but you didn't sell because you live in it or have it rented as investment property to someone else. So the market corrects and the value goes down to $225,000. Sure, you've lost some paper wealth. But you're still $75,000 ahead. But that's not how it's reported. It's reported as a wave of adjustable rate mortgage foreclosures, ignoring the growing industry of refinancing ARMs to fixed rate mortgages. Supposedly the public has no other option but to watch the ARMS explode in our faces with nothing they can do.

 

How about the stock market. Let's say you've been investing in your 401k or IRA. For the last few years, the market has risen nicely, and you're 50% ahead. Now when the market corrected last week, you lost 1/2 your gain so you're only 25% ahead. Sure, you're not as far up as you were, but you've still got a nice gain.

 

But once again, that's not how it's reported. The news networks do not factor in prior gains in either the investment or real estate markets. Every loss is from ground zero, the value you have right now, and is seen as a "crash" or "meltdown".

 

And it's more than that. If the much hoped for crash or meltdown doesn't occur, they can whine about how greed is sweeping the country. That's the problem, too many opportunists playing both sides against the middle, classifying you as either greedy when things are going well, or crying Chicken Little that the sky is falling when there's a correction. You know what? If you can't handle a correction that's part of the normal market cycle, you shouldn't invest in anything and keep your money under a mattress.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/21/07

            Yesterday, the NFL fined Bill Belichick $500,000 and the Patriots an additional $250,000 for videotaping opponents signals. The Patriots will also lose draft picks, either a first rounder if they make the playoffs, or a 2^nd and 3^rd rounder if they don’t. Opposing players are talking about past games, both regular season and playoff games, where they suspected the Patriots were stealing signals. Now their suspicions are confirmed.

            Being an old Rams fan, I have a dog in this hunt. Watching the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl a few years ago, I wondered how the Patriots always seemed to be in the right coverage. Now I know – they were cheating!

            Belichick issued a statement that gave the usual non-apologies, barely mentioning the videotaping “procedure”, indicating that it was a misinterpretation of the rules, and that it was not done to gain a competitive advantage during the game. Then he held a press conference. He refused to address the issue, saying it was over with and didn’t matter and didn’t anyone want to ask about the Chargers game? Everything was in the same monotone. I half expected him to say, “next question”.

            The $500,000 fine speaks volumes about this. You don’t fine that amount if it’s an isolated incident. And it’s not. Opposing coaches have complained on more than one occasion that their sideline headphones failed at critical moments during the game. This brings back memories of the old Boston Garden and the tricks the Celtics would play on opposing teams, from turning off the showers and turning off the air conditioning in the visitor’s locker room, to having workmen interrupt the other teams practice schedule, to turning on fire alarms in the other team’s hotel.

            But what really got me was Belichick’s attitude. He’s not remotely sorry about what happened. He tried to pretend that the Patriot’s preparation for games will be normal. Really? Won’t you get fined a ½ million again if you do the normal procedures you’ve been doing? And if you didn’t do it to gain a competitive advantage, why did you do it at all?

            A TV commentator, asked about the veracity of the claims, stated that the Patriots preparation and work ethic were superior to any other team – implying that the videotaping of signals had no effect on the outcome of prior games. There’s no way to prove that the Patriot’s preparation is better, it’s just a perception they have created in the media and in the public’s mind. And that perception is very powerful, strong enough to ride them through this crisis. The fact remains that whatever shenanigans they’ve pulled, they’ve gotten away with it. No amount of criticism now is going to take away those super bowl rings. And that’s too bad, because they probably cheated to get them.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

9/14/07