Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail

On June 27th I posted an article that talked a bit about Michael Moore and the left's canard that George Bush is America's equivalent to Adolph Hitler. In the article I linked to a history site in order to compare what Adolph Hitler actually did in regards to rival political parties, elections, treatment of gays, and so on, to what George Bush has done. Needless to say, nothing that George Bush has done at any time in his political career even remotely compares to the violent repression of dissenters and rivals by Adolph Hitler and the criminals and thugs that backed him. The whole "Bush=Hitler" meme so popular on the far left is obviously bunk, but unfortunately, some people just can't let it go.

Email from a Reader (Gee, someone actually reads this tripe?)

An example: yesterday I got an email from someone that read the post I linked above (Moore Boorish Behavior). This reader took the time to write to tell me I should re-think my position on George Bush, because Bush's legal team is now looking for ways to cancel the November presidential election. You see, Bush really is Hitler!

Here's the text of the email I received. I've left the reader's name and email off to protect this person's privacy:

> Your blog:
>
> "Has George W. Bush banned any political parties or
> cancelled any elections? No, but Hitler did."
>
>
> Maybe the question should be, "WILL George W. Bush cancel the November
> election?" His legal team is looking into the possibility now--in the
> interest of "Homeland Security," ... of course.
>

My Response

I couldn't just let this go, so I stayed up way too late last night composing a response. Here it is, slightly edited to improve the text formatting and include links to relevant pages. Again, I've deleted any identifying information to protect privacy:

Really, <reader>, do you honestly think George Bush will try to cancel the elections? I'm sorry, but that just seems like off-the-wall thinking to me.

Here's the original article that sparked all the controversy:

Newsweek Exclusive: Election Day Worries

As it says, there's concern among federal officials that there is no plan in place to handle a serious emergency or terrorist attack, should one (God forbid!) occur on the day of, or the day prior to, the presidential election. Speaking as an engineer, not having a plan in place seems to me to be a serious lapse: "failing to plan is planning to fail", as we like to say.

In my opinion, an honest reading of what's happening is that federal election officials have noted that there isn't a plan in place, and have asked the Homeland Security people to look into what could and should be done if a terrorist attack occurs. The Homeland Security folks have asked the Justice Department to look at the laws to see what legal steps could be taken, as part of the process of creating a plan. Since there isn't any law that allows an election to be postponed, any plan that included postponing an election would require new laws to be passed by Congress and federal elections regulations to be written and approved. Any new laws would undoubtedly be vigorously debated, as they should be, as postponing a presidential election would be unprecedented. Unless you're way out on a limb with conspiracy theories, I don't see how anyone can seriously view this as an attempt by George W. Bush to overthrow the government. I mean, according to the extreme left, Bush is barely smart enough to tie his own shoes. How can he put together a sophisticated plan to steal the election?

It's unfortunate that in the current climate of extreme partisanship that this issue is even brought up, because it's just reinforces the conspiracy-theory thinking of people that hate George Bush. But the fact of the matter is that some plan should be in place to figure out what to do in the event of a serious attack near the elections - not having a plan is just plain irresponsible. Can you imagine the uproar if an attack were to take place, and no plan was in place? The Democrats would be calling for Bush's head on a platter - with some justification, I think.

The final version of the plan may not include postponing the election, but it has to be one of the options on the table as the plan is developed. That's just how planning like this is done - consider all the options available, develop scenarios covering as many different possibilities as you can imagine, and create contingencies for all of the different scenarios, using all of the tools you have available.

BTW: your statement is factually incorrect. No one is looking at "canceling" the election, as you say. They are looking at postponing the election should something happen that would prevent the election from being free and fair.

I also note the scare quotes around "Homeland Security" in your email. Perhaps I was imagining the ~3,000 people killed on 9/11/2001? Or maybe I was just imagining the train bombings in Spain where al Qaeda directly influenced the outcome of the elections? No, come to think of it, those terrible things really did happen. You know, when I connect those dots, I see a line pointing right at a potential disaster for our country - and I think we ought to be prepared for it.

Don't you?

I don't know what your political thinking is, <reader>, but I think I can make a pretty good guess. It's unfortunate that (it appears to me) you're letting your dislike of our current president cloud your thinking on what is a serious topic, worthy of non-partisan debate. There is certainly a real potential for a very deadly attack near our elections, intended by al Qaeda to disrupt the process and tear the country apart, because we are so divided right now. Rather than accusing Bush of trying to overthrow our democratic process (which is just ridiculous on the face of it), shouldn't we all come together to create a plan to deal with the eventuality of a terrorist attack, so that no matter what they do, the terrorists fail in the larger sense?

Thanks for writing, <reader>.

Probably tomorrow, I will be using your email and my reply in a post on my blog. Since I didn't inform you ahead of time that it's my policy that any correspondence I receive regarding posts on my blog also might be posted, I'll remove any information that identifies you.

Sincerely,

Pete Nelson

So, there you have it. This reader apparently seriously believes that George W. Bush is plotting to cancel the elections in November and replace our democracy with a right-wing dictatorship, a la Hitler's Third Reich.  This level of paranoia is nearly clinical, in my (unprofessional) view. It's also, unfortunately, all too common on the left.

As I said in my reply, the timing of the administration's proposal to develop a plan for handling a near-election terror attack is regrettable. It just fuels the fire of the anti-Bush extremists. On the other hand, it's clearly something that needs to be done. Should a terror attack occur on or immediately before the election with no plan in place, it's quite possible that the country would be thrown into chaos, with widespread demonstrations and riots. I think this is especially true if George Bush were to win in a close election following an attack - the anger on the left is already amazingly irrational and bitter. I hate to think what could happen. So even though, in the short term, it's going to lead to even more craziness from the left (witness, the email I got yesterday), I believe that a broad-based, non-partisan and comprehensive plan for handling a near-election terror attack has to be developed, debated and adopted - the sooner, the better.

Since I've posted an email I received from a reader, it's time I made my policies clear. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll say this in plain English, to the best of my ability.

Pete's Journal Policies and Terms of Use

These policies and terms of use are subject to change without warning or notice at any time. Please read them carefully before accessing content on this site or corresponding with me in any way.

    Policy On Email and Other Correspondence

Any correspondence I receive, or any conversation I take part in, from or with any person, in any capacity, whether via electronic mail, comments posted via the commenting service on my site, regular mail services, electronic messaging service, telephone or in-person conversation regarding the content posted on this site (Pete's Journal) becomes my personal property and may become the subject of a post on this site at my sole discretion. I may choose to post all, part, or none of any correspondence or conversation I receive or take part in, at my sole discretion.

Under no circumstances do I promise or agree to keep any portion of any correspondence or conversation in confidence. If you correspond or converse with me in any way, I may choose to post your name or any other personal information you provide in the correspondence or conversation, including, but not limited to, your email address, telephone number, and street address. You have been warned. If you don't like it, don't correspond with me. Especially, don't correspond in a vulgar, impolite or belligerent manner.

If a correspondent asks me not to post something he or she has written in a respectful and polite manner, I am more than likely (but not certain) to respect that request, unless I obtain prior permission from the correspondent. On the other hand, if someone corresponds or converses with me in a disrespectful, impolite or belligerent manner, I am quite likely to post the content of the correspondence or conversation, just to make the world aware of your stupidity and to give the world the opportunity to give you feedback.

Since any correspondence I receive becomes my personal property, I may choose to alter it in any fashion I see fit, should I choose to post it. I am almost certain to remove any vulgarity. If I choose to leave it in, I am certain to emphasize it in a manner that puts you in the worst possible light. Again, this would be to make the world aware of your stupidity. So, please don't bother sending me anything vulgar or insulting, disrespectful of my beliefs, racist, anti-Semitic, violently homophobic, sexist or otherwise plain stupid.

The bottom line: while I welcome thoughtful and respectful correspondence and debate based on the facts as you see them, if you can't express yourself without resorting to vulgarity, cursing or personal attacks, don't bother writing. This is my site. I pay for it. It is not a public forum. So, if you can't behave yourself when you correspond or comment, don't visit this site.

    Terms of Use

If I were a lawyer like Glenn Reynolds, I'd write some really scary legalese here, like his Terms of Use. Since I'm not, my threats have to be in everyday English.

First of all, every bit of original content (the stuff I wrote - which is pretty much everything) on this site is copyrighted © by Peter R. Nelson and cannot be used in any way without prior permission explicitly given by me in writing, except as I spell out here.

Here's how you can use my content:

1. You can quote, cite, make hyperlinks to, excerpt, print or copy content from this site, as long as you give credit where credit is due; that is, you have to give me credit for all content I write, wherever my content is quoted, cited, linked, excerpted, printed, copied or used in any other way. The preferred method of giving me credit is via a hyperlink to:
   
               Pete's Journal at http://home.comcast.net/~pete-nelson/journal.htm
   
     The link should, in most cases, be coded like this:
   
               <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~pete-nelson/journal.htm">Pete's Journal</a>
   
   If a hyperlink cannot be included (e.g. because the content is being used in print media), then you can give credit to "Pete Nelson of Pete's Journal" and include the URL to the site in written form.
2. You affirm and agree that I am expressing my own personal opinions in all content posted on this site in accordance with the First Amendment rights afforded all citizens of the United States; therefore, you affirm and agree that you will not sue me in any court in any state or country, for any reason whatsoever.
3. You affirm and agree that, since I am expressing my own personal opinions, I cannot and will not be held liable for any damages of any type (monetary or otherwise) accrued to you due to actions you take, whether or not those actions are based on my opinions.
4. You affirm and agree that if you do sue me in any court for any reason, any and all permissions granted, whether expressed or implied, at any time past or present, to access, read, quote, cite, hyperlink to, excerpt, print, copy or in any other way use the content of this site are immediately and forever revoked, and you must immediately, permanently, and unconditionally destroy any and all content I have written that is in your possession or that you control on any and all types of storage or archival media.
5. You affirm and agree that if you do sue me, you are in violation of these Terms of Use and may be in violation of the copyright laws of the United States of America and may be liable for civil or criminal penalties.
6. You affirm and agree that accessing this site and reading, quoting from, hyperlinking to, excerpting, printing, copying or in any other way using the content of this site means that you accept these Terms of Use and the copyright laws of the United States of America and agree to abide by them.

If you cannot or will not accept and abide by these Terms of Use, you do not have permission to access, read, quote, cite, hyperlink to, excerpt, print or in any other way use the content of this site. You must immediately leave this site and immediately, unconditionally and permanently destroy any content I have written that is in your possession or that you control on any and all types of storage or archival media.

The bottom line: this is my site, where I what I write are my own opinions. If you don't like them, go away and don't bother me. If you want to use something I have written, have the decency to give me credit.

Permanent link