book commentary

“In Defense of Internment: a Betrayal of Conservative Values”
By Daniel G. Jennings
I never thought I would see a book that attacks Ronald Reagan and defends Franklin D. Roosevelt as a main selection of the Conservative Book Club. Yet that is exactly what Michelle Malkin does in her latest tome, “In Defense of Interment: the Case for Racial Profiling in World War Two and the War on Terror.” (Washington DC, Regnery Publishing Inc. 2004)
In this amateur and intellectually dishonest attempt at historical revisionism Malkin defends FDR’s unconstitutional World War II decision to force Japanese Americans from their homes and place them in what FDR himself called concentration camps. At the same time, she attacks Ronald Reagan for signing a 1988 federal law that paid innocent Japanese Americans restitution for the losses they incurred during World War II.
Although Malkin is supposedly a conservative columnist this book reads like a liberal defense of Franklin D. Roosevelt and big government rather than a conservative work. Malkin’s thesis is that during World War II FDR had special knowledge gained from reading classified intelligence reports based on coded messages sent by the Japanese government in the 1940s and that this special knowledge justified FDR’s decision to order the military to place all Japanese Americans (the majority of whom were US citizens) living on the West Coast in prison camps with no trial. Malkin’s thesis which runs counter to the accepted view of most historians* which is that FDR’s actions were unjustified. Malkin elaborates her case by stating that there is evidence that some Japanese spies were operating in the US in 1941 which is true.
Yet nowhere does she state how these intelligence reports justified the Roosevelt administration’s policy of forcing every Japanese American including women, children, infants, the elderly, invalids, and decorated Japanese American veterans of World War I to leave the West Coast. Was there a secret report that stated that the Imperial Japanese government was going to use Japanese American children, invalids and infants to attack the United States in World War II? How did the existence of a few Japanese spies justify FDR’s rash act? Yes Japanese messages intercepted by American code breakers pointed to the existence of Japanese spy rings in the US, yet on the ground investigations by the FBI and other agency proved those spies were little threat to national security. Roosevelt apparently didn’t even ask legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover if internment was necessary he simply issued an order for it. Hoover himself no champion of civil rights felt FDR went too far in the evacuation. FDR failed to clarify the intelligence reports by checking with the agents in the field, if he had he would have learned that there were few Japanese spies and no need for internment.
Malkin refuses to evaluate FDR’s action by any sort of ethical standard which would say that placing children, invalids and the elderly in prison camps without trial is wrong. Or to ask the important question, why didn’t FDR place all Italian and German Americans on the coasts in concentration camps? After all German submarines operating off the east coast did far more damage to our World War Two war effort than Japanese forces and there were large German communities along the east coast and many German Americans who sympathized with Hitler. Could the fact that there were millions of German and Italian American voters in 1941 but only a handful of Japanese American voters affected FDR’s thinking on national security issues?
Malkin defends FDR’s blatant abuse of authority and trampling of the rights of ordinary Americans as justified because it was done in the name of national security. She praises World War II era Americans for blindly accepting FDR’s leadership and seems to call upon Americans today to do the same. Malkin is saying that government is always right and its leaders can do no wrong. That’s the most unconservative thing I’ve read in years.
Her attack on Reagan is also bothersome, Malkin attacks Reagan because Reagan treated the Japanese Americans with the compassion, common sense and humanity FDR failed to show. In 1988, Reagan was about to veto the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which gave reparations to Japanese Americans, on the advice of national security technocrats when then New Jersey Governor Thomas Kearn asked the Gipper to remember his personal experience of handing a medal to a Japanese American family in 1945 who couldn’t bury their son killed in the war in the cemetery of their California hometown. Reagan remembering the suffering caused by the internment signed the act because he saw the human cost of big government.
Malkin defends FDR for using the power of big government to trample the rights of average people, and condemns Reagan for showing compassion to the victims of big government. In other words she is behaving like the arrogant liberals conservatives love to attack: revising history to support her cause, and mindlessly defending the actions of a leader she admires.
We must also ask ourselves are people like Michelle Malkin true conservatives or simply worshippers of the power of big government trying to cloak their arrogant agenda in comic book patriotism?

* This is the conclusion made by Stetson Conn, official historian of the US Army in The United States Army in World War II: The Western Hemisphere: Guarding the United States and Its Outposts” (Washington, DC, Department of the Army 1964) an official history of the US Army’s operations in North America during World War II. It was also the conclusion of the US government’s official Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians which concluded its work in 1982. See Personal Justice Denied Washington DC, US Government Printing Office, 1982.

Real Threat

The Real Threat To Human Rights in Iraq: the Insurgency
By Daniel G. Jennings
Self-proclaimed champions of “human rights” such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are doing the world and the Iraqi people a grave disservice by ignoring the real threat to human rights in Iraq: the insurgents.
Worse, these champions of humanity are accusing the one force standing between the Iraqi people and a slaughter on the scale of the Cambodian Killing Fields of the 1970s, which claimed three million lives; the US military. None of the major human rights organizations and their mouthpieces in the media have denounced the vicious tactics of the insurgents the kidnappings, the mass murders, the public beheadings, the bombings that kill and maim dozens of innocent people. Amnesty, Rights Watch and the rest seem unconcerned about the worst outbreak of barbarism in decades.
Yet these same organizations and their allies in the media and the peace movement are horrified by the silly antics of American soldiers at places like Abu Grahib. There is no evidence that anyone was actually tortured or killed at Abu Grahib but the defenders of human rights have labeled it an atrocity on the level of the Mai Lai Massacre. That’s silly, dishonest and dangerous.
To make matters worse most of the human rights champions are supporters of the one action that will lead to the worst human rights catastrophe since Pol Pot: the withdrawal of the US military. If American troops leave Iraq, the insurgents will go on the rampage and kill vast numbers of innocent people.
Instead of a few people being beheaded, tens of thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will be beheaded. TV cameras will be there to cover the butchery, and the Tigris and Euphrates will be choked with dead bodies. The slaughter like that in Cambodia will continue for years, all civilized institutions in Iraq will be destroyed and tens of millions of Iraqi refugees will flee to neighboring countries. Eventually Iraq’s neighbors like Iran and Syria may invade leading to a brutal war.
The champions of human rights will have empowered the worst enemies of human rights and enabled them to do their worst. The blood in Iraq will be on the hands of America and of the human rights activists.
It’s time for those of us who believe in human rights to stop listening to these silly activists and start backing the real defenders of human rights in Iraq: the United States military. If not, then it’s time for the left to finally admit that they don’t care about human rights and end the silly charade of concern about human rights.
The US may or may not win in Iraq but if the peace movement and human rights activists get their way the real losers will be the Iraqi people. If America does pull out of Iraq, I hope the human rights and peace activists can be shipped over there to bury the bodies of all those headless Iraqis and see the results of their hypocrisy first hand.

Terror and Vietnam

Did the Terror War Start in Vietnam?
By Daniel G. Jennings
When and where did the terror war begin? Perhaps it began in a place called Vietnam or more precisely on the version of the Vietnam War that played out on the world’s TV screens about thirty five years ago.
What the world saw from Vietnam was the technological might of the United States military being thwarted by terrorism - the ruthless tactics of the Vietnamese Communists. The world saw America back down and run away after the Tet Offensive when the Communists using terrorist tactics tried to drive US forces from South Vietnam. The Communists failed the US military easily defeated them but the American people were so horrified by the resulting slaughter that US military withdrawal was a foregone conclusion. President Lyndon Johnston decided not to run again shortly after the offensive, the nation’s most influential Walter Cronkite went on TV to tell Americans the war was lost.
Yes there was terrorism before Vietnam but nothing like the vicious organized and systematic terror we saw afterwards. The American people learned from Vietnam that war was ugly and brutal and too bloody to bear. The thugs and fanatics of the world learned a different lesson all they had to do was to be violent, ruthless, and bloodthirsty to behave in the most barbaric way possible and they would get what they wanted.
As American troops left Vietnam what we call modern terrorism began, the IRA launched its bloody bombing campaign in Britain, the PLO launched its horrendous war against Israel and leftist terrorists of all stripes launched their war against the West. Vicious terrorists of all stripes around the world from Pinochet’s death squads in Chile to the fanatics of Europe went on the offensive.
Unfortunately the Vietnam pattern was repeated again and again. The terrorists committed atrocities and the governments of the civilized world ignored them. In 1972 Palestinian thugs terrorized the Olympic village and murdered innocent Israeli athletes. The world knew where the people behind the atrocity were based and did nothing. It wouldn’t have taken much for the US, Soviet or British militaries to round up Arafat and his goon squad and ship them off to Israel to face hanging for their crimes. Yet it didn’t happen the PLO was allowed to operate and even treated like a sovereign state. Instead of facing the firing squad Arafat addressed the UN.
In 1983 when terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon Reagan responded by removing the Marines. When Libyan thugs shot up a London street from the windows of their nation’s embassy and killed a British police constable, Maggie Thatcher let them go home. No British soldiers landed in Tripoli to arrest Colonel Khadafi and ship him back to England to stand trial even it would have taken less than an hour for Her Majesty’s military to crush the Libyan military and shut Khadafi down.
Time and again in Somalia in 1993, in Africa in 1998, the nations of the world refused to do anything about terrorism. Even when the terrorists set off a bomb in New York at the World Trade Center itself nothing was done. It took the atrocity of Sept. 11, 2001 for the US and a few of its allies to finally go on the offensive.
The terror war isn’t the result of the machinations of one madman called Osama Bin Laden or American meddling in the Middle East. It’s the result of over 35 years of vacillation, weakness, cowardice and doing nothing in the face of terror.
Yes, folks modern terrorism began in Vietnam, the question is will it end in Iraq or will history repeat itself? Will another generation of Americans give into another generation of terrorists and open the way for horrors that will make Sept. 11 look tame in comparison?

Johnny Carson

Johnny Carson: A Class Act
By Daniel G. Jennings
One of the few class acts in American entertainment, Johnny Carson, passed from the scene Sunday.
The Tonight Show host had a class, a dignity, a humility, a decency, an elegance and a basic humanity lacking in most performers that made him a giant among men. In a business known for ego and arrogance Johnny displayed true humility.
Perhaps Johnny’s greatest contribution was his willingness to step aside for other performers. He used his show as a spotlight for other performers. He was willing to let others take his coveted spot as host and share the spotlight with his sidekick Ed McMahon. Neither Jay Leno or Dave Letterman has used a guest host, Johnny had dozens of them. If Johnny hadn’t shared his spotlight Jay Leno would still be fixing Rolls Royce engines and Dave would be performing at state fairs in the Midwest. Jay, Dave, Conan and the rest would be well advised to let somebody else take their mike occasionally as Johnny did.
Johnny may have saved stand up comedy in America by letting his show be a spotlight for two generations of comics Don Rickles, Jerry Seinfield, Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Joan Rivers, Ellen DeGeneris, Arsenio Hall are just a few of the comics who got national prominence on the Tonight Show.
Nor did Johnny live a larger than life existence in front of the paparazzi cameras. He had his problems to be sure but he lived quietly and rather simply away from the cameras. He didn’t attract attention, he didn’t have an entourage, he lived like an average guy or tried to.
Finally there was the way Johnny bowed out he did it simply and elegantly. In a business where aging egotists hog the spotlight so long they become embarrassing relics Johnny retired and stayed out of the spotlight. He didn’t make an arrogant comeback, he didn’t try to stay too long, he quietly bowed out and let a new generation takeover. That was Johnny, simple, humble, elegant and dignified.
He refused to let his legend go to his head, he refused to believe the publicity and instead lived as an average citizen. He refused to use his power to squelch the careers of younger performers and potential rivals. He refused to lord it over the network and to hog the airwaves until somebody carried him out the door in a body bag.
That was what made Johnny he really was a man of the people who never forgot his roots. He kept his dignity, his humility and his humanity even though he was in the spotlight for nearly forty years. Johnny could have deteriorated into an egotistical monster, instead he became a great man and remained one. His dignified exit was his finest moment.
Hopefully today’s entertainers will learn from Johnny and discover what made him great. Unfortunately they won’t and they’ll become ugly and little for not learning from a true entertainer and a great man.

Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine: There Are No Viable Alternatives
By Daniel G. Jennings
In his inauguration speech President Bush reaffirmed his foreign policy: America should put its own security and mission to spread freedom around the global ahead of the sensibilities other nations. I support this policy, not because I like but because I see no viable alternative to it.
Critics of the Bush Doctrine have put forward three basic alternatives to Bush’s policy, none of which seems workable given the realities in today’s world.
The most popular and appealing of these alternatives is the international law and institutions alternative. The idea that America should bow to international law and allow international institutions such as the UN to deal with the world’s problems including threats to peace and security. I would support this argument if international law and international institutions lived up to their ideals. If the United Nations was a real democratic world government with a real constitution I would gladly defer to it but the UN isn’t a government and it isn’t democratic. The UN is corrupt and undemocratic, worse it is based on the idea that every nation in the world including the tiny island of Palau and Kim Jong Il’s thugocracy in North Korea is the moral and legal equal of the United States. There is no way such an institution can safeguard human rights or keep the peace. It exists to protect tyranny and the rights and privileges of tyrants and those who profit from them.
Much the same can be said of international law which is designed to protect the position of national governments and those who run them. International law makes no distinction between legitimate democratic governments based on constitutional law and popular elections and dictatorships run by warlords and thugs. Yes, our invasion of Iraq violated international law so did our invasion of Afghanistan. If we were to follow international law to the letter we would have had to leave the Taliban in place in Afghanistan to give Bin Laden a safe haven from which to attack us. If we were to follow all the treaties signed by the US such as the Kellogg-Brand Pact of 1928 which banned war as a means of solving international disputes even our involvement in World War II would have been illegal.
Obviously international law and international institutions as they now stand are no solution and no protection against terrorism or rogue states. Sadly enough international law and institutions seems to protect the rogue states and terrorists against American action.
The other popular argument is for the United States to rely upon diplomacy and cooperation. To only act when we have international support and to defer to foreign powers usually the nations of Europe when we take action.
Now this course of action would work if every foreign power was Britain or Australia. Unfortunately they aren’t, Europe is a collection of aging and weak states with declining military and economic power. The Europeans lack the resources to be serious allies of the US, worse their interest is to contain America. Europe can only appear to morally strong and influential if the United States takes no action. If the US acts European weakness is exposed and Europe’s influence and power declines.
Then there are the powers outside of Europe, it is in the best interest of countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, etc. if America acts alone as global policeman. That way potential military threats can be eliminated without those countries spilling their blood or national treasure. They don’t have to build up their military power or take responsibility for other regions of the world. This way these powers are left free to build up their military power without using it. Such nations won’t join a US led crusade but they won’t oppose one either. They can safely have some low level diplomat issue a press release condemning American high handedness but do nothing to stop America.
In such an international environment America will find few allies except for grateful Eastern Europeans and traditional English speaking friends like Australia and Britain. Attempts to get real cooperation will be fruitless barring something on the scale of Sept. 11. Obviously the US has no choice but to go it alone.
The third alternative maybe the worst, it’s a sort of neo-isolationism. The mantra is the same America’s problems are the result of American meddling in the rest of the world. Stop meddling and America will be safe and the world at peace.
Recent history exposes this argument as having little basis in reality. America didn’t meddle in Afghanistan for over ten years and look what happened Afghanistan became our worst nightmare a nation run by terrorists for terrorists. Places where America meddled most in the 20th Century Japan, Germany, South Korea, Western Europe are among the most peaceful and prosperous on Earth. Places where America didn’t meddle Africa and the Middle East are hell holes of poverty.
Now obviously America can’t and shouldn’t interfere everywhere on Earth there is little reason for us to intervene in Haiti, the Sudan or the Congo. The rationale for our intervention in Yugoslavia is also questionable. Yet there are cases and places where we must meddle. For example Afghanistan, Latin America and Iraq the source of our oil.
The Bush Doctrine is obviously a flawed and limited foreign policy but it is the only realistic course America can follow at this point in history. The challenge to us is to create a world where the Bush Doctrine will be unnecessary.

Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine: There Are No Viable Alternatives
By Daniel G. Jennings
In his inauguration speech President Bush reaffirmed his foreign policy: America should put its own security and mission to spread freedom around the global ahead of the sensibilities other nations. I support this policy, not because I like but because I see no viable alternative to it.
Critics of the Bush Doctrine have put forward three basic alternatives to Bush’s policy, none of which seems workable given the realities in today’s world.
The most popular and appealing of these alternatives is the international law and institutions alternative. The idea that America should bow to international law and allow international institutions such as the UN to deal with the world’s problems including threats to peace and security. I would support this argument if international law and international institutions lived up to their ideals. If the United Nations was a real democratic world government with a real constitution I would gladly defer to it but the UN isn’t a government and it isn’t democratic. The UN is corrupt and undemocratic, worse it is based on the idea that every nation in the world including the tiny island of Palau and Kim Jong Il’s thugocracy in North Korea is the moral and legal equal of the United States. There is no way such an institution can safeguard human rights or keep the peace. It exists to protect tyranny and the rights and privileges of tyrants and those who profit from them.
Much the same can be said of international law which is designed to protect the position of national governments and those who run them. International law makes no distinction between legitimate democratic governments based on constitutional law and popular elections and dictatorships run by warlords and thugs. Yes, our invasion of Iraq violated international law so did our invasion of Afghanistan. If we were to follow international law to the letter we would have had to leave the Taliban in place in Afghanistan to give Bin Laden a safe haven from which to attack us. If we were to follow all the treaties signed by the US such as the Kellogg-Brand Pact of 1928 which banned war as a means of solving international disputes even our involvement in World War II would have been illegal.
Obviously international law and international institutions as they now stand are no solution and no protection against terrorism or rogue states. Sadly enough international law and institutions seems to protect the rogue states and terrorists against American action.
The other popular argument is for the United States to rely upon diplomacy and cooperation. To only act when we have international support and to defer to foreign powers usually the nations of Europe when we take action.
Now this course of action would work if every foreign power was Britain or Australia. Unfortunately they aren’t, Europe is a collection of aging and weak states with declining military and economic power. The Europeans lack the resources to be serious allies of the US, worse their interest is to contain America. Europe can only appear to morally strong and influential if the United States takes no action. If the US acts European weakness is exposed and Europe’s influence and power declines.
Then there are the powers outside of Europe, it is in the best interest of countries like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, etc. if America acts alone as global policeman. That way potential military threats can be eliminated without those countries spilling their blood or national treasure. They don’t have to build up their military power or take responsibility for other regions of the world. This way these powers are left free to build up their military power without using it. Such nations won’t join a US led crusade but they won’t oppose one either. They can safely have some low level diplomat issue a press release condemning American high handedness but do nothing to stop America.
In such an international environment America will find few allies except for grateful Eastern Europeans and traditional English speaking friends like Australia and Britain. Attempts to get real cooperation will be fruitless barring something on the scale of Sept. 11. Obviously the US has no choice but to go it alone.
The third alternative maybe the worst, it’s a sort of neo-isolationism. The mantra is the same America’s problems are the result of American meddling in the rest of the world. Stop meddling and America will be safe and the world at peace.
Recent history exposes this argument as having little basis in reality. America didn’t meddle in Afghanistan for over ten years and look what happened Afghanistan became our worst nightmare a nation run by terrorists for terrorists. Places where America meddled most in the 20th Century Japan, Germany, South Korea, Western Europe are among the most peaceful and prosperous on Earth. Places where America didn’t meddle Africa and the Middle East are hell holes of poverty.
Now obviously America can’t and shouldn’t interfere everywhere on Earth there is little reason for us to intervene in Haiti, the Sudan or the Congo. The rationale for our intervention in Yugoslavia is also questionable. Yet there are cases and places where we must meddle. For example Afghanistan, Latin America and Iraq the source of our oil.
The Bush Doctrine is obviously a flawed and limited foreign policy but it is the only realistic course America can follow at this point in history. The challenge to us is to create a world where the Bush Doctrine will be unnecessary.

Only the Right

Only the Right is Listening to the Left
By Daniel G. Jennings
The leftist elite in this country seems to be louder and more obnoxious than ever but only group seems to be listening to it: the Right or right wing intellectuals.
Don’t believe me pay a visit to a right wing website such as www.frontpagemagazine.com run by David Horowitz, a 60s radical turned modern day right wing scourge of the left. On January 11, the site featured such articles as “The Terrorists’ Leftist PR Machine.” This brilliant piece of journalism exposed Robert Jensen a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin who wrote an op-ed piece for The Fort Worth Star-Telegram calling on Americans to dismantle the American Empire.
Guess what, the first time I ever heard of Robert Jensen was in this article. The only reason I’ve ever heard of this idiot and his moronic writings is from this article. In other words, David Horowitz is promoting a left wing extremist on his website. Obviously The Fort Worth Star-Telegram isn’t a major newspaper and Robert Jensen isn’t an influential public figure, he’s a two bit crank who has scammed his way into an academic position with a good pension. The only attention being paid to the idiot is by the right.
In another article “The Ivory Tower on Display” the goings on at the American History Association were exposed. The antics of such silly groups as Historians Against the War and other collections of leftist extremists who consider America the Evil Empire were exposed. Even though Front Page’s man in Seattle Rick Shenkman reported that most of the meetings were virtually empty. In other words nobody but Mr. Shenkman and his employers cared about this conference. Not even its supposed audience of left wing intellectuals bothered to show up and pay attention.
This whole episode is a good example of how the far left feeds off the right. Left wing idiots who should be bagging groceries at Wal-Mart for a living but have academic degrees (courtesy of hardworking parents or grandparents who would roll over in their graves if they saw what their descendants were doing with the educations they paid for) make ludicrous statements. The mainstream media ignores them, but the alternative right wing media picks up on them and broadcasts them to the masses with the claim that an evil left wing elite is selling out the country to terrorism or some such balderdash. That way the right wingers can feel important by exposing the left wingers, the left wingers feel important because they’re being attacked by the fascist thugs.
This means right wing fear mongers can frighten their public with claims of an evil left wing elite. Even though the left wing elite is a collection of aging cranks who failing to make a living at real jobs have found refuge in academia and the media.
So I have to wonder, are the modern American left and right real political movements or simply groups of loudmouthed nuts feeding off of each others’ hot air?

Predictions for 2005

Predictions for 2005
By Daniel G. Jennings
If I didn’t make a few predictions of what will happen in 2005 I would be booted out of the Pundits Association so I will make a few predictions of what will happen in 2005.
Iraq, my guess is that the Iraqi Insurgency will peter out in 2005. When the Sunnis realize that they won’t drive out the Americans with terrorism they’ll quit the fight and the only fighters left will be the foreign fighters who will be easily rooted out and eliminated. My guess sometime in 2005, the Sunni leadership will make some sort of deal with the US and Iraq will become peaceful. Zaqarari will be captured.
Terrorism, well, my guess is that Al Qaeda will try something big in 2005. A major attack in the US or serious biological warfare. Whatever it will be it will be big because they need to prove they are still a force to be recognized with. Will it succeed? I hope not, but you never know.
Economy, a bumpy ride, oil prices will increase, and the stock market will fluctuate. The big if will be real estate, which is way overvalued, if it collapses we could be in real trouble. Fannie Mae could be in big trouble as could all the people who have invested all their money in homes. Stocks will fluctuate, Google will probably collapse but I’m sure some other overvalued stock will be the day traders’ fancy and go through the roof.
Entertainment, don’t ask me what will happen in entertainment this year, it’ll be wild and bizarre. My guess expect another big surprise like Mel Gibson’s Passion. Maybe a Chinese movie being number one at the box office for several weeks. Prediction from this old comic book freak, the Elektra and Batman movies will be dreadful films and huge flops.
Foreign affairs the US will continue to pander to China. China will grow rich off of American trade but like the US in 1917 will discover that such prosperity comes at a terrible price. Sooner or later, President Bush will call Beijing and say he needs the People’s Liberation Army deployed somewhere in the world and the paramount leader Mr. Hu will have to ask where and how many troops? Just as Woodrow Wilson woke up one day in 1917 and had to tell General Pershing to deploy the army to Europe and send a draft bill to Congress. The reason for this was the US economy in 1917 was based largely on loan guarantees to Britain, when the British started losing World War One America had no choice but to come to their aid. The Chinese economy is based on American t-bills, if the US is in trouble, the Chinese will have to intervene. I don’t want to be the Chinese leaders but it will happen possibly in 2005.
Other predictions if there is a God and God is just the Chicago Cubs will win the world series, the Denver Broncos will win the super bowl (hey I’m from Colorado), Quenton Tarantino will win an Oscar for Best Director and Zell Miller will be named chairman of the Democratic Party. An epidemic of common sense will break out on the West Bank the Palestinians will give up the fight and all migrate to Southern California to run gas stations leaving the Israelis free to settle the area paving the path for peace in the Middle East.
Those are a few predictions from the Great Daniel G. Jennings.