Winners and Losers

	In the strange world of politics and political correctness,
the dividing line between winners and losers is frequently blurred. I
suppose it has to do with your perspective.

	Take former New Jersey Gov. James Florio. He lost his bid for
re-election last November, when he followed the advice of top-ranked
Democratic political consultants and made the gun issue a cornerstone
of his campaign. Even though the anti-gun politicians tried to deny
that the gun issue played a key role in his defeat, Florio had
campaigned against gunowners, focused on his 1990 "assault weapon" ban
and claimed his opponent, Republican Christine Todd Whitman, was a
lackey of the National Rifle Association.

	Like Democratic Attorney General Mary Sue Terry who was
defeated by Republican George Allen in the race for Virginia governor
on the same day last November, Florio misread the political tea leaves
on the gun issue.

	Having become the first sitting governor of New Jersey ever to
be defeated in a re-election bid, Florio today should be slinking down
the back alleys of history as a defeated and rejected political
has-been. But not so, according to The New York Times, May 29.

	Florio is now comfortably ensconced in the same Parsippany,
NJ, law firm where Richard Nixon spent his first stint as a political
exile. Former Vice President Nixon and the man who would later be his
Attorney General, John Mitchell, were both members of the firm in the
1960s. Florio is earnings at Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander and Ferdon
are estimated to be in the million-dollar-a-year bracket as opposed to
his former governor's salary of $85,000. He says he has more leisure
time, less pressure and still dabbles in power.

	The law firm is one with high powered international business
connections and consults on national and international government
relations on behalf of major corporations. Perhaps that is why it is
not surprising that Florio has been invited to serve as one of the 16
American delegates to the Bilderberg Meetings held in early June in
Helsinki, Finland.

	The Bilderbergers are a shadowy group of business and
political leaders who hold annual; closed discussions on international
issues. Their deliberations usually end up as guidelines on
international trade, labor, banking and legal issues for the nations
represented. Among the other US delegates this year are: Louis
Gerstner, chairman of IBM; Robert E. Hunter, the US representative to
NATO; David Rockefeller, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, and Henry
A. Kissinger, the former US secretary of state.

	That and anti-gunner such as Florio should be named a delegate
to this assembly of one-world strategists is not surprising. He is a
philosophical comrade of President Clinton under whose Administration,
the US has recently agreed to United Nations Disarmament Commission
exploration of plans for international civilian gun control.

	Gunowners and other voters in New Jersey may have ousted
Florio from one position of power, but he seems to have landed in one
from which he can do much more damage to the rights of individuals all
over the globe. The loser Florio has re-emerge from the ashes of
defeat as a winner.

	And, of course, he's still politically correct in the
establishment and media eyes.


A.M.A. Gets Spanked

	The American Medical Association (AMA) has apparently suffered
a setback on one politically correct issue.

	The doctor's group had emerged in recent years as a favorite
of the people who determine political correctness by espousing and
recommending broad new initiatives to disarm the law-abiding
citizenry. Not many years ago, the AMA was the subject of almost as
many unflattering political cartoons and editorials as the National
Rifle Association. Then the AMA's leaders discovered the key to
editorial approval by promoting all kinds of gun control schemes from
the Brady Law to "assault weapons" bans and beyond to the defenseless
new world of Charles Schumer.

	It mattered little to AMA leaders that almost half of their
members were gunowners, according to some studies. Nor did they
respond fairly when some physicians sought integrity in the research
and public policy papers published by their association. The AMA was
being politically correct and was being treated like a font of wisdom
on the gun issue.

	Now, however, the AMA has allowed economic self-interest to
undercut their acceptability to the editorial boards who keep t he
flame of political correctness. They have parted company with the
Clinton Administration on the health care issue, and an editorial
quote from The New York Times is instructive.

	"...last year it (the AMA) supported, with conditions, managed
competition (President Clinton's system of providing private health
insurance through purchasing cooperatives).

	"But now that the debate over reform is approaching a climax,
the A.M.A. is changing its tune. It has backed away from employer
mandates and last week proposed a bill, laughably named the Patient
Protection Act, that could eviscerate the Clinton plan. Same old
A.M.A.," intoned The Times.

	Thus, the AMA, recently winners in the political correctness
sweepstakes because of their endorsement of gun control proposals, are
now losers for failing to stick to the script on another issue.


21st Century Soldiers

	Speaking of political correctness, there has been an on-going
campaign to downplay the role of the individual foot soldier in
national defense planning. This has included overall thinking at the
highest levels in the US defense establishment that places greater
emphasis on gee-whiz Buck Rogers type weaponry and downplays the role
of the individual combat soldier and his or her equipment. General and
admirals have frequently suggested that the foot soldier who finally
closes with the enemy and takes possession and control of territory,
even for brief periods, is obsolete.

	Concurrent with this have been statements to the effect that
individual marksmanship is no longer essential to modern warfare, that
the citizen soldier is no longer needed, that a handful of regulars
with Star Wars (the movie, not the defense system) gadgetry will
defend our interests at home or abroad. This helps strengthen the hand
of anti-gunners who want to wipe out all vestiges of the citizen
soldier militia concept and who continually try to abolish the Army's
Director of Civilian Marksmanship program.

	These attitudes are reflected in the print and electronic
media reporting that surrounds military affairs. That such reporters
and editors forget that after all the smart bombs dropped on Iraq in
Desert Storm and brilliant tactical efforts by infantry, artillery and
armor, the Iraqi army is still largely intact and a continuing threat
to Middle Eastern tranquillity.

	They also ignore the inability of such exotic weapon systems
to provide a viable, low-casualty-option, for dealing with the
problems in Haiti, Bosnia or Rwanda.

	However, that doesn't stop them from reporting one new
equipment that moves us closer to Darth Vader's Imperial Storm
Troopers. Among these is a report that the army is planning on
equipping some troops with a 30-pound, green camouflaged backpack
computer and a helmet equipped with a flashlight sized Sony
minicamera. The minicam is reported to be able to send live
battle-action views back to commanders, while the helmet can be used
to instantly pinpoint through global position the location of any
soldier through a satellite receiver.

	Some of the reported benefits would also benefit casualties
because pictures of wounds could be transmitted to specialists who
would offer speedy medical advice that could save the lives of some
casualties which might otherwise be lost.

	One problem with this reporting is that it suggests that every
foot soldier will be thus equipped which is unlikely to be true, given
the cost, weight and other problems associated with such gadgetry.
Another is that it perpetuates the myth that individual soldiers will
not be needed to close with the enemy and engage in close combat with
traditional arms-rifles, bayonets, grenades, machineguns,
shoulder-fired rockets and recoilless rifles.

	This is not to say that the military should not explore the
advantages that miniaturized computers, cameras and other electronic
gear can provide. Only that when you promote such space-age equipment,
you remember that the most sophisticated equipment in the world still
puts a modern foot soldier in no better position than the pikemen of
past centuries.

	With combat, there will be casualties. Replacements will be
needed for the individual soldiers who fall before the enemy,
especially in a protracted conflict.  If needed in a hurry, most of
those replacements will have to be trained in weeks, not sent to MIT.

	And, given the intentional dismemberment of the industrial
ability to produce small arms which would be needed in combat,
American defense is ill-served. It is interesting to note as we
celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Normandy Invasion which led to
the defeat on fascist military might in the 1940s that the industrial
ability of America, along with its reserves of citizen soldiers, were
what made victory possible.

	Many of the US veterans of World War II and subsequent
conflicts are among those most disturbed by the current emphasis on
abolishing the right to keep and bear arms, one of the freedoms for
which so many have fought, suffered and died. One wonders how willing
some of those people would have been to fight for the restricted
freedoms which are being foisted off on us today.