Archive for January 2005


January 25, 2005
Viewing By Category : Humour / Main
February 19, 2005
Jimmy Carter and the Submerged Rabbit
This image is pretty amusing, sourced from Baen library.

Direct image

Combine this with Phil’s piece, and you get an interesting parallel.

The Navy is simply giving Carter the benefit of treading water rather than landing aboard US Sovereign territory, by giving him a submarine rather than a carrier. Just like Carter gave the rabbit.

February 9, 2005
John Kerry is a Jerk
I found this at Tim Blair.

The host of Wheel of Fortune apparently didn’t like John Kerry being a jerk

I for one, appreciate Pat Sajaks plain spoken comment. It cuts through a lot of unnecessary analysis and gets directly to John Kerrys essence. And it saves time in the process, too. So the next time I see Kerry on TV making pompous and disingenuous proclamations, I think Ill follow the example that Pat Sajak has so ably provided. Rather than get into a needlessly lengthy debate, Ill just pithily respond, Aahh, what a jerk!

Thanks, Pat. I feel better too.

Here’s another Kerryism

How can they say I’m on the wrong side of history?” he asked rhetorically. “I’m speaking out against Bush blunders in Iraq, and I plan to vote for another $80 billion to fund the blundering. You tell me which side of history I’m on.”

February 7, 2005
British Burglary tips
Some tips for what to do to placate burglars and save yourself a lawsuit It also helps to prevent irritation of the burglar, thereby prolonging your lifespan.

February 4, 2005
Ethnic Warfare
The only thing funnier than engineers doing philosophy, is professors doing warfare.

A very confusing recount for a very confusing place of intellectuals. Via

Reality or Satire?
I’ll leave you to figure out which.

Chris Matthews: Let me just throw something else in the mix here – if the President is Jethro, and Laura Bush is Ellie Mae – at least there seems to be some possibility that she is – does that mean that the first President Bush and Barbara Bush are Uncle Jed and Granny?

Andrea Mitchell: No, because they weren’t married.

Chris Matthews: Just a second, here. Andrea Mitchell, are you asserting here, on national television, that President Bush – the first one, not ‘W’ – and First Lady Barbara Bush were never legally married?

Andrea Mitchell: Of course not, Chris, that would be silly. I was talking about Uncle Jed and Granny.

If reality, Chris Matthews has gone off the deep end. “asserting here on national tv” indeed.

If satire, then it accurately captures the Chris Matthews aura. Though it leaves much to be desired concerning how Chris overrides people’s sentences, and even sometimes his own.

February 3, 2005

Humorous Translation of SOTU response
A good laugh is something we all need in such dire times as “the greatest violence since the elections, have erupted”.


Read on, the gift keeps giving for a bit. Don’t miss Bush’s snubbing of Georgia’s representative. I think I was in one of her districts before 2002.

Too bad she rewon her seat with fascist tactics.

finally, scroll down to the comments section here to see jokes on Pelosi.

February 1, 2005
Make Prostitution Legal
Maybe not..

Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job including in the sex industry or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

Worry not, it gets much worse if you read it all.

God bless Democratic Socialism. Oh wait, God doesn’t exist in Germany, my bad.

Democratic Socialism uber alles!

I feel sad for these people. But unlike the Iraqis, they have a democratic government. And the blame can be laid no where but to the citizens of Germany for letting their own efficient bureacracy, run away from them. I thought they would have learned risks concerning the power of government and force, by now. But I suppose a culture that glorifies pacifism, does not understand that with great power comes also great responsibility. They have become so irresponsible, that they are no longer wise or experienced enough to hold that power in check.

Seen here as well, can’t remember where else I heard it though

January 31, 2005
He’s back
See Arnold Run A BioDocumentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Any Arnold fans should surely catch it at Wednesday this week, if they missed it on Sunday.

NY Times’s phase variance
Ann Has some interesting things to note about how the NYTimes are changing their Headlines, and how fast.

Earlier today, I commented on the somewhat positive NYT headlines here, including one that said “Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad’s Closed Streets.” That article was picked up by Memeorandum, which collects blog commentary on it: a lot of prominent bloggers have observed that even the NYT is acknowledging the great success. Then, I clicked on the link for the article and the headline is now:

Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24

The fun ain’t over yet, keep reading.

Courtesy of instapundit.

January 30, 2005
Scotland terroist unconvicted
Say it ain’t so, Scotty!

January 28, 2005
Barbara Boxer on Kos
I never did like reading, Kos. And I found that out in 30 seconds after I first went to his website 2 years ago. Disdain at first sight.. interesting.

Senator Barbara Boxer posts at Daily Screw Them Kos: Thank you so much. (Hat tip: Jheka.)

It is interesting Barbara Boxer’s tone of her writing. Interesting in that it makes her a true believer. She actually believes what she says… Wow.

I got a much lower respect for politicians after reading that. I mean, I know you have to lie in politics, if only lies of omission, but a politician does the country a disservice when the politician loses sight of what he/she is lieing FOR.

True believers… scary people. Because unlike rational people, they will take you along with them in the end.

January 27, 2005
Suicide Bomb Ethics

Suicide bombers also die in the name of a better life for others; it is just that, unlike martyrs, they take others with them in the process.

Key phrase: It is just that … Such a minor distinction. Why quibble?

The martyr bets his life on a future of justice and freedom; the suicide bomber bets your life on it. But both believe that a life is only worth living if it contains something worth dying for.

Teenage poetry meets Islamofascism. Sweet.

I just have to ask again, what are these people SMOKING? Cause I need some of that. Read on, there’s more smoking in the pipe than that.

Oh, ya, Real suicide bombing isn’t what it is cracked up to be

But on Dec. 24, he was given a preliminary job of driving a butane-gas delivery truck that was rigged with bombs. It wasn’t supposed to be a suicide mission.

They asked me to take the truck near a concrete block barrier before turning to the right and leaving it there, he says. There, somebody will pick up the truck from you, they told him.

But they blew me up in the truck, he says.

Pardon me if I engage in extreme schadenfreude… Of which I will do promptly.

January 26, 2005
Purchase New York Articles
I think we should contact the guy sellng the domain because I think we might have another sucker, if the NYT believes people interested in the truth are going to pay for their “articles”

January 25, 2005
Instapundit for sale
If the British keep smoking their pot and injecting themselves with safe heroin, then the next thing they’ll fall for probably will be the sale of They will feel real welcome along with CBS and Peter Jennings and shopping for funerals to coverage to balance the inauguration.

‘Europe’s intervention in what has become a major issue in the election campaign took Westminster aback. MPs and officials were unaware of how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.

Oops, we gave away our rights, Oh Darn.

The Keystone Kops keeps coming to mind, but a better allusion might be Voyager where they refused to return fire and let some pirates steal some key equipment off of the ship, including the main computer that targets the ship’s weapons. Oops, too bad we didn’t shoot when we had the chance eh instead of waiting around to be suckered…

It reminds me of what France must have felt when the Nazis bypassed the Maginot Line through Belgium. “They were unaware, that it could be bypassed”. And unaware, of course, that they were on their doorsteps.

Kerry’s carrying a POW
A nice fun picture about Kerry and some soldiers from 356th Engineer Battalion and 126th Aviation Battalion

And some Dennis Miller jokes

The Specialist’s hand seems a bit too rigid to be the result of any common hand motions. It seems she has her thumb tucked into her hand, all but the middle finger clenched in a fist, with her middle finger folded at a 45 degree angle from the rest of her knuckles. Blackfive has some interesting suggestions for what the hand sign might mean.

‘I don’t even understand why weve taken nuclear weapons off the table. I mean we treat them like our mother’s good china. We never use them. I think you’ve got to pick a day where there’s no wind, in a desolate part of the Earth, just blow off a bomb just to let them know were sitting on a nice hold card, okay?’

It is Miller time, that was the bomb of a joke. Part of why it is funny is that he is serious as well.

January 21, 2005
Some people are just idiots

UN Scam

January 19, 2005
Election fraud that doesn’t exist and is being covered up

Wow, who could be behind this conspiracy? Bush? Heh, if he is, then he might indeed be the Stupid President of history.

January 14, 2005
Moore Time

January 10, 2005
Here it is, a spot where I can write and write and write about all sorts of things. Usually, political, military, or comical.

Got an entire store of things to post, but all are old and nothing is new, yet.

There is news to the Tsunami (Divine Wind) Disaster, and it is of the comical, not of the tragedy vein. Of course, from what I can see, most people don’t have grim/gallow’s humour, and that is quite unfortunate.

Because when it is the US in the gallows, everyone seems to gain a nice appreciation of gallow’s humour all of a sudden. And I mean “everyone”

Science Fiction

January 25, 2005
Viewing By Category : Science Fiction / Main
February 15, 2005
Jedi Ethics
The first thing I recall about the Jedi Dark vs Light, was when Luke Skywalker was facing off with Palpatine. Palpatine was trying to “convert” Luke to the Daaark Side. As far as I knew back then, the Dark Side was one about pure unbridled Power. Power to abuse others, power to blow up planets, power to choke people that you don’t like. Basically, bullies. The Light Side, as I saw it back then, was basically Yoda cracking wise. Funny, personable, strict even.

It was a great morality lesson to anyone that was young or impressionable. Because it impresses us with a greater and more dramatic depiction of Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong, and such and such. It was gripping, the Star Wars Episodes. Very gripping, and unlike current day features, it grips without carping and telling craphoods. Carping and craphoods are like the Matrix. The sheer imagination of the Matrix speaks for itself, the truth of it in how we can apply it to present day circumstances… leaves something to be desired. A fun watch, but Truth? Ethics? I think not. When an Agent takes someone’s body as hostage, and you blow them away all the time, is an example of an “ideal”. It is not gritty in the sense of the realism of Black Hawk Down, nor in the sense of Rules of Engagement handed down to Marines in Fallujah.

This was where Star Wars was best remembered for, in my memories.

After playing Knights of the Old Republic, having already played the X-Wing and Tie Fighter series and the Jedi Knight/Dark Forces series, I understood the Force, the Dark Side, and the Light Side far more. Not in terms of movie like action sequences like “What did Yoda do to counter that Dark Jedi lightning”, though I did understand that, but the basic philosophy of dark vs light.

I remember Jedi Academy (Jedi Knight III) where Katarn says to the player character, that force powers are not evil or good themselves, but depend solely in how they are used. Therefore I thought, that meant while you may see Force Choke, Force Lightning, and Force uh Lightning used by Dark Jedi only, it is not restricted to those whom are evil. A great gameplay justification to use the cool powers of Force Lightning and Force Choke on some stormtroopers, yet there were some inconsistencies. Like, what do they mean when they say a place has the “feel” of the Dark Side? If the Force is simply the energy that binds all living things, and Force Powers can be used for Good or Evil, why would a place have the designation of being Evil? Is the Force sentient? If the Force is sentient, then how can it be just a tool? If someone fell to the Dark Side, does their free choice taint the Force or is the Force tainting their free will?

Those were the questions reverberating inside my head, and I could find no answers as it was just a game, one in which you played the role of a Jedi, saw some cool effects, and got to slaughter things with a lightsaber and force powers. What use there to philosophy and Truth? Hinderances, are of little use.

And yet, “Jedi” was a mysterious term and idea that I eventually realized had myzmerized me. Myzmerized me like many other fans of Star Wars, but unlike many others, I am an individual interested in the truth of the matter. The deeper meaning, the importance of the thing behind the surface. Star Wars: The Knights of the Old Republic gave me the knowledge and the experience, to finally answer some of those questions. Even though by answering some questions, it raised many more. But then, what do you expect of a universe with the Force and cryptic Jedis?

Let us start at the beginning, or rather the prequel. In Episode 1, we saw Anakin taken in as a Jedi. Now like most people, I probably believed that it was like any other academy or boarding school. You go away for awhile, then return like the prodigal son, only… more like the son of God. In Episode 2, we see Anakin as a Padawan and arguing with his master. I then learned that Anakin was separated from his mother… apparently for the duration which apparenty was until he graduated from Padawan. It was like he got disowned and now the Jedi Order were his parents… sorta like the military except in the military they recognize that discipline is made better by making people recognize that now they owe a higher loyalty than loyalty to family. The Jedi Order, apparently came up with a more eloquent monkish solution. Just separate them from their parents altogether… permanently. Don’t even allow the children to grow up with those parents, instead take them when they are young. Better to “teach” the Force, they say. Also better to ingrain the Jedi Order of pacifism, non-aggression, and basically Buddhist/Tibetan Monk philosophy.

Block off all emotions.

No money.

Do not have relationships with other Jedi.

Do not place importance in your family.

Do not meet aggression with aggression.

Do not use the Force to attack someone, unless in self-defense.

Basically, you get the jest. What is more, these Monks are in charge of a GALACTIC order that is supposed to protect the Republic from internal and external instabilities. Wow, Tibetan monks with beliefs wired for a closed in, freerider universe, in charge of policing political and military power. What a nice combination, wonder who thought that up? The First of the Jedi perhaps?

As KOTOR said it, it is the Jedi Code.

I recall a lesson about virtue from Den Beste. Virtue is the act of not falling for temptation when it is full in the face. Virtue is not someone who has gone his entire life avoiding falling to temptation, simply because temptation has never been offered to him. Den Beste used the example of the faithful husband/wife. If a wife knew that she could get away with adultery, but never found a man she wanted other than her husband, then that wife cannot be truely said to be virtuous in being faithful to her marriage. On the other hand, if a wife knew she couldn’t get away with adultery, and found someone she was attracted to and wanted to committ adultery with, but didn’t actually go through with it because of the fear of being caught. Then of course, she cannot also be called virtuous in resisting temptation. Someone can only be virtuous in this case, if they are attracted to someone, they get the chance to committ adultery, and they know they won’t be caught but without doing any adultery.

Therefore someone who has lived a life of temptation and resisted it, has a higher chance of resisting GREATER TEMPTATIONS in the future. Whereas someone who has lived his life sheltered and separate from the real world, would have a far less likely chance of resisting if the temptation was great at first.

And that is what the Dark Side is. The temptation for power, knowledge, and influence. It is not a coincidence that it is the young jedis who turn to the Dark Side, and it is also not a coincidence that the original Sith Lords were also turned to the Dark Side when they were young.

The Jedi Philosophy talks much about subliminating emotion and resisting the Dark Side, they speak about anger and other emotions being the path to the Dark Side, but they do not understand the Force as much as they believe they do.

Revan was a Dark Jedi character in KOTOR, Revan was a Consular who sought out knowledge of ancient mysteries. His intelligence and capabilities with the Force were great, and when he used them to aid the Republic against the Mandalorian invaders, he won a stunning military victory with a raggedy assed Republic Fleet. The Jedi Council, however, wanted to wait things out much as the UN might have. Except the Jedi Council’s decision was not because of greed or bureacratic red tape, but a central philosophy that they were exhalted among humans and therefore were capable of seeing others other people could not. And therefore while other people could stumble blindly into the dark by meeting aggression with “more aggression” as they say it (cycle of violence reference), the Jedi believed themselves powerful enough to delve deeply into the heart of the matter, speak a magical word, and everything would be solved. The Jedi accuses the Sith of being arrogant, but it is the philosophy of the Jedi Order concerning their Force powers and “wisdom” that is the true arrogance.

Revan fell into the Dark Side on his journey to fight the Mandalorians. He fell because of his thirst for knowledge, which lead to the thirst for power. He did not have any family members to tell him “you too are mortal”. All he had, was his teachings as a Jedi Padawan from when he was a child to what he was today. Cut off from human emotions and human experiences, Revan believed himself immune to the Human Condition. The Jedi taught him that the Human Condition didn’t apply to the special exhalted ones that can use the Force, but instead of thinking as the Jedi wanted him to think, Revan took that philosophical conclusion and went somewhere else with it. Instead of believing in the power of Will and Force, to suppress and isolate human emotions and fallibilities like “love, loyalty, righteous anger, hate, fear”, Revan believed those things could benefit and help you to do good.

Revan’s path was paved with Good Intentions, as it was with all the truely powerful Dark Jedi of the Sith. They believed that there was benefit to loving one’s family and fighting by them, he believed it was right to be angry at injustices done and to hate evil and fear those whom are more powerful. Like Anakin Skywalker, the truely great Jedi pierced through the cloud of indoctrination that was the Jedi Order. Yet… their fate was still sealed, because there was NOTHING there once the cloud was broken. Without that indoctrination, any Jedi would be open to “any” temptation or philosophy or emotions. Therefore, Anakin Skywalker felt righteous anger and embraced it, but he also threw away all the good things like compassion, mercy, and protection of the innocent and weak. In some ways, he had to throw them away, because if he didn’t, he couldn’t have given Justice to the Tuskan Raiders who caused the death of his mother. Revan once having violated the Jedi Council’s order not to help the Republic stop the Mandalorian invasion, felt less and less restrictions to doing things and learning knowledge that the Jedi Council thought dangerous and forbidden.

It is a story of the complex tapestry of human will, human emotions, and human fate. Much can be done if we choose it, but we cannot succede in doing so without the experiences that life gives us. We cannot kill and kill and kill to defend the weak and to avenge the slaughtered, without a family to anchor us, without loved ones to MAKE us want to be what they loved instead of a murderer. The people who loves you, the people who are important to you, they are the ones that are your prosthetic conscience when all else has faded away into nothingness. And the Jedi Order did a bang up job of removing the fail safes that humanity puts onto itself, as a protection against the Dark Side.

Naruto the anime series shown on Japanese TV has many of these elements, only Naruto did it right while the Jedi fucked things up. I also recall Terry Goodkind’s Stone of Tears, wherein the SIsters of Light operated much as the Jedi of the Light side did.

Revan was a great and powerful Jedi, and so was Anakin Skywalker. But, because of the stupidity of the Jedi elite and their facilitation of Evil through ignoring and shutting out human emotions nd tendencies, the Jedi Order is the root cause of all Evil. It is not a coincidence that when the Jedi Order disbanded during Palpatine’s Reign, that you don’t see DARK JEDI everywhere in the New Hope.

Dark Jedi don’t train more Dark Jedi, just as Dictators don’t train more Dictators to go out and take over other countries. They are stable, if stagnant, focusing only on their power, rather than the legacy they leave behind for others. It is only Light Jedi that convinces poor stupid fools that they can do Good if they follow their teachings, much as the pacifists believe while aiding and abetting the true killers.

And that is why Revan didn’t want to destroy the Jedi Order so much as he wanted to conquer it and the Republic. Because Revan knew what the Jedi Order was. And many other Sith Lords probably knew in their subconscious that destroying the Jedi Order was the only salvation they could offer to future generations.

It is a sad, sad tale. But one in which I have percieved, and one in which George Lucas has forgotten. His movies would be beyond Matrix quality, if he highlighted the problems of the Jedi Order in Episode 1 or 2. Instead, he focuses on the lightsaber combat which is over before you know it, and the deep space battles where you don’t have to think about anything unlike Battlestar Galactica which treats the viewers a bit more intelligently.

The stun effect of the Star Destroyers in the opening sequences of the New Hope, cannot be surpassed by outdated “Victory” class Star Destroyers 20 years past. I would have been interested to see the Eclipse Star Destroyer that Luke destroyed with the Force, but Episode 1 Star Destroyers? Ha, good luck in trying to impress people with those that have seen the real deal, even with better CGI.

It was only the CONCEPT that stunned, never the exact images. The concept of something that huge, is what was stunning. That concept is now known. George Lucas has forgotten this.

And I think he has good reason to. If he didn’t, he would immediately see the Truth of World Events, an unpleasant truth indeed. He might even understand why his Hollywood fake liberalism was wrong. But so long as he ignores the fundamental human truths of his Star Wars legacy, he is able to ignore that which fuels and drives the best of us.

The Star Wars original trilogy was great because “GEORGE LUCAS: When STAR WARS came out, I said it didnt turn out the way I wantedits 25 percent of what I wanted it to be.”

It is not the suppression of hate, rage, fear, and love, but the compression and manipulation of those emotions that shape us for the good. Rage is not to be suppressed, it is to be controlled and harnessed. Fight fire with fire; the brush fire is contrasted with the controlled burning that the firefighters use.

That, is all I have to say about the “Jedi Code”. What poppycock.

February 9, 2005
Knights of the Old Republic II

It is Good vs Evil. Here are some non-fictional -or ah, fictional- things that are relevant.

Without a doubt the story from Iraq is a compelling one. And a fundamental example of good vs evil. Those who’d offer excuses or moral equivalency lectures in response to insurgents beheading Iraqis or disemboweling aid workers, mortaring homes or striking at schools with car bombs have clearly chosen sides. Don’t blame us if we kill you, you have only yourselves to blame, cries an “insurgent” – and around the world certain heads nod.

Still others might recall this quote from a recent movie: “A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day. This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!”

Aragorn, of course, from The Return of the King. There have been numerous superficial comparisons made between current events and the Lord of the Rings, and the appearance of the movie at this point in history was certainly fortuitous. Successful films reflect the times, and though no one knew at the time these films were being made exactly what the world situation would be upon their release they’ve meshed amazingly well. Gandalf’s response to Frodo’s lament that “I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.” seemed extraordinarily fit for 2001: “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work, Frodo, than the will of evil.

Or the next year, as the US prepared to go into Iraq, Grima dismissed Gandalf as a warmonger in the court of Theoden. Later, Theoden: I will not risk open war. Aragorn: Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not. Later still: Aragorn: You have some skill with a blade. Eowyn: The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them.

In spite of the chillingly accurate applicability, it’s not the superficial and obvious comparisons that make the real connection to modern events; it’s the underlying theme of the books that rings true. For Tolkien’s story was much larger, much grander than the trilogy, after all. That tale was of but one battle in an ongoing war, and references to the larger theme gave the books a depth that most imitators lack. Tolkein had fleshed out that larger history before he began his sequel to The Hobbit, it was in fact his true life’s work. And that grand story was of the eternal struggle between good and evil, and that’s why the books sell today and why the movies have an appeal to a worldwide audience unmatched by anything else. Tolkein tapped into something fundamental that dwells within us all, the conflict of the positive and the negative, of darkness and light, good and evil that struggles in each soul, as it does in the world at large. And that is why the words of the characters have a resonance with us today.

I harbor no illusions about what we’re doing, and I certainly don’t imagine myself as a warrior at the gates of Mordor. But tomorrow is yet another skirmish in the real world war, the one I’ve personally been involved in for 20 years now. I’ll predict a victory for the good guys.

After all, there are other forces at work, Frodo, than what you read in the papers.

From Mudville

February 3, 2005
Voyager’s Unforgetable Episode
This was a rather dramatic episode.

What I’m going to write about is the ending. Or rather, the epilogue so to speak. It is where Neelix comforts Chakotay about failing to convince his love to remain with him, contrasted with the way Kellin remained with Chakotay.

The episode’s gripping, in a heart felt way. But it was Neelix’s explanation that was totally irrational. He described love as some kind of fate, some kind of random variable that just simply pops up. It’s like some other writer simply added some fluff fluff lines at the end, compared to the more heartfelt and genuine material in the rest of the episode.

Chakotay loved Kellin partially for her loyalty. The fact that she came back solely for him, the fact that she betrayed her society for her love of him. And in the end, Kellin remains loyal to what she knows and remembers, she simply does not remember any higher loyalty. So in an ironic sense, Chakotay lost Kellin because of who she was, not simply the fact that he couldn’t convince her to stay and try and remember what they had.

Neenix, however, speaks like love is not a summation of people’s integral values, but some hippy like grove thing. Either you’re in the groove, or you’re not… that’s retarded.

Another thing, the fracking criminal who erased someone’s memory and their free will, was just let go by Voyager. Obviously the leftist philosophy in the center of voyager cares nothing for a person’s dying last wish, nor do they really care for individual liberty. As much as Janeway touts humanity and individualism, they are more of a social heirarchy than any true individualist society. It reminds me of the Modern Left, where they do not care so much for the poor and humanity, as they care to decide what is best for the poor and humanity. Rather than letting people choose of their own free will what to do in life, they make schools do what they tell them to do in affirmative action, they tell the public through judges what they should or should not accept as socially acceptable, they tell the new generation that they are too stupid and ignorant to be given their own money back to supplement social security, and of course they also want to dictate to the military what they should be doing against their wish to stay until the job is done. Individual liberty is a stumbling block to a progressive agenda, because a progressive agenda can not progress if the people dislike it.

Multiculturalists who don’t give a pock about individual human rights, all they care about is obeying the laws of other cultures.

Jeez, that must be the enlightened Dutch scheiss. Hopefully we can become as enlightened as Star Trek has become.

January 27, 2005
Voyager’s Retarded Defenses
I’ve been watching season 4 of Voyager, specifically the Hirogen mini-plot, composed of about 5 episodes. 2 of them two parters. It was the two part episodes, the Killing Game P1 and P2, that got me thinking.

If Voyager can put holo-emitters on a lot of decks, with a little tinkering, then what in God’s name are they freaking waiting for?

Every so often you get an episode where Voyager gets taken over, and you have security detachments WALKING to the enemy. Even though they have site to site transportation abilities, even though they have a holo doctor that is immune to normal weapons fire, even though they have technology that can make ENERGY into MATTER, and complex matter at that, they STILL act like a merchant ship. There are no freaking internal defense turrents, no autoturrents, no mine fields, no automatic nerve/anesthetic gas tanks in strategic zones to stop boarders.

When boarders come slicing in, Voyager is a god damn sheep. And even though this was designed as an exploration ship, they have had 4 years to adapt and change the way their systems worked for the most efficient, and they haven’t done so. They are willing, the writers, to offer token changes like the Borg Shields in the Borg Alliance plot line, but then they get RID of it.

And I’m here thinking, what are these people Smoking?

Let’s take their holotechnology for example. As far as I know, this technology creates, using holo-emitters that can be setup planetside or any place in the ship, matter of any configuration out of pure energy and light. Whether it is TNT, lead, gold, flesh, carbon based life forms, it can RECREATE the exact effects of normal matter. Even if it is “holographic” as they speak of it. The pistols of the WWII era function the same, according to the same physics. They can replicate food that they can consume, which are molecularly sound and stable. They can replace HIGH technology such as their tools, and I presume their weapons. Perhaps they can even replicate anti-matter, but it seems they cannot as they keep searching for deuterium. But none of that, actually matters to using the holographic technology as an offensive and defensive weapon.

All they have to do, like in the Killing Game, is set up emitters on all the important locations on the ship. The bridge, engineering, the armory, etc. Then only turn on the emitters, as they seem to take up quite a bit of anti-matter power, when there’s an intruder. Auto-turrents of any design, energy, particle, or mass based can materialize and take out any intruder based upon the programing of the hologram. If they can create sentient holograms and life like characters in the holoroom, there is no reason why they can’t make an AI that’s worth its beans in processing weight.

Then they can also materialize hand held weapons, personal shields, physical barriers, and any other thing they require on the bridge, so long as the holo-emitters are on line and have power. So when the Borg materializes and thinks they are the shit, we turn on the autoturrents and see how fast they can adapt to a projectile that is massive and thrown with great force. Or how fast they adapt to a monomolecular blades that is sticking out from 10 different directions around them, implaing the borg drones.

Energy shields don’t do crap against mass. We can forget all this “modulation” nonsense. And since humans seem weaker than cyborg drones enhanced with nano-based implants, then all the humans need is to materialize a powersuit on their bodies that use servo-muscles to rip the drones in two. The suits would be of course powered by the holo-matrix.

And the holograms themselves, they can even be made to be sentient, to operate according to an AI. We can materialize android guards with 10 times the strength and endurance of a human and have them stampede the intruders. They are also expendable, as they are energy formed into matter, and can be recycled if damaged.

Matter, energy, everything passes through those holograms at WILL, and then they stick their light based hand into your neck, and then make their hand solid and rip out your spinal cord. I think that would be a pretty good defense against boarders of any type, physiology, technology, and alien origin.

It will of course take out power from shields, weapons, and propulsion but then if you’re being boarded the shields are already down, the weapons were obviously not effective enough, and it is obviously too late to run now.

With Voyager’s lacking any freaking BACKUP systems at all, the weapons would probably go off line with the damage of a main power conduit, far more often than the de-centralized holo-emitters would. If the holo-emitters had their own backup generators and power supply. Which is another reason why the people who designed Voyager, a Starship, like people would design merchant ships. VOlume, functionality, and expense. Whoever designed Voyager obviously doesn’t know how to make a STARSHIP, let alone a warship.

Aside from the utter inanities of Star Trek, the magical technology they have described in Star Trek have many benefits. If only their equivalent of the UN, weren’t in charge of Star Fleet. David Weber’s characters would absolutely ape shit and ballistic if they had to a technology that could create mass from energy and light sources, mass that can phase between matter and energy at will, according to “programs”. Add in holograms that are sentient and we can produce a Navy that knows no planetary or spacial boundaries.

It would even make more sense historically and idealistically. A free scientific community can create technology that any old collective cannot or would not. As the borg have no use for entertainment like holograms, but humans do, and the holograms have resulted in a technology that is far superior in military abilities than the borg ever produced.

If they can create an emitter that emits out into space, for short or medium ranges, then all they have to do is grapple with a borg ship and then create 50 anti-matter warheads outside the borg’s shields. So long as they have energy, and any Star Trek ship should with a PROPER energy infrastructure, a starship can effectively have infinite logistical support and munitions with Star Trek’s replication technology.

When 50, 10 gigaton explosions concentrated in a shape charge against one spot of a borg’s hull and shields, there won’t be a borg “cube” left. Heck, there might not be a planet left either. If their emitters are off, all they have to do is replicate all the warheads in a cargo room, assemble them, and teleport them next to the borg’s shields.

One of the problems with Star Trek is its magical technology, yes, but the main problem is that the magical technology is too innovative and new for technology conservatives and social progressives to grasp, and since they are the ones writing the episodes the influence is noticeable.

All this requires energy, but with anti-matter power resources, there is absolutely no reason for a lack of “power”. To get power all they need is collide more anti-protons or whatever they use.

Heck, they can spew a bunch of anti-protons using their PHASERS for technology’s sake.

Hit a ship without their shields with THAT, and [

Death solves all problems – no man, no problem. Joseph Stalin

] problem solved.

January 17, 2005
I was watching Season 4 of Voyager, and I got across episode number 4 or 5, which was titled “Nemesis”.

Now, I was never a big Voyager fan, and I probably missed out on the entire Seven of Nine fantasy reality that seemingly popped in Trekie circles, and yet I still remember liking the exploration values. This was when I was still a bleeding heart liberal, however. I had not yet been asked the question every bleeding heart liberal will be asked sometime in their lifetime, the unlucky ones never get asked. And that question is, “Are you willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish the goals and the values you so cherish as a liberal?”

I eventually answered that as, yes, since I finally got access to sources of information that wasn’t biased towards Hollywood perspectives. Like the oh so pervasive perspective that if something has discipline, order, and military culture, then that is fascist, evil, and shortsightedly dumb. I have come to see the military, as not an extension of force or brutality, but as the consequence of reality. A good military only comes about if their core values of esprit de corp, camaderie, duty, sacrifice, and honor are valid and everlasting. True, in a sense, they must be true. Or as true as human minds and hands can make it.

So that was the leading indictator, to me at all times, whether someone had a bleeding heart liberal bias, or a bleeding heart liberal bias after answering the Question. Those who answered the question as No, and then decieved themselves by remembering the answer as yes, or those who were [never] asked that question, will always depict the military, any military, as Evil basically. Those who do recognize that one cannot achieve the Good, human rights, liberty, and etc without force, without power, without an adherence to reality and causality. People like Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK all understood that fact. They understood that the military, force in metaphorical terms, is a valid means to achieve ends. The first and only President, of anyone in the world, to ever drop a nuke in wartime on civilian targets was not a radical, he was not a Bleeding Heart Liberal, he was not a isolationist, he was not a fascist, he was not a communist, he was not a socialist, he was not a monarchist, he was definitely not an aristocrat… he was a Democrat. A liberal, in the sense that Ronald Reagan said he is a liberal before he exited the Democrat party.

Truman understood that some means precluded certain ends. Which means of course, if you want someone’s loyalty, true loyalty, you are not going to torture them, kidnap their children, and rape the person’s spouse. You can obtain obedience, subservience, fear. But not respect, not loyalty, not willing sacrifice. The sacrifice any soldier would make should he have had to decide between his own life and the life os his buddies. And some will even sacrifice for their nation, by ramming reinforced cockpit doors in order to save their own lives, and those of people in the capital building. Some cynics will say that they were simply afraid for their lives, and acted out of self-preservation. Yet, they are the ones who decieve themselves in believing that a person who knows that in usual hijacking situations up till now, passengers are not supposed to fight as that will endanger more people. Passengers are supposed to be docile, like little sheep, and wait for big government to save them. If they had fear, fearwould have made them sit down and shut up. But instead, these people, these Americans, used their brains, they used the means at their disposal to gather information. And when that information became more and more clear, they realized that they had to do think. They Realized the reality that they were in, and they chose to do something about it. Many of the hijacked flights had deaths and injuries, because as the European say, “those dumb American cowboys, that’s what they get for trying to be a hero, instead of letting people more qualified to handle the hijackers”. One flight did not have injuries, and that flight was one of the first to fly into the towers.

I can believe that someone might react out of fear and attack a hijacker out of preservation. I do not believe for a second that the people who succeded in nullifying Flight 93’s hijackers, did not think about what they were doing, the consequences of it, and the alternative options available. They voted, they voted about a subject where fear would have made most people object.. at least in the movies they would have. They unified, they became one purpose, one will. The Democrats believe unity is the crushing of dissent and alternative opinions, i.e. Zell Miller. Real people, understand that unity is the unity of purpose, of will, and of determination. Self-preservation, is the very anti-thesis of “unity”.

So, the point of course is that a nation who produces such people who act in such ways, and does it in such a way that benefits the nation, is a nation that benefits from benefiting her citizens. And her citizens therefore benefit, by heling out their nation. That is the means, to a certain end. Which is why many bleeding heart liberals want a bigger government. They do not want what is best for the citizens, they want what is best for the government. But desire for the best in government, may only come from the means of desiring the best for the citizens as well. And in the end, that means the desire to help the citizens defend themselves, instead of relying on anything or anyone else. That, is what it means to have a means that precludes certain ends.

To want to live, one must kill. To want to save someone, one must kill. The willingness to kill and the physical act of doing it, is metaphorically the same if not causally the same. Therefore Truman understood that if he wanted to save people, his own and Japan’s, he must kill, and on a grand scale.

That determination, that will, that acceptance of reality, where has it gone in today’s Democratic party? To the Republicans of course. JFK said it best, do not ask what your country may do for you, but what you can do for your country. JFK understood intuitively or intrinsically that the power is always in the people’s hands, the people though must exercise it. And given that our society is mostly designed to have the government exercise the power given to it by the people, the people need experience and training so as to never forget that 1) the power is theirs and 2) how or when to use it.

Therefore JFK understood that the people cannot let the government do everything for them, or else why allow the people power if they will not use it? A power vacuum will always be filled. ——— The first few seconds as I watched the Voyager episode, Nemesis, I witnessed a dark forest like area where a bunch of people with automatic assault rifles were sneaking through, at night. The first thought that came to my mind was, “Oh boy, here we go, the militaristic jarheads and their brutality is going to here soon”. Since I knew intuitively that the writers for Voyager was never going to portray military people, especially Special Forces lookalikes in the dead of night, to be the Good Guys. No fucking way in hell and damnation, would they do that. It is inconcievable, in fact. Which is why when the introduction ended at Chekotah, Voyager’s XO, being captured by these military dudes that I wasn’t particularly surprised.

However, things didn’t progress like I expected them to. As the episode first portrayed Chekotah as trying to get back to his crew, which was in orbit, but he was now stranded here on this planet because he was shot down. By the “Nemesis” he is told, by his captors. The first divergence from the big bad military wolf perspective, came when the CO of the squad/platoon sized group grilled the guy who ordered Chekotah bound and restrained. He said, quite intelligently, that he doesn’t look like the Nemesis, his clothes aren’t those of the Nemesis, therefore he is not the Nemesis. In a sort of poetic singsong, which though strange, eventually became quite charming. So this divergence, is the portrayal of the leader of a military type group, with severe discipline, as quite smart and intelligent. Maybe not compassionate, but certainly not the paranoid thug you usually think of.

Of course, the whole “Nemesis” business gives the viewer a hint that these guys are just fighting a war where no side is better or worse. As they portray the Nemesis as animals, scary, and utterly devoid of compassion. Chekotah is skeptical of course, which mirrors the expected reaction out of the audience, me.

Along the way, a green recruit is introduced to Chekotah, as someone who has never faced combat or nullified a Nemesis. This plot plays along in a rather interesting fashion. As Chekotah demanded to see his shuttle, and so the leader asked for a volunteer to escort Chekotah. The green recruit was asked, but was hesitant because of fear and doubt. Then a veteran volunteered, which in the end, died to protect Chekotah. The green recruit then tells Chekotah, as he was teaching him how to shoot slug throwers, about how he was responsible because of his doubt and his cowardice. Chekotah tells him however, that fear is natural, and when asked about whether he killed even while being afraid, Chekotah said yes. The green recruit concluded, on screen, that it was not him who “drilled” (shooting lessons) Chekotah, but that was it Chekotah who drilled him in how to overcome his fear and bring on the “rages”. Anyone would be proud of that moment, and quite pleased. Bonding results, the men of the platoon seems more human, instead of thug like. This is probably the second indication that the troops aren’t evil.

Then comes some action scenes and Chekotah gets wounded and separated. He comes across a village, of old men, women, and children who were not fit enough for war and is greeted as a hero. Reminds me of when our troops are greeted when they came back. Before, all you heard were tales about how the Nemesis staked the dead facing the sky so as they never enter the peace of the afterlife, how they bomb villages, take people prisoner as forced labor, their women, sisters, and land. All that was abstract before, hearsay, but now you see for yourself the plight of a small village, and how grateful they are for the people protecting them. Truly grateful, none of that fake Democratic bleeding heart compassion over troops without “armor”.

As they tend to his wounds and give him food, he comes to know their stories and desires. Eventually he leaves in the morning, only to hear planes overhead, heading towards the village. He returns only to find them rounding up the survivors, and before he could shoot anyone of them, he is captured from behind.

After that, we get to see the “Nemesis” up close and personal, and boy are they ugly bastards. Brutal to prisoners too, “Geneva Convention” would probably be a joke to them. THey were rounding up the old men and the sickly to the “extermination” camps since they were too weak to work, so why feed them? Reminescent of Nazi Germany, for sure.

While this is going on, Janeway is talking to what she believes to be the legitimate government on the planet, and when she beams aboard the laisions, they aren’t the people helping Chekotah.. in fact they look exactly like the Nemesis. Suspense time. Will they help Janeway locate Chekotah or are they buying time?

Chekotah tried to stop the Nemesis from taking a little girl he had grown to know, only to be knocked unconscious by the guards and staked out to die of dehydration. He is rescued by the leader of the platoon that helped him out before, and instead of going back to his ship, he decides to remain and help spring the prisoners. Quite noble.

And therefore, I was wrong that the writers were incapable of portraying military people as good people. I was quite wrong… in underestimating their talents. Because they did not just show military people as evil, they showed the very concepts that powered military as evil and misguided.

Because in the end, Chekotah realizes that he had been brainwashed by “sophisticated” techniques designed to instill loyalty in him and to get him to fight. All of those fights he had been in, the village, were all holographic simulations of some sort or another. In the end, the ambassadors from the planet, those who know exactly like those butt ugly Nemesis, comes on board to meet Chekotah. TO which he then leaves abruptly, and says “I only wish it was as easy to start hating as it was to stop”. Nice eh?

So let’s get this straight. Instilling loyalty and comraderie, sacrifice, honor, duty, are “propaganda techniques” right? So of course the military troops aren’t evil, they’re just misguided DRONES fighting for the causes of the really evil, like Bush for example.

And how about that last line about hate, eh? It was easy for Chekotah to hate someone because he saw them as unjust, brutal monsters. Yet he then says it is not easy to stop hating, once he finds out the truth that they are not monsters. So… obviously one must conclude that hate festers and if we hate Al Qaeda, then that makes us irrational… or something like that. Or perhaps they think hate isn’t decidied by the choice we make, but is rather instead an entity itself that feeds and grows regardless of what we do or who we are.

So of COURRSE Al Qaeda hates us, they can’t stop hating us,it is not because they haven’t tried, it because they CAN’T. Right…

See, the fault isn’t in Chekotah, he was taught to hate by others, indoctrinated. He can’t stop. Therefore it is the fault of those who caused Chekotah to hate the Nemesis in the first place, just as it is the fault of the US that we were the ones who brought about the situation that placed the hate in the terroist’s heart.

The thing is, and my conclusion, is that liberal bleeding hearts operate on one level, a level that is independent of reality. And everything they say and do, is consistent with that level of reality, but is not consistent on real reality. Because they think simply deciding hate is bad and should never be felt, somehow is going to change real reality because they feel they are right and reality is wrong.

This episode was written long before 9/11, but the ideas present in it, the “superior propaganda” techniques are quite the norm of the bleeding hearts. They use it to crush dissent, and reprogram hapless individuals who watch the kind of shows that hire such writers. A much better propaganda in my opinion, than Fahrenheit. Though I regret, I cannot compare it to Leni Riefenstahl.

I can say one more thing however, which is that this propaganda works better on bleeding heart liberals that haven’t had a chance to answer the Question, in either Yes or No. Therefore having them watch this show, makes them more likely to answer no instead of Yes, we will do what it takes, even if it includes hate and force, to accomplish the objectives of liberty and human rights. Because the way the show is designed, is quite ingenious. Just like in the show, Chekotah bonds with simulated people and then is manipulated to fighting for them. The audience bonds also with the ideals of sacrifice, hating enemies that ought to be hated, and so on. And just as when Chekotah was betrayed and wouldn’t fight for them anymore, the audience feels betrays and won’t fight for those ideals anymore. In the end, they are simply manipulated into hating the group that represents such values, because those values are seen as fake by the audience in the end, an extension of the propaganda by our government. After feeling good about the brave green recruit, only to see him killed, and then to recognize that they had been betrayed even in that, that it was all fake. No glory, no sacrifice, no honor. Much sadness results.

It reminds me, in the final end, of how people are manipulated by the Left, who felt betrayed at finding no WMDs. The betrayal was long ago committed by Saddam, UN, France, Russia, and the peaceniks. Yet the American people always tend to blame their government, and in most cases that is healthy, but in this case emotion is manipulated into partisan objectives. And they succeded, if not in the end, at least quite well relatively.

With such reeducation in the mass media, mass entertainment, and public universities, does anyone still wonder why 49% of the vote population voted for such a “weak’ candidate as Kerry? I do not certainly. It is a symptom, not the disease.

Military and Strategy

January 25, 2005
Viewing By Category : Military and Strategy / Main
February 20, 2005
Cultural Assimilation
One of the reasons why the US is feared is because of her power to culturally assimilate people from all over the globe.

Impatient fans of popular American television shows from 24 to Desperate Housewives are increasingly turning to illegal internet downloads to watch programmes hours after they have been broadcast in the US.

Britain is the worst offender in this explosion of online television piracy that has seen illegal downloads of some programmes increase by more than 150 per cent in the past year, research shows. 24, the hit thriller starring Kiefer Sutherland, is the most popular pirate television programme worldwide. In the past 12 months, illegal downloads of the show have risen from 35,000 per episode for the third series to 95,000 for the fourth.

Downloads of Desperate Housewives rose from 40,000 for the first episode to more than 60,000 for the most recent, although this is a tiny fraction of the four million viewers who regularly tune in. About 18 per cent of online television piracy is in Britain, closely followed by Australia – countries with a growing demand for early access to American television shows.

Conservatives in those other countries, fear change and also fear a challenge to their power, therefore they tend to blame the US for giving their citizens a richer, more lively culture than any they can find in their home countries.

That is the true power of the United States, it is a power that works in generational terms instead of days and months. The US military, although supreme among the Earth, is a quick reaction force to apply brute strength to crack open doors and obstacles. Our cultural assimilation prowess, however, is as oxygen, able to corrode things slowly over time. Like oxygen, we are everywhere, and just as much as you would hate oxygen for its corrosion, you still need it. We destroy the metals that are incomplete and weak, leaving only the strong to inherit the earth.

If the “meek inherited” the earth, then certainly the slow crawl of assimilation would have fitted the description of “meek” in those days. Easily termed weak, when in fact it can be stronger than instantaneous explosions.

Nations such as Japan are integrating many English words and phrases into their popular culture, symbolized through the Japanese phenomenon known as Anime. English is in fact, the second language of Japan. All anyone has to do to see the influence of American culture on Japan, is to look at the number 1 ranked Anime TV series in Japan, Naruto.

February 18, 2005
A liberal perspective
A perspective comprimised of equal parts bias and intelligence

New Yorkers think we are smarter than other Americans, that the richness and difficulty of life here give our intelligence a kind of hard-won depth and nuance and sensitivity to contradictions and ambiguity. We feel we are practically French. Most New Yorkers are also liberals. And most liberals, wherever they live, believe that they are smarter than most conservatives (particularly George W. Bush).

As you can see, not something an everyday ignorant or stupid liberal could say out of hand.

And finally, most liberals and New Yorkers suspect that we may be too smart for our own good. It is a form of self-flattery as self-criticism. During these past few years, I have heard it said again and again that liberals’ ineffectiveness derives from their inability to see the world in the simple blacks and whites of the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Bushes. (Why else, the argument goes, did John Kerry lose?)

A good psychological inference, that doesn’t go far enough. This is the same for Senators and Congressional representatives, when they are talking to administration officials or military personnel. After all, they were exhalted enough to be elected, what gives the military or the cabinet right to criticize our Way?

It is a sort of doublethink. In which they recognize how their traits hamstring them, but they come up with ways of looking at the traits that hamstring them as inherently superior. Therefore a Senator feels they are right about Rumsfield lieing about numbers, when Rumsfield knows more and is actually up to date on current reports of numbers of Iraqi policemen in service.

But now our heroic and tragic liberal-intellectual capaciousness is facing its sharpest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Even in recognizing the sort of doublethink that goes on in the liberal circles that the author is part of, he cannot help but portray the act as noble, but tragic.

Until the Iraqi vote: surprisingly smooth and inarguably inspiring and, in some local camps, unexpectedly unsettling. Of course, for all but a nutty fringe, it is not a matter of actually wishing for an insurgent victory, but rather of hating the idea of a victory presided over by the Bush team.

I’m not sure how hating the idea of a victory presided over by Bush, can mean anything other than to subconsciously or consciously wishing for the terroists to win.

If you don’t want the terroists to win, did he then mean that the liberals were hoping the terroists would show an illusion of winning and thereby allowing the Democrats to ascend through this “illusion” perpetrated upon the American voters? Or is the case even simpler, that the prospect of a Democratic victory at the polls meant sacrificing Iraq in the short term, as well as pulling the troops out in the long term.

Either scenario, is not as palatable as the author made it out to be. The author may not have wished for an insurgent victory since he was a fence before January, but he is incorrect to say that a lunatic “fringe” is responsible only for such actual wishes. In point of fact, many Democrats, if not the majority, wished it and felt good about it.

Like radical chic, a related New York specialty, liberal guilt once meant feeling discomfort over ones good fortune in an unjust world. As this last U.S. election cycle began, however, a new subspecies of liberal guilt aroseover the pleasure liberals took in bad news from Iraq, which seemed sure to hurt the administration. But with Bush reelected, any shred of tacit moral rationale is gone. In other words, feel the guilt, and let it be a pang that leads to moral clarity.

And if the majority of Democrats keep up with this nonexistent “tacit moral rationale”, then that means they never had such rationales in the first place. Moral or not.

I dont mean to suggest, in the right-wing, proto-fascist rhetorical fashion, that every good American is obliged to support all American wars.

Every American must do everything in their power to help win wars America is in, to be worthy of their duty to their country. The fake liberals did not meet such standards, they were far too eager to use political expediency to further political agendas than using their powers to present a so called united front. Which only required that they shut the hell up and not use the bad news out of Iraq for political purposes. They could criticize, and should as well, all they want, but not for political power.

Right wing, proto-fascist, is defined by liberals as,

“Last week, you found yourselves secretly . . . heartenedand appalledby the stories of the Marine general who said it was a hell of a hoot [and] fun to shoot some people in Afghanistan, and about the possible Islamist drift of the Shiites who will now govern Iraq. When military officers show themselves to be callous warmongers, and neocon military adventurism looks untenable, certain comfortable assumptions are reaffirmed.”

Anything that supports the morale of the troops, helps us fight and win wars, and presents a strong public image to our enemies, is defined by fake liberals as right wing and proto-fascist.

Right wing proto-fascists like I and other dutiful Americans, are heartened by the existence of such Marine leaders and citizens, and appalled by the treatment of such an inspiration.

There may be only one important sense, finally, in which the American experience of Vietnam applies to this war: What is the number and rate of U.S. casualties we can bear, and will the new Iraqi government be able to take care of itself before we reach that unbearable number?

Did I hear this right, finally? Come on. The analogy to Vietnam was evident in how the media tried to portray all our victories as defeats, and all our defeats as failed victories.

The big victories like Fallujah are quickly put under wraps, to give air time for the “good” news. And Cronkite’s successor follows in the old man’s footsteps by making things up again and “misleading” the American people.

The number of casualties we are able to bear is 2, 4, or 6 times the number that of Vietnam. Solely because of two things. The Americans no longer think the MSM is trustworthy and the military is made up out of all volunteers.

“FInally” is not the correct word. Eventually the American experience in Iraq will completely overshadow the experience of Vietnam.

In Iraq, American patience and stubbornness will not extend nearly that far.

Of course, it will extend farther.

But we will not pay any price or bear any burden, as JFK rashly promised.

The author may not be willing to, since he and his associates are no longer “true liberals”. That title belongs to the right now, where we are willing to pay any price, bear any burden.

One day during the U.S. election campaign, President Bush accidentally uttered a plain truth about the war on terror. I dont think you can win it, he said, which immediately provoked attacks from the Democrats. A month later, John Kerry inadvertently told the same truth”We have to get back to the place . . . where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but theyre a nuisance”whereupon Bush pounced, saying he couldn’t disagree more. Later the same month, the president slipped and retold the same truthWhether or not we can be ever fully safe . . . is up in the airand Kerry, inevitably, replied: ‘You make me president [and] it’s not going to be up in the air.’

What this person forgot to mention was that Bush meant we can’t win it like any old regular war. And he is right, this is an asymetrical war and you cannot win it with just tanks and carriers.

The President never did in fact slip and “retell” the same truth. President Bush does not believe terrorism was ever a nuissance nor does he believe our safety ever was guaranteed, ever. President Bush believes that “fully safe” is an unachievable goal, but he is smart enough not to say that. He will try, but fully safe is a contradiction if you want “freedom” as well.

It was that kind of dishonest, automatic attack and counterattack that made me relieved, on November 3, when I was once again free to read and watch the news from Iraq without considering whether it was good or bad for Kerrys chances.

Here, you see the fake liberal bias. The kind of cynical attitude one has towards the world, and American idealism. Rather than putting the effort to look beyond the surface, he simply brushes it off with the excuse that this is simply another piece of political hackery.

Bush could have attacked Fallujah and ended the election on the basis that he doesn’t think Kerry would do it if he won. That, is far more effective an “attack”, if Bush was thinking of attacking his opponent for political points. But the fact was, Bush wasn’t, he was thinking of the best interests of the American people. That is why he held off the Fallujah offensive until AFTER the vote came in. He held off of the Veterans death benefits until AFTER the elections.

These are not the actions of an automatic, dishonest, person. And it is only poisonous fake liberal biases that can prevent someone from seeing it.

February 16, 2005
Googling google
98% of google employees give to Democrats rather than Republicans

The question I have is whether or not Google is the internet future version of Dan Rather and ABC News.

The Combustion of France
A thread about France’s implosion

You make some interesting points  many of which I agree with  but I do have a quibble or two and a, humble, observation.

First the quibbles:

You take a much more benign view of Islam and of the North African influx than either most Frenchmen that I know or personal observation would allow me to accept. The suburban chaos around Paris is an exemplar. Enclaves of unassimilated (whether they speak French or not) represent the majority of the non-native French population. These places are dangerous to a degree not seen in the past and represent a rock upon which secular France may founder. If nothing else they represent a great potential problem as breeding grounds for radicalism. Islam  in whatever form  represents a real route to the end of France as we know it  and not to the good.

Large numbers of unemployed young men who see no connection with the overarching society are a real problem. The French government is hiding from this problem.

You may love de Gaulle. I know many of the French do. Hardly anyone else who has read any history does. To us, he was the epitome of the self-centered, inferiority complex based French of the post war period.

In about 200 years France has gone from Voltaire to what? Name a scientist or an author, a soldier or a philanthropist who has much name recognition outside of France. Name a Noble winner or a philosopher. Name someone who is neither banal nor dead.

Compare what was to what is and you get a sad tale.

There are no universals but, overall, since WWI, French history has been a gradual, pitiful downward progression of self-doubt and decline.

The observation:

Unlike the Anglophones, radical change in France has been more revolutionary than evolutionary — the sanguinary events leading to and as a result of the expulsion of the Bourbons being an example of this behavior. Even in day-to-day politics the wide swings of the French electorate illustrate the national preference for dramatic change.

It occurs to me that, self preservation being a basic human instinct, the political class has isolated itself from the French res publica in order to avoid such mood swings. Thus, perhaps, the only choice for the French is a return to Dr. Guillotines solution? How else does one rid oneself of an aristocracy efficiently and in short order? And so permanently.

The question, of course, is the starting point.

My take on this is similar to this article about French mentality.

As I referenced in my post about WWIV, I predicted that Europe would be the location for WWV or just a continuation of the current War on Terror.

The salient points are simply that France has problems, and many other European countries share it. The lack of assimilation is worrisom, since if the US clears out the terroists in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will simply migrate to other countries. And the prime country to migrate to is France. Assimilate France and the Netherlands, and you have a country full of nuclear weapons to use as a base.

Eurabia is an interesting concept. Given the secular relative ethics of Europe, a strong religious fanaticism like Islamicfascism has the power to convert many young Europeans. And if that occurs, we will need to finish the Middle East theater quickly. Because once the Arabs control enough of Europe to matter, the Middle East will no longer matter.

Fortunately, France still has a long ways to go, and so long as we are killing the best the terroists have to offer in Iraq, it delays the Islamicfascists plans to assimilate European countries. The French speak of OIF as being detrimental to their national interest, and they are right in one sense but wrong in the other. France needs the money for arms sales and that is why it can’t lose Iraq and the dictator, but it is not in France’s interests to help terrorism. It is in France’s interests to help terrorism if their national interest lays with terrorism. Which is why many Frenchmen believe that France is justified in blocking the US while at the same time saying we are friends working for a common goal. Very delusional and doublethink like.

If we can win in the ME theater in the next decade, it will give us enough time to take care of the Netherlands, Spain, and France. If we delay for too long, Iran will be the least of our problems. Then there’s Russia and China.

F-22 Fighter-Bomber
Original strategy link

February 5, 2005: The U.S. Navy and Air Force are considering some fundamental changes in how they fill the ranks, and use their personnel. The plan is to raise the skill and educational levels for everyone, so that fewer people will be required to run larger quantities of higher tech equipment. Both services are downsizing, and will keep that up for several years. At the same time, the two services are attracting more high quality recruits than they can accept. This sort of situation leads to a raising of standards, and redefining of jobs. The navy is shrinking the size of ship crews, and adding more automated gear to the ships. The air force is replacing more people with machines and computers, and needs more capable airmen to deal with this. Both the navy and the air force are doing what civilian firms have been doing for over a decade. But since September 11, 2001, theres been a jump in enlistments, and its continuing. More people are trying to stay in uniform, which has led to a unique program where some of these experienced sailors and airmen have been offered the option of either joining the army, or leaving the armed forces. Even the army is making its recruiting numbers, despite (or, in some cases, because of) the risk of getting killed. Theres a war on, but the military would have been undergoing a wrenching revolution with, or without, 911. It’s a revolution that is being overshadowed by the war on terror.

More like a change that has been jumpstarted and accelerated by the War on Terror.

February 2, 2005: The U.S. Navy is changing the way it evaluates sailors for promotion. Currently, a lot of weight is given to seniority (how long the sailor has been in the navy, and their current job or rank) and test results. The new system gives much more weight to how effective the sailor is at doing their job. Such an approach has been used for senior officers with much success. A pilot program for sailors was also a success. One reason for the change was sailor dissatisfaction with the current system. While the navy is undergoing a downsizing at the moment, it found that those sailors, in key skill areas, it was trying to hang on to, were put off by the old system. So putting a lot more weight on actual job performance made a lot of sense. Keeping the best sailors is more difficult than just keeping any sailors.

Promotions on merit… another reason to cheer the Iraq War.

January 13, 2005: Readiness is one of those military terms that is supposed to mean how prepared a unit is for combat. In peacetime, the standards tend to drift from reality. With no real combat to really test readiness, what passes for readiness is often more illusion than reality. Comes a war, and what really constitutes readiness becomes obvious.

The U.S. Army had actually come up with a peacetime method of keeping readiness real. This was done with the training centers that allowed very realistic testing using weapons equipped with lasers, and laser detectors, to accurately measure the effects of firepower. This made the same old wargames a lot more realistic. As was discovered during the 1991 Gulf War, this made American ground combat units as effective as battle hardened ones. But the non-combat units found that they still had to adjust their concept of readiness.

Came the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, and combat support units again found that peacetime and combat readiness had drifted apart. This was particularly the case with logistics (getting supplies where they were needed) and maintenance (fixing stuff that broke down in combat). You dont hear much about changes in maintenance and logistics, but they have been many and frequent in the last three years. Perhaps more importantly, the readiness of the different services to operate together (jointness) has also gotten a wake-up call. Lack of readiness for jointness is an old problem. Everyone agrees it is needed in wartime, but the services drift apart in peacetime. This time, joint training and readiness is being institutionalized as a peacetime need. No one is sure that the services will continue training together, as much as they need, when peace returns. But at least everyone is saying that is important and that they will stay the course in the future. Time will tell.

Reason two to cheer the Operation Iraqi Freedom. Combat readiness is so hard to get and so easy to fake in peace time.

But the air force and navy are now eager to find new ways to get involved. The current situation also brings home the ancient truth that warfare is ultimately a fight on the ground. For decades the air force and navy have been pushing scenarios portraying the air force or navy (depending on who paid for the study) doing it all themselves. These two services still hold dear these dream situations, but right now, reality is making them look bad.

Wars should be fought on the ground, otherwise what is the damn point?

I certainly wouldn’t want us to make war into a “game” of air duels and ship battles. Leave that to a future space navy to dish out.

The air force has found themselves more popular with the ground troops due to the new JDAM (satellite guided, or GPS) bombs. But this has reduced the air force to the role of cargo aircraft, flying safely out of gunfire range and dropping smart bombs on the command of some grunt below. The air force is also more in demand because of the increased capability of UAVs. But traditionally, most air force intelligence gathering was to provide targets for their bombers, rather than just sticking cameras over the battlefield for the army guys down below. To add insult to injury, the army is buying its own UAVs, which now compete with the air force UAVs.

Adding insult to “injury” hehe.

War Plan Black Then: A Naval war against Germany in case the French were knocked out of World War I with the Germans trying to take over the French Colonies in the Caribbean. Now: A plan to evacuate US troops and dependents from Germany in the face of rising European Union hostility against the US.

They’re smarter than I thought if they have that plan. Only thing to do now is to make Bush activate it.

War Plan Crimson: Then: War with Canada in conjunction with War Plan Red Now: Altercation of fishing or water rights, lumbar trade, agricultural trade, difference in security/immigration policy.

“Altercations”? “Fishing”?


Talk about a country with no war spirit. The phrase, “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honors” have no meaning to the dudes in charge of Canadian military.

A country that doesn’t pose enough of a threat to even defend itself, now that is a country one must be suspicious of. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

War Plan Gold Then: War with France. Now: Why bother? Wargames: None Books: None

…. fucking hilarious.

December 2, 2004: While the Iraqi army has had a hard time getting organized as a professional and effective fighting force, the same is not the case with the new Afghan army. Although the Afghans have only has some 15,000 troops now, they are well trained, well led, and effective in combat. In another five years, the Afghan army will reach its full strength of 70,000.

The Afghans have some of the same problems as the Iraqis, namely tribalism and a weak sense of nationalism. With four major ethnic groups (Pushtun, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara), and dozens of powerful tribal organizations, its been difficult to get Afghan recruits who are willing to serve in the national interest. Ethnic and tribal loyalties are always stronger. But European colonizers proved in the 19th century that, with good training and good NCOs and officers, you can produce combat units from tribal warriors that can match Western ones in effectiveness. The key problem is getting effective NCOs. Its the sergeants that supervise the troops, and keep order in the barracks. Professional NCOs have been the secret to success in Western armies. However, the NCOs must be slowly developed, by selecting recruits who have leadership and management skills, and training them, on the job, over several years. It takes 3-5 years to get a suitable recruit to the point where he can handle the job of the lowest level sergeant (in charge of a squad of 10-12 troops.) Another 3-5 years gets you an NCO that can handle a platoon (which is usually led by a lieutenant, who depends on the platoon sergeant a lot.) Another five years gets you a company 1st sergeant. This NCO assists the officer commanding the company, and supervises the other twenty or so NCOs in the company.

Of course, Western nations have, in major wars, had to develop NCOs a lot more quickly. This was the case in the two World Wars, and as recently as the Vietnam war. When you are conscripting a lot of troops and creating many new units, the number of experienced soldiers is spread pretty thin. So you get shake and bake NCOs. These are young men (and some women) who have the leadership and management skills who are first selected (using tests and their performance in training), and then given some training on what NCOs do and how they do it. During World War II, there were many platoon and 1st sergeants in their 20s who did quite well, after on 2-3 years in service.

In Afghanistan, you had a lot of men who have been fighting for over two decades. Lots of good NCO material. But the concept of the Western NCO (a professional supervisor who is respected and well paid) is largely unknown in Afghanistan. The old Afghan army was based largely on the Soviet model, which treated most NCOs as senior privates and left most of the supervisory duties to officers. Most of the Afghan men with combat experience, however, were not in the army, but in tribal war parties (usually squad or platoon size). Here, many of them they gained good NCO type experience at the squad and platoon sergeant level. These men have been found and given some training for squad and platoon sergeant positions. Those that are at the platoon sergeant level, and are also literate, are being used as 1st sergeants (who have to handle some paperwork).

Another advantage the Afghans have over the Iraqis is a warrior mentality. Its easier to make the Afghans understand that for an army to work, troops must learn how to use their weapons (and take good care of them), and stand and fight. While Iraq has produced some good soldiers, most Iraqis want nothing to do with fighting. However, with good training and NCOs, just about anyone can be turned into an effective soldier. Unfortunately for Iraq, most of the good NCOs and officers were Sunni Arabs. These men are vulnerable to Saddams enforcers, who are still around and either killing Sunni veterans who join the new army, or threatening those considering it. Thus the Iraqis have a hard time getting experienced Sunni Arabs to serve as NCOs. So in Iraq, NCOs must be developed the hard way, by taking men with potential and having them learn on the job.

Warrior mentality indeed. But on the job experience, battle experience, counts for a lot in the end. The Iraqi Army has the potential to become far more lethal than the Afghanistan one, on a 1 to 1 basis. Iranians better watch out in 10 years, we won’t even need to invade them, we’ll just get the Afghanis and Iraqis to do it for us.

The Real Casualties
The MSM maybe needs to show this and also maybe give a damn.

WIA\\ KIA \\US Total\\ Other KIA \\Total KIA

10,740 \\\1,440 \\12,180\\ 171 \\ 1,611

After Fallujah the Second, there were much less wounded. It is interesting, in a Fog of War sense. Taking Fallujah out near the end of the year, close to the elections, in most likely instances derailed the Z-Man’s plans to disrupt the elections.

It is clear that the strategic victory of January 30 is immense, whether it was worth waiting to take out Fallujah or not in return for 4,000 wounded remains for future historians to decide.

The numbers really do give the lie to Ted Kennedy and his ilk’s talk about having more “international” troops to take off the load from American troops. The “international” troops aren’t doing the dieing, and probably would not do the dieing. In the case of Britain and Australia, they are incapable of doing the dieing as they are given the safe zones to patrol. The Kurdish and the Shia zones. If we gave them Fallujah to attack, they would have been wiped out.

I say that because I would be curious to see the casualty to death ratios for Australian, British, etc forces. American forces are holding a 1 to 10 ration, 1 death for every 10 casualties. This is rather unusual, as I would have expected something closer to the 1 to 2 ratios of some previous wars.

The road side bombs certainly increased the fatality ratio, at first anyway. But the military sure did learn quick.

What this all means of course, is that our medic technology, training, and abilities have advanced quite far given that Fallujah, the type of Black Hawk Down scenario, still upholds the 1 to 10 ratio. The suicide bomb in January that made the ratio 1 to 4, still placed much importance on our medical abilities.

Greatest strength and weakness

I think you make a lot of good points on American mistakes, Ali. I’m not sure I agree with your take on the reasons American’s have mixed feelings about taking action in Iraq, though. I think the real reasons Americans have mixed feelings has more to do with a long held American belief than any opinion Americans may have of the Iraqi people. America has always been a country made up of people that have a wide variety of cultures, backgrounds, and religious beliefs. One of the reasons that we have been so successful as a country despite our differences is the belief shared by the majority of Americans that each individual has the right to believe and live the way he or she chooses as long as that person respects the right of others to do the same. In a way it is both one of America’s great strengths and one of America’s great weaknesses. The belief means that Americans tend to be willing to fight oppressors dont let others try to force their beliefs on us, and despite some s Jeremy Garrett | Email | 02.14.05 – 8:05 pm | #

(continued) some serious mistakes in our past generally tend to be tolerant of others. However, the belief also means that some Americans are often reluctant to take action or that we feel some guilt after taking action because we worry we might be forcing our own beliefs or way of life on others. This isnt the first time Americans have felt doubts about getting involved in a conflict even if our involvement would have been for the right reasons. World War II is a good example. There was a lot of very heated debate about whether we should enter the war against the Germans before Pearl Harbor, just as there has been over our involvement in Iraq. In a way I think some Americans needed Pearl Harbor to reassure them that we were doing the right thing. Im hoping the Iraqi elections may be having a similar effect. Despite my one disagreement, I thought what you wrote was as intelligent and insightful as ever, and I am looking forward to reading your future postings. Jeremy Garrett | Email | 02.14.05 – 8:07 pm | #

I got this from Ali’s blog, once of Iraq the Model.

It was a pretty insight comment. The idea of the greatest weakness and the greatest strength. Especially in how American morale is bolstered by aggressive action and lowered if that action is debated too much on the merits of justification or not.

Americans ARE warmongers, we love being given a justification to kick your ass.

February 15, 2005
Hey, get them while they’re Young UN!

February 8, 2005
The Benefits of Iraqi Infantry

The Gulf Between Substance and Mirage
What the Marine says is substance, anyone else on the Left, whom are criticizing the Marine, only produces mirages.

Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. . . . It’s fun to shoot some people[..]

”You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Gen. Mattis added. ”So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Without the Marines, life would be a lot duller, and a lot shorter.

Of course it need not be stated that the MSM took it out of context. Of course, it need not be stated, that the fake liberals are more concerned with propriety, image, and self-esteem than they are ever concerned about morale.

A guest said on Dennis Miller’s show, that he sees no way that this Marine in a leadership position, is helping win the War on Al-Qaeda, not the War on Terror even though he said those words he meant Al-Qaeda not other terroist organizations that may be in league with Al-Qaeda. See, he sees no way that any morale boost helps win wars. Just as he sees no way that any morale blackhole that is the MSM, whom he supports asking the “tough questions” about Iraq, is helping us lose the war. That is definitely a mirage.

Colmes, spoke his usual litany of “I don’t know from that garbage dump he acquired such material”.

PRESS: You know, it bothers me, Sean. But what bothers me is this is an issue on which you and Alan Colmes and I should all agree.

There is no defending these remarks. Theyre despicable. It makes him sound like Hannibal Lecter. Even in war, it is not fun to shoot people.

It is fun to shoot people. People like shooting in ranges, and some Marines who were caught in a stronghold cut off from the rest of the forces, said after the fact that it was like shooting at targets on a range, because all the enemies were RUNNING ACROSS their view in plain sight.

Regardless of whether it is fun or not in war to kick the enemy’s ass, or whether VICTORY is exultation based or diversity based, it was definitely the right remark to a group of Marines in Iraq. A great morale booster from a senior General who was in Afghanistan, helping the troops in Iraq fight a much harder war.

And when fake liberals like Press say such hate based things, they are traitors via their attempts to shut off First Ammendment rights to both those who support the Marine’s comments and the right of LT. General himself to say what he wants that does not compromise military security.

There is a chance that future generations will look back, and remember his “quote” for what it is. Patton’s “You win in war not by dieing for your country but by making the other son of a bitch die for his”.

Heres the perspective I would suggest, Sean. Think about this. How would we think if some Al Qaeda (search) terrorist said, “Its fun to shoot those pale-faced Americans. You know? I mean, they let women dominate.”

Oh, you mean hear a terroist say on CNN these things? I would think we have a Fifth Column.

Or do you mean hear a terroist say these things when we have a bullet with their name etched on it, standing in front of us blindfolded with his last wish?

Or are you talking about hearing terroists say this in their safehouse just moments before we launch a Predator Hellfire missile on them?

Fake liberals need more specificity.

PRESS: They let women become their bosses, and so its fun to shoot them because theyre nothing but girly men.”

PRESS: Oh, come on. Sean, youre hurting yourself here. Look, this guy is wearing the uniform of the United States. Hes got the responsibility to represent the United States, No. 1.

No. 2, he is responsible for figuring out how to better train our Marines. The message that hes sending our young Marines is, “Hey, youre an American. Go over there; have fun, kill people.”

Saying girly men and then “Marines” in the same breath, is not good for your health dude.

PRESS: Let me finish a sentence. There are 140,000 of our men and women other there who are doing a heroic job.

HANNITY: Bill Press…

PRESS: And this idiot makes them all look bad.

The only idiots that makes the military look bad, are idiots like Press who don’t know how to win wars but think he can win this one via PR techniques and propaganda. For the other side, that is.

PRESS: I think he ought to be fired. And you know whats a scandal? Wheres Donald Rumsfeld? Why hasnt he condemned these remarks? Its been more than 24 hours.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Its really amazing.

PRESS: Where is the commander in chief?

COLMES: Its really remarkable, Bill. I find this indefensible.

You know, again, you had a great analogy: if it were the converse, what would people be saying? You know, we have a certain moral standard. We love to talk about how moral and just we are and that war is not about revenge. Its about justice, especially in response to what happened on September 11.

And this is a vengeful comment that you would think would be beneath the dignity of someone defending the United States of America.

PRESS: You know, look, I compare it to Abu Ghraib (search). To me, the same thing with Abu Ghraib. What would we think if our prisoners were being treated like that? We would be up in arms, rightfully so.

The Arab community is going to be up in arms, rightfully so, about what this general said. It is not saying our soldiers dot do their duty. We want them to do their duty. We want them to defend us. We know that killing is part of warfare. But to go out and say you take lethal pleasure in it?

COLMES: By the way, those who have fought in wars, most of them talk about how ugly it is, how terrible it is, how reprehensible it is, but you do it for your country. Ive never heard anybody say its fun to do it.

Colmes never heard anything different, because he never met an ex-military retired person that is bitter over his service, that Colmes DIDN’T like.

PRESS: Well, no, frankly. But I mean, look, again, this is what you might expect to hear from Usama bin Laden, right?

I hate fake liberals. They don’t deserve Ammendment Rights. But since this is an unjust world, with unjust scheisse going on, they get them nonetheless.

February 7, 2005
Bush is a poker player
Talk about high stakes poker.

Bush gambled on Iraq. Bush gambles on which invasion plan to implement. Bush gambled on whether to go to the UN. Bush gambled about Osama Bin Laden’s capture. Bush gambled on Saddam Hussein’s capture when Bin Laden was not yet caught.


the retroactive increase in death benefits paid to the families of servicepeople killed in action. They waited until after the election, when doing it sooner might have gotten them some votes.

And like all gamblers, you win some, you lose some.

Many would call his actions mistakes, but because he won by being principled, I cannot call it a mistake. I call it luck.

On one hand, I feel good and believe that Bush did this for reasons of genuine principled belief, probably against Karl Rove’s advice.

On the other, I feel rather weird, knowing that Bush bet the future history of Iraq and the United States on the “appearance” that he may be catering to the military for more votes.

The day after the Cuban Missile crisis, people must have felt the same way. Realization that the crisis is over, but resentful of risks taken, but without the knowledge to know whether the risks really affected the outcome.

February 6, 2005
True Heroes
True heroes like Rick Rescorla in 9/11, and this Marine are unknown to the great majority of the people they died to protect.

In this age of speed of light communications, we cannot blame it on the technology. We cannot blame it on the government limiting access to the military on security reasons, as reporters are imbedded in military units. We cannot even blame it on the majority not caring, though some truely do not care.

No, I blame it on the inability of the media to recognize the efficacy of values. Not moral values, just traditinal American values.






Those are the values true Warriors hold in their heart of hearts. And those stateside who hold the same values, cannot help but love and appreciate those who have taken those values to the extremest limit of human ability.

They are the frontiersmen, of the human soul. Just as the elites in America, are the writers of the human soul.

February 4, 2005
Something that only got a sideways mention from the MSM, including Fox, was this action figure that was touted by the AP as genuine.

The media isn’t just sloppy, the MSM isn’t just quick on the drawl bad on the aim, i.e. Rathergate, the MSM is also a collaborator.

The whole ActionFigureGate episode really makes me think about the standards applied by international major media(IMM) to the stories they disseminate. Why was major media so quick to disseminate pictures of an action figure as a genuine hostage photo?

More to the point, why are major media so quick to disseminate anything that a terrorist group, or purported terrorist group, releases?

The quickest way to get the prime spot in IMM today is to release a picture of somebody with a gun to their head. The IMM will immediately disseminate the picture and all your demands and statements!

For the terrorist, it is like being given millions of dollars in free advertising.

Back in the 20’s and 30’s, businesses tried to advertise themselves by pulling dangerous publicity stunts. They used human flies, faked car crashes, exploding buildings or anything they thought would get them free media attention. After a time, however, the media developed a consensus standard that such events would not be reported and the stunts for the most part stopped .

The media stopped covering the events for two reasons: (1) they sold advertising so giving away free advertising hurt the bottom line and (2) people were getting hurt and they were getting hurt only because the media was paying attention. When they stopped paying attention, people stopped getting hurt.

January 30, 2005
People think badly of Bush’s dependence and focus on loyalty. Because like honor and truth, loyalty is something today’s post-modern society sees as not so much a virtue, as an anachronism. What you are loyal to, depends solely on where and when you were born, or at least that is what they keep telling themselves. Their sense of predetermination shows more and more, when it becomes a convenient excuse to look down on the President for cultivating loyalty.

It is even historically and geographically consistent in a way, as New England was founded by Calvinists and Protestants. Predestination was bread and butter to their Manifest Destiny forefathers.

What these people don’t understand, is that if you can’t get someone’s loyalty, then your cause is most likely to be unjust for those people.

That is why they take the loyalty of the black vote for granted, they believe that one’s fealty is owed, not given.

‘Rambo’ helps keep U.S. base in Afghanistan secure

The head of this news story, care to guess from which publication it was derived? Forget MSM and think military journalism. The military understands loyalty, which is something the Left needs to stop reeducating themselves about.

It would be ironic if they set the pace of the culture and ended up with a Praetorian Guard, that coincidentally elminated the left wing people in government and all the lefties.

Dutch tolerance
The Dutch, need more tolerance. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they need to teach others more tolerance. Rather than subscribing to multicultural ethics as an excuse to do nothing.

Now Dutch language blog GeenStijl offers a real class room recoding, in which a Moroccan student demands respect from his teacher. Click here to see how aggressive he is and how afraid the teacher is. The boy wanted to visit mister Smith, but the teacher does not allow it. The boy then shouts: get up, get up, …. and lets go, lets go,…. They found the video clip on a well known forum (a subsidized Moroccan website with much antisemitic and anti western postings)

God Protect the Right, which is certainly something the Dutch don’t seem to understand. Neither Godliness nor Rightness.

Maybe the Dutch should take lessons from France, about how to do things right

January 25, 2005
Washington State manners
Thank God for the United States Marine Corps. For without them, the world would be a much less bearable and lethal a place.

As Chesty Puller said at Chosin Reservoir, “So they’ve got us surrounded. Good! Now we can fire in any direction. Those bastards won’t get away this time!”

ABC News

Sad to announce, but true:

Well, sure. ABC wants to “balance” its coverage of President Bush’s inauguration with coverage of a military funeral:

Jan. 19, 2005  For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below: Note that only the families of Iraqi war dead need apply. If a soldier died in Afghanistan, or aiding tsunami victims in Indonesia or Sri Lanka, or in a training exercise, never mind. That isn’t the “balance” ABC is looking for.

See powerlineblog at

And boy oh boy, did they actually do that. Peter Jennings spoke about a military funeral while at the same time covering the inauguration behind some “Fu*k Bush” Nazi signs in the background.

Ties in nicely with a nice background on media bias

January 24, 2005
Actual data on Media Bias count

Z Man
Nice nickname for Al-Zar.


Z-Mans been suckered. Z-Man is the troops nickname for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaedas jefe in Iraq. Z-MAN has declared a fierce war on democracy. Zs taken Bushs bait except the Presidents bait of promoting democracy and declaring war on tyranny and 0ppression isnt mere bait, its essential American values. The ideological dimensions of the War on Terror (The Millennium War) were there from the get-go, but the President inaugural address has focused them. Thats a huge step, I think, to obtaining the kind of resilient victory and secure peace the American people deserve. . . .

Yup a week before the Iraqi election Zarqawi has come out in public for imperialism, in his case Islamo-fascist imperialism.

Read the whole thing. It’s like somebody planned it or something.

UPDATE: Zarqawi isn’t getting much geek-respect, either, as a reader emails: “Someone should tell that Zarqawi guy that until he puts his tapes up as podcasts, we aren’t listening.”

Courtesy of instapundit.

Nano bombs
I find it hilarious that Iran thinks it can get nanotechnology as a “deterent” against us. In addition to all the other anti-American anti-liberty forces out there. THe argument I’ve heard is that if they can get nukes, they can get nano weapons. I find that laughable. Their societies produce like .0001 of the creative and scientific outputs of the US, and the only way they “get” advanced weapons is for traitors like the EU to sell it to Iran, North Korea, and etc. Traitors that only have that technology because they were once like us and for the fact that we shared much of our miltech with them because we were “allies”. Just like the way the Soviets got nukes was by stealing our designs in the first place.

It is guaranteed, not by me, but by history, that the US is going to be the first country to get nano bombs. If we can of course convince the military that it is the shit of course, and Democrats don’t label the proponents WMD fanatics.

P.S. One in two ain’t bad.

January 19, 2005
Satire by Michael Hendrix
A hilarious satire that elevates and propagates a unique idea, one that isn’t really asked much for obvious reasons

That idea, is this. That what the Democrats say about our loss of freedoms and other policies, are true. It asks the question, if they are true as some believe they are true, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? It is not such a simple question as I’ve found out. As what the Democrats are doing about it, is fundamentally different from what the Republicans would have done, if the same things were believed by Republicans to be occuring and the sides were flipped.

o whats left, Lefties? Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it?

Ill tell you what youre going to do about it: youre not going to do one damned thing but continue with your whining, thats what, and its not because deep down youre all cowards either. Its because deep down, you know youre full of shit. You dont even believe half the stuff youre currently crying about yourselves.

Because if you did, you wouldnt be talking about it. You wouldnt be writing whiny letters to the editor; you wouldnt be fearfully mincing down to the Canadian Consulate to half-seriously inquire about moving; you wouldnt be sitting in coffee houses denouncing the moronic inhabitants of Jesusland with your fellow smug, self-satisfied pseudo-hip doofuses. Youd be gearing up and arming yourselves for the fight of your lives. And much to your surprise, youd have a lot of us over here on the right offering to help load mags.

And thats why youre going to keep right on losing elections. If even one third of what you say was true, youd have Americans of every political stripe rushing to your side to man the barricades. But it isnt anything like true, and we all know it, and weve all known it ever since you tried to claim that proposed reductions in the annual rate of increase of various federal budget items during the Reagan years were actually heartless slashing of the budget by people who wanted poor people to die. Weve known it ever since you railed during the Clinton years about how the welfare reform forced on him by the evil Gingrich Repubs amounted to cultural and economic genocide, and then watched as hordes of welfare cheatswho you always claimed didnt existwere quietly expunged from the rolls and went back to work.

In other words, youre all hype and no hump.

Zell Miller
An ironic twist if you watched the Republican convention of 2004 and read the liberal comments about Zell Miller’s appeance, particularly liberal commentators with their talking points

If you will recall, they said Zell isn’t a Democrat. Well, hell yeah, I agree with them. Nobody can be a Democrat if their ideas about the the party, though right on the money, is ostracized and made to look a traitor. Many essences of Democrat talking points are simply projections, projections of what they would do in certain situations that are projected unto the Republican party, to make them look worse. This is why when the Democratic Party of Georgia wants to split off from the “National” party, they are called traitors, disloyal, anarchists, and etc.

Now of course, they stole what Zell said, but it won’t help them, not at all. Because you cannot just steal American technology to be on par with American military might. Oh no, you have to live the military life, obey the laws and traditions of the US, and many other meaningless on the surface, but very important facets. That is why the Democratic Party, though they will assimilate the ideas of people they purge out of the party, can never truly benefit from those stolen ideas. Some means preclude certain ends, and this kind of “crushing of dissent” and “mindless drivel” combined with an insatiable ideological intolerance of different views, precludes the goal of real unity, real victory, and real representation.

January 17, 2005
Thanks to a proposed law that would limit permissible speech concerning religion, the UK is is in the middle of a debate about free speech. Two recent events have exacerbated the situation: a now-cancelled play called Bezhti upset many Sikhs (the playwright has gone into hiding); a musical called Jerry Springer: The Opera was broadcast by the BBC and reportedly offended many Christians who in protest burned their TV licenses. The writers’ group English PEN is worried about the law, and has written a letter asking for a meeting with the Home Secretary.

I’ve seen a news show about Brits and their TV licenses.

Here’s the fun part: If you don’t buy one then the authorities will send a radio scanner truck by your house and check if you’re watching anything.

It’s like something out of Hogan’s Heroes when the Gestapo used to send out radio trucks to home in on the underground. Maybe that’s another reason they didn’t like Prince Harry wearing that Nazi costume at a party.

Comment by: Ion at January 14, 2005 08:06 PM

This is one of the comments to the link.

All I can say is… Patriot Act removes our liberties. America is evil. America is Jesus Land. America has too much religion. America is not free. America is a fascist land of idiots and sheep.

I blame John Ashcroft. Easiest guy to pick on, after all if I started blaming the real culperts, they might blacklist me.




Iraqi Civil War


January 25, 2005
Viewing By Category : History / Main
February 6, 2005
Bush’s mistakes
Many people criticize President Bush for mistakes past and present, yet none of the criticisms I have heard repeated by Democratic talking points have perspective or worth.

There have been accusations that Bush is too unilateral, when in fact he is too multilateral. There have been accusations that Bush is a war monger and rushed to war, when in fact, he limped his way to war. There have been accusations that Bush is Hitler, when Bush more closely resembles the only President in history to drop nuclear weapons on populated cities.

Just as there was a Truman Doctrine and a Monroe Doctrine, now there is a Bush Doctrine. The people who look at Bush’s defects have no perspective, and therefore their views are colored by their positions more than the positions of the President.

Those who defend the President, do it in terms of negating the accusations, whereas I believe it is more effective to counter a positive with another positive, rather than trying to negate the positive as the Democrats do about Iraq.

When the war was talked about in 2002, there were two people to advocate the UN route. Tony Blair and Secretary of State Powell. Blair, because regardless of his belief in the US-British alliance, Blair is still a Labour Liberal at heart. A world unification sort of leader, with the intelligence and eloquence to accomplish some of his goals politically. So when Blair said to Bush that going to the UN would help him out politically, Bush made the mistake of putting the interests of personal loyalty above that of the sovereignty and security of the United States of America. Who he swore to defend from all foreign and domestic enemies. He didn’t fullfill that oath when he allowed the UN to delay us for months, while giving Saddam the time to decide to remove whatever weapons he has to Syria, and to stash money for the insurgency, and to deploy Fedayeen and the rest of his intelligence apparatus to loyalist towns to await the return of Saddam.

The UN has killed more Americans, than any unilateralist policy would have. American military might is unsurpassed, and I am unfraid to say that it is diluted if forced to work in conjunction with other nation’s militaries and chains of command. The purpose of the Coalition is to prove their loyalty to the United States, in order to further an alliance of mutual interest, and they accomplish that by devoting both blood and political backing to the cause. I cannot say that have benefited not at all militaristically from our allies, I was not blind or prejudiced enough to believe that the East European countries were only buttering up the US and would not be sending troops, as many believed at the time. Rather, it is that we did not need their help in military terms, as American soldiers are quite good enough to do any job that Poland may offer to take off our shoulders. I appreciate their loyalty, yet it remains that their contribution has not directly, only indirectly, saved American lives by putting themselves in danger for us. That is to be commended, but it pales in comparison to what was cost at the UN, waiting to build such coalitions. If we had gone alone, we would have had to do all the work, but the work would have been minimal compared to the billions of dollars funding the insurgency and the planned looting and chaos. And any political price we would have paid for a unilateralist policy, we are paying now with a multilateralist policy.

If Bush believes that sacrificing more American lives for time to create alliances is a good thing, then I see no difference between that and Kerry’s “global test”. One is competent, the other is not, that is the only difference.

President Bush also skims on deep waters by tolerating the UN on US soil, when the UN was aiding and abetting the enemy we went to war with, and provided that enemy with the funds to start an insurgency that the UN took time to provide the planning period via inspections.

If the Democrats were sane and American patriots who believed that benefiting this country benefits themselves, or if they believed in the patriotic belief that their country is the greatest of all countries, they would be trying to impeach Bush for his multilateralist policies that are jeopardizing American lives and sovereignty.

But they are not, because they are reactionaries that refuse to react to their own idiotic beliefs of world wide peace or international law.

Regardless of whether the multilateralist policies for Iran or North Korea is correct, the multilateralist policy for Iraq was clearly wrong. Colin Powell told the President he could get a Resolution declaring war, Colin Powell failed. Tony Blair said, go to the UN and I will do the rest; Tony Blair only fullfilled half of that promise.

And the French? They fullfilled -100% of their promise to help.

Bush’s other problem is that he places too much of the benefit of doubt in people he never selected as Cabinet Officers in his first term. Trusting in Tenet, was a serious misjudgement. Never trust Washington Bureacracy, of which the CIA head for many administrations are a part of. His loyalties are to his department, not to the people of the US. That is why we elect Presidents based upon a state by state popular vote.

And when that trust is proven to be misplaced, Bush doesn’t fire the CIA head immediately. Bush has too little micromanagement in his MBA style administration. Bush gave everything to Tommy Franks, that he asked for, true. Yet Bush when given a decision between more troops on the ground for a better political solution in the future, to a better military solution in the short term for a General that was going to retire after the action, Bush let someone else decide that monumental decision between what is good for the country and what is optimial militaristically. Bush having waited months to give Saddam the greatest amount of advantage that it is possible to give an enemy you are prepared to invade, now isn’t willing to override his Generals and wait a few more days to get the Second Front setup via airborne drops.

This is a compound mistake, that reinforces each other. In a fail safe system, with two fail safes, one may go and everything is all right. But if both go at once, you’re pocked.

While his decision to go to the UN may be justified on certain terms, his decision to go to the UN and wait it out and then NOT wait it out for the Second Front, is mindboggling. Tommy Franks wanted strategic surprise, well gee, what kind of strategic surprise are we actually going to get in return for not deploying a Second Front after 6+ months of giving Saddam to cook up an insurgency?

Guerrila and terroist movements are primarily political, not military movements. And it is credit to Frank’s conservative military values, and Bush’s conservative political values, that they did not realize this and taken actions to forestall the fact. And the fact was that invasion of Iraq was a militaristic cake full of icing. Their TRAINING was harder than the March to Baghdad. Therefore why in God’s green earth they would sacrifice a Second Front in order to BLUFF Saddam in deploying his Republican guard up there, instead of against our troops, was ridiculous. We would have went through 10X the number of Republican Guard, the problem was that they SCATTERED, not that they got in front of us and had to be piled up like logs.

Much of this is hindsight, but the important parts are also dictated by the contingencies at the time. Tommy Franks knew the consequences, some of what we knew to be pluses and minuses, back then. He knew that the Republican Guard might retreat without a Second Front, the point is, He didn’t Care. It was the job of the Administration to care about the future, Franks was going to retire after having two Campaigns in his theater. He wasn’t, couldn’t, and didn’t even think about planning for the future occupation.

Bush, by his inexperience, made a very bad mistake, and it is costing us in the future, because they didn’t want to shed American blood for Total Victory in the short term. When they had a chance to defeat the enemy in detail, they didn’t do it cause they were too squeemish about casualties. Now they are up against the Republican Guard officers, the secret police apparatus of Saddam, Saddam’s UN slush fund, Al-Qaeda Z-man’s organization, Iran’s financial and political backing of cultural Shiites; fomenting revolution, Syria’s leaky borders, Saudi Arabia’s exportation of Wahhabism, and every suicide bomber they can smuggle across the border.

By not risking casualties in the short term, they have GUARANTEED casualties in the long run. Because now, their enemies have now combined arms, and it will take far more people to kill and be killed, to defeat a unified organization of alliances and finance than it ever would be to defeat a lone dictator and his security apparatus in Detail. More American lives, more Iraqi lives, more innocents, more sacrifice. Bush almost made it hard on purpose. And that will have consequences, both good and bad, in the decades to come.

War on the cheap, is like war without the belief that Peace is Through Superior Firepower. Both are the belief of pacifistic Christians and pacifistic environmentalists and pacifistic world wide unification. All religious beliefs, none of them war beliefs.

So now we have Bush’s two prime mistakes. Too multilateralist. Too much allowing other people to make judgements that he should be the one making. On the balance sheet, Bush’s style is more favorable than Johnson’s style, but all styles have weaknesses and strengths. If people criticize the true mistakes, they won’t be made again by future administrations, hopefully. But people are not doing that, because they hate Bush, and the ONLY way to criticize truthfully is to give recognition to the person, his mistakes as well as his successes.

Only by recognizing the truism of letting the military do their job, may we recognize the problem of letting the military do YOUR job as well. Only by recognizing the benefits of a unilateralist policy, may we criticize Bush’s multilateralist policy, and vice a versa. Though it would be hard to recognize a multilateralistpolicy without attributing it to bush and criticizing bush for a non-existent unilateralist policy would be near impossible; the principle is still the same.

If the Demo-derby-crats would criticize using the points I have listed above, they might be worth a shit. But since they can’t bring themselves to give credit where credit is due, they will be unremembered in history. Their legacy will be that of the Republicans in WWII… nobody will know a thing except that they were against President George W. Bush.

February 4, 2005
Revisionist History
It happened with WMDs, it happened with bait and switch, heck it even happened with election fraud.The Democrats cannot help rewriting history.

Their opposition to the very concept of reforming the system after President Clinton supported reforming Social Security is inexplicable. Why is the system fine now when it was broken then? Why do his compatriots categorically oppose it now? Could it be that they simply don’t want to allow the Republicans to get the credit for a fix, and to take yet another issue away from them, as he did with the

Now they are saying there is no social security problem in the futur,e that it is all a concotion of the Bushitlers. History tells us that Bill Clinton said there was a problem, he just didn’t advocate a plan to solve it.

Without history, would the Democratic party become the defacto Ministery of Truth?

February 3, 2005
World War IV
This source is where I first got the idea of world war III and world war IV.

Good background information when reading this post.

January 31, 2005
A slideshow of the Iraqi Elections
Courtesy of Instapundit

You have got to see this sideshow. Very well done and sequenced.

January 30, 2005
And Liberty for All

– Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere.”- Abraham Lincoln, 1858 Speech in Illinois

Yes, our defense is in the preservation of that which motivates other men to strive for liberty.

You will note that “freedom” is used more and more to replace liberty. Anyone who has read 1984, understands the alternative meaning of “free” and how it can be so insidious unconsciously or consciously.

Throughout its history, America has given hope, comfort and inspiration to freedoms cause in all lands. The reservoir of good will and respect for America was not built up by American arms or intrigue; it was built upon our deep dedication to the cause of human liberty and welfare. Adlai Stevenson

This Jeffersonian idea of liberty and to promote it, is important. But it is only half of the catalyst needed for a truely enlightened and visionary foreign policy. Liberty and human rights in the world, had to have a national self-interest component, a realpolitek component. As WWII had and the Iraq War has as well.

Wilson’s decision to promote liberty and to stop aggression, by having the US interfere in European affairs, was not a very good idea. Even if he personally did not want to go to war, he could have stopped the American public’s desire for violence simply be refusing to exercise his commander-in-chief powers. He would have lost his Presidency, but the fate of future history would have been inevitably changed if the President lead foreign policy, instead of being lead by public opinion.

The World Wars of the 20th Century will be forever known as the Chain Reaction Wars. That is how I view it at least, and I predict that it will be viewed like that in far future.

WWI, began because of military alliances and European factionalism. WWII began because of the issues unresolved and created in WWI, as the Treaty of the French created a cruel defeat for the German people. Unlike America, Europeans are cruel and sadistic in victory.

WWIII, the Cold War, was a “low-intensity” conflict fought by proxy nations like Israel vs Arabs, North Vietnam vs South Vietnam, North Korea vs South Korea. WWIII, of course, was caused by the fact that we won WWII and had to allow Stalin the territory he gained and the weapons he stole from his allies.

And WWIV, was caused in part because of the consequences of winning WWIII. Alliances with dictators allowed the dictators to gain power and influence, further increasing the amount of factionalism and misery in the Middle East.

Each World War, were fought on drastically different standards. WWI was fought in the Trenches with huge masses of troops marching into the fire. WWII was fought with armored tanks and other lightning quick technology. WWIII was fought with intel, subversion, and intrigue, as well as skirmishes across the world. WWIV is fought with both the evolved technologies of WWII, the defunct tactics of WWIII, along with the result of a new ideology, Islamicfascism. Combining high technology, with low tech, and “trade craft”. Secrets, and more secrets.

I suspect that WWV will be when we fight Europe, Russia, or China. Europe will be assimilated by Muslims, and their culture will implode. When American troops on European lands start getting killed, the American public will demand a withdrawal with far louder voice then they are demanding of Iraq. China and Russia will take advantage of European chaos, to further their own self-interests. And this of course, will conflict somewhere along the line with the US. I can only speculate, rather than predict, as WWIV is not yet over. And WWV will depend, largely, on how the last World War was won.

Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. America is the only idealistic nation in the world. Woodrow Wilson

One of the problems with idealism, is it needs determination to be real. And that determination is something Americans specialize in.

Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. Calvin Coolidge

Coolidge has a unique take on patriotism. When Republicans sometimes call Democrats, unpatriotic in what they say, it is seemingly an unconscious realization that what the Democrats believe is simply counter to the principle values this nation was built up. Yet, their unconscious desire conflicts with those very principle values, as free speech is one of those American values. Yet, disagreeing with speech, is far different from restricting it.

Unpatriotic, looking out for yourself rather than looking out for your country. Those who are unwilling to take risks, because they fear the personal cost, regardless of the national benefit.

We are the standard-bearers in the only really authentic revolution, the democratic revolution against tyrannies. Our strength is not to be measured by our military capacity alone, by our industry, or by our technology. We will be remembered, not for the power of our weapons, but for the power of our compassion, our dedication to human welfare. Hubert Humphrey

We will also be remembered for our military. The greatest in the History of Humankind.

But stil, the power of our ideals, is also the most power in the History of Humankind.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty. John F. Kennedy

What Bush suffers from is an inability to stir the fire in men’s mind. What Bush is gifted with, is an even more indomitable determination to succede and take risks.

Indeed, let every nation, friend or foe, know that under the leadership of our American President, we will not falter nor flail at the difficulties destiny have provided us.

Know this, and fear the success of the United States of America, and her allies.

O! Ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the Old World is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression. Thomas Paine

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression”

Thomas Paine, author of COmmon Sense, was not an intellectual’s intellectual. He was a self-educated man of the people. Therefore he recognizes something most people refuse to, that liberty either overtakes everyone, or is overtaken herself by her enemies.

Great has been the Greek, the Latin, the Slav, the Celts, the Teuton, and the Anglo-Saxon, but greater than any of these is the American, in which are blended the virtues of them all. William Jennings Bryan “American Mission” speech

You could even say that America is the ultimate and greatest hybrid evolutionary system developed by the advance of Human knowledge and experience.

An evolutionary system with the power to dominate, yet the wisdom to stop corruption.

What constitutes an American? Not color nor race nor religion. Not the pedigree of his family nor the place of his birth. Not the coincidence of his citizenship. An American is one who loves justice and believes in the dignity of man. An American is one who will fight for his freedom and that of his neighbor. An American is one who will sacrifice property, ease, and security in order that he and his children may retain the rights of all free men. Harold Ickes “I Am an American” speech

If an American is one that loves justice and fights for his freedom and that of his neighbor, then America is full of non-Americans.

The whole history of our continent is a history of the imagination. Men imagined land beyond the sea and found it. Men imagined the forests, the great plains, the rivers, the mountains  and found these plains and mountains. They came, as the great explorers crossed the Atlantic, because of the imagination of their minds  because they imagined a better, a more beautiful, a freer, happier world. Archibald Macleish

I imagine a Middle East free of the conditions that breeds terror, hate, and ignorance.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terns that I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot not heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for more blood, more vengence, more desolation. War is hell. General William Tecumseh Sherman

The difference betweeb Sherman and the pacifist idiots who complain about the Iraq War being too “hellish” is that Sherman was willing to destroy everything in his path to help end the war while the pacifists are willing to extend the war through whatever non-violent means possible.

Their sentiments are the same, War is Hell. But Sherman understand that War SHOULD be Hell, while pacifists think that War shouldn’t be Hell nor should War exist.

The difference, of course, is always the difference between those who are willing to achieve their goals using the means to accomplish those goals, and those too quesy to do what it takes to accomplish their goals.

The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. Benjamin Franklin

Tell that to universal medical care and social security, products of LBJ and FDR respectively.

Of course, the Founding Fathers have no bearing on the policies of the current Democrats in power.

The American is wonderfully alive; and his vitality, not having often found a suit-able outlet, makes him appear agitated on the surface; he is always letting off an unnecessarily loud blast of incidental steam. Yet his vitality is not superficial; it is inwardly prompted, and as sensitive and quick as a magnetic needle. He is inquisitive, and ready with an answer to any question that he may put to himself of his own accord; but if you try to pour instruction into him, on matters that do not touch his own spontaneous life, he shows the most extraordinary powers of resistance and oblivescence; so that he often is remarkably expert in some directions and surprisingly obtuse in others. He seems to bear lightly the sorrowful burden of human knowledge. In a word, he is young. George Santayana

Young, and wiser than the oldest European. A young man, with the responsibilities of the Elders, getting tired of the old fools complaining about everything.

Not everyone is anti-American
Just people who don’t know Americans, are anti-American

The next night in the Berber town of Matmata we met a pair of German travelers — Michael and Jung. Both were in their 30s, like us. They were great guys. Traveled every year together, always to Muslim countries. Thought Europe was boring. Hoped, like us, to travel to Libya next. Tried, like us, and failed to get into Libya this trip. We shared a hookah with them, and that’s when Shelly asked them the question: “Are you two ever invited to sit down for tea?”

They looked at each other, surprised at the question.

“By Tunisians?” Jung asked.

“By Tunisians,” she said.

And they looked at each other again. “No,” they both said.

No tea for the Germans. For God’s sake, why not? They were friendly, respectful, interested in the country and the culture, perfectly charming, and they both spoke the language — well, they spoke French at any rate, Tunisia’s second language. Yet no one ever asked them to tea.

They came to the same conclusion as Shelly and I; we got asked to tea because we’re Americans. I feel awkward about this, and I can’t explain why it happens. I don’t want special treatment, and I certainly don’t expect it. That’s just the way it is in Tunisia right now. Anti-Americanism isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be.

One of the reasons why he doesn’t want special treatment is because Americans do not think of themselves as personally exhalted or more enlightened than the rest of the world. Only some Americans, those who don’t subscribe to American principle virtues, think that way.

And when he says it isn’t a clash of civilizations, he is partly right. It isn’t a clash between “civilizations”, but one between civilization and totalitarian, fascist slavery. With a mix of barbarianism in.

The the only ones who likes Americans, are the ones who like how we do things in our civilization. Tunisia seems to be one of the ones who like the American model, perhaps it is because they were once a French colony and saw how things looked if they followed the anti-American route.

January 26, 2005
When the going gets tough, call on the Klan
A stunning attack on the racist toleration in the Democratic party

Which U.S. Senator is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan?

Which U.S. Senator wasn’t just a member of the KKK but was a “Kleagle” — an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head?

Which U.S. Senator said he joined because it “offered excitement” and because the Klan was an "effective force” in “promoting traditional American values.”

Which U.S. Senator wrote the following, three years after he claims to have ended his ties with the KKK: “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia” and “in every state in the Union.”

Which U.S. Senator also wrote that he would never fight “with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

January 25, 2005
Gun Control 2
The always reliable instapundit has come up with a link about gun crime in Britain Where violent crime, at least with guns, are presumably nonexistent of course.

Yes, that’s right folks, while overall crime in the UK has been dropping slightly, violent crime involving guns is increasing! From Bloomberg Radio:

Or maybe the filters of the media just isn’t working correctly, because I believe I read that as “gun crime has went up”. How can that be if the media was still in control of information?

A sign of the times
It is always interesting to see history cycle in on itself.

How many Liberals does it take to win a war?

How many of you Liberals does it take to win a war? Well how the hell can we tell? You wont fight one anymore. You say that you support the troops, but the truths plain as your face, Youd pull us from the battle, march us home in full disgrace. Youve no stomach for the fighting, got no mettle, got no pluck; If you ran this war on terror, wed be a very well plucked duck. The wolves of Jihad smell your dread, can smell your craven breath, And emboldened by the fear they scent, lust for our bloody death.

But wait, you protest piously , We are fighters for the poor. Might we suggest you start to fight, before wolves come through the door? Do you think theyll still believe in you, your poor, your gays, your blacks, When the wolves run wild among them, sinking fangs into their backs? Think then that theyll be caring, when theyre counting out their dead, We inflict pain on a captive wolf to learn whats in his head? Do you really think, you bleeding hearts, when they bleed in scarlet torrents, Theyll care we cage the savage wolves, search lairs without signed warrants?

January 24, 2005
Iraqi elections

It is an interesting connection between WWII propaganda used for good, and the old axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

To realize what a stunning piece of hypocrisy this is, you have to understand the position of Jeremy Paxman at the BBC. He is as representative of his network as Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather have been of CBS or as Peter Jennings or Ted Koppel have been of ABC. How dare the BBC cop a “Blair lied!” attitude when Paxman, Mr. BBC himself, was publishing the same argument at the same time as Blair?

2. That leads us back to a question I posed at the beginning of this post: Why the sudden 180-degree turnaround in Paxman/BBC attitude on the subject of Saddam’s possession of WMD?

The answer, I think, lies in this excerpted sentence from Chapter 11: “For twenty years, Iraq, under Saddam’s leadership, has held up Caliban’s mirror to the West.” In late 2001, when Harris and Paxman were apparently doing most of their writing, to August 2002, when the book was published, the notion that Saddam Hussein had kept his stockpiles of WMDs and was an immediate threat was not yet an argument in America’s and George W. Bush’s interest; it was still, at that point, an argument with which to indict the West.

In Harris and Paxman’s telling, Western civilization was the Frankenstein that produced the monster Saddam. And not only was the West to blame for creating Saddam; but the history that Harris and Paxman relate is one of the monster repeatedly outsmarting his creator, rendering his creator impotent to stop him.

As the months wore on into the autumn and winter of 2002-03, however, and it became clearer that Bush was making essentially the same argument that Paxman and Harris were making but that Bush was using it to build a case for war, it rapidly became less an anti-Western argument and more a pro-Western one. Even worse, it became a blatantly pro-American and pro-George Bush argument. Anti-Western feeling may be rampant at the BBC, but it pales beside the BBC’s anti-American feeling. And so, virtually overnight and without missing a beat, the BBC and the media in general became corrosive skeptics on the subject of Saddam Hussein and current stockpiles of WMDs.

Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) — the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink'[.]

One advantage I must note that Winston didn’t have, is that our media is free. Free to utter lies but free to be held acountable as well. Less so if it is government funded of course, but even so, more than WInston ever had. However, because the whole point of a free media is to reduce propaganda and lies, when a media is found to be producing propaganda and lies, the media will use the principle of “free press” to get away with it. So, one step forwards, one step backwards.

Genovese Syndrome
An article at techcentral reflects on the relationship between the genocide being ignored by the UN and the world and a murder in the US that was ignored by neighbors looking out their windows.

I tend to look at it not as antipathy or apathy towards human suffering, as was true of the Genovese case, but as a case of extreme fatigue. After WWII and Truman’s support of the creation of the UN, America believed that we could now forget about the woes of world and concentrate on our own problems and economy. Then the Cold War occured and America had to worry anew about foreign problems, especially Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam was the most noted “defeat”, it being a political defeat credited to Americans rather than foreign fighters, of the entire Cold War. And the Cold War ended not on a bang, thankfully, but in a whimper. As the Soviet Empire simply fell away. And therefore it was easy to believe that we were progressing to the point where we can simply ignore foreign problems, since it will magically go away. Intellectually, people know that it isn’t realistic, but since most people don’t care about what goes on in the rest of the world that doesn’t America, it is so easy to believe in what one wants to be true. And therefore we had an sabbatical, as Bush called it. A time of relative peace and quiet. And then, people started bothering us again. The UN is an excuse Americans used in the past, for why they were too tired to govern the world. Americans were simply too decked down with responsibilities to notice Rwanda. But not too nearsighted not to notice Slobodan Milosovic after the Cold War.

So my conclusion is that Darfur occurs because Americans are sick and tired of alternatively being blamed for our interventions and blamed that we don’t do “enough” around the world. As Hanson put it,

In fact, an American consensus is growing that envy and hatred of the United States, coupled with utopian and pacifistic rhetoric, disguise an even more depressing fact: Outside our shores there is a growing barbarism with no other sheriff in sight. Any cinema student of the American Western can fathom why the frightened townspeople  huddled in their churches and shuttered schools  almost hated the lone marshal as much as they did the six-shooting outlaw gang rampaging in their streets. After all, the holed-up ‘good’ citizens were always angry that the lawman had shamed them, worried that he might make dangerous demands on their insular lives, confused about whether they would have to accommodate themselves either to savagery or civilization in their town’s future, and, above all, assured that they could libel and slur the tin star in a way that would earn a bullet from the lawbreaker. It was precisely that paradox between impotent high-sounding rhetoric and blunt-speaking, roughshod courage that lay at the heart of the classic Western from Shane and High Noon to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and The Magnificent Seven.

January 21, 2005
2005 Inauguration
A good Deutsche perspective on German media, how capitalists haters thrive only because of capitalism, or appealing to the masses

And of course the inauguration

German signs

Update January 23.

I also found Fox New’s video archive of the speech. Which can be found in the Video tab of this news piece