So Sayeth Thebes

"Good deeds do not require long statements; but when evil is done, the whole art of oratory is employed as a screen for it."

--Theban speaker, appealing to the Spartans to eliminate the duplicitous Plataeans, "History of the Pelopennesian Wars", Thucydides, page235

Lest We Forget...

...the meaning of Memorial Day, set aside as it was to commemorate those those that lost their lives in the Civil War, I reprint the Gettysburg Address:


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Is There Anyone....

...who can fix this margin problem I'm having with this blog? If you notice, the text is hugging the left margin to the point of where there is none. Any suggestions any of you can give to fix this problem would be greatly appreciated.


Iran

Protests are filling the streets as we speak. Pictures here.

I've been harping on the Iranian protests for a few years now. The government had succeeded up 'til this point in suppressing the students a year or two ago, but as the line from Peter Gabriel's Biko stated, "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire..." Let's hope that the people overthrow the mad mullahs before we do.

Mark Levin's Post.....Of Which I Have Nothing More To Add

Rank Abandonment
05/28 02:00 PM
From the Sunday Washington Post:

Republican House members facing the toughest races this fall are overwhelmingly opposed to any deal that provides illegal immigrants a path to citizenship — an election-year dynamic that significantly dims the prospects that President Bush will win the immigration compromise he is seeking, according to Republican lawmakers and leadership aides.

The opposition spreads across the geographical and ideological boundaries that often divide House Republicans, according to interviews with about half of the 40 or so lawmakers whom political handicappers consider most vulnerable to defeat this November. At-risk Republicans — from moderates such as Christopher Shays in suburban Connecticut and Steve Chabot in Cincinnati to conservative J.D. Hayworth in Arizona — said they are adamant that Congress not take any action that might be perceived as rewarding illegal behavior. ...

... House Republicans appear inalterably opposed to any bill that paves the way for citizenship. They plan to name representatives to the House-Senate conference committee who share this view. They will fight for the security-only approach and are prepared to walk away from the conference if they don't get their way, according to GOP leadership aides. ...

... Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.), a top Democratic target who represents a district so competitive it is known as the "bloody 8th," warned that if House Republicans do not oppose guest workers, temporary workers and anything "that looks like amnesty," they could very well lose the House.

"There are lot of people on Capitol Hill that have no clue what November is going to bring them on immigration," he said. "It could be something like a tidal wave that could benefit the Democrats simply because Republicans don't do the right thing. To survive through November, the folks up here [on Capitol Hill] are really going to have to understand the passion behind this."

More here.

And here’s Bill Kristol’s posting, in part, on the Weekly Standard’s website:



… They can talk themselves into a frenzy about illegal immigration, of course. But on this issue, the Senate managed—contrary to the conventional wisdom of late April—easily to pass a sensible and comprehensive immigration reform bill. And House Republicans now show some signs of coming to realize that talk radio is not always the best source of policy guidance. Enough of them may come to realize that passing legislation they regard as flawed would be better than going home to the voters having achieved nothing. So Bush could have an immigration reform signing ceremony to look forward to in the fall.


More here .


Certain Republican elites think they have the pulse of the conservative movement, but they don’t. In fact, many of them have never been active in the conservative movement. They often throw around Ronald Reagan’s name, having never campaigned for him in either 1976 or 1980, as if they share both his ideology and courage. They don’t realize that they’ve become part of the Republican establishment that Reagan fought most of his political life. And they look down on talk radio (except when they’re trying to hawk their books) because they look down on the grassroots. Talk radio is far more engaged with and responsive to the conservative base than those holed up in office buildings writing for others who are holed up in office buildings. And so the intensity of opposition from conservatives and many, many other Americans to the cynical ethnic pandering and dangerous open-borders viewpoint by the administration and the Senate is condescendingly dismissed as coming from a bunch of “yahoos.” (Here .) They arrogantly attack the very people whose views they claim to represent.

The elites and McCain Republicans seem to lack a well-developed understanding of conservatism. Conservatism is about more than a hawkish foreign policy. And for many reasons discussed here and elsewhere, it’s the open-borders crowd urging the country to adopt a massive expansion of our government (including entitlement programs and taxes) and transformation of our society (an unprecedented invitation to tens of millions of aliens to settle here without the ability to assimilate them into our culture), which neither conservatives nor the public in general want.

The Republican party faces an electoral disaster in November if the president and Senate prevail in this battle. And the ranks of the House Republicans will be the first to take the hit.

The Wisdom of Pericles

Pericles was a Greek general, orator, and statesman that led Athens through what many consider to be its golden age (approx. 450 BC). Through reading Thucydides' "History of the Peloppenesian Wars", I came across Pericles 'Funeral Oration', what was and is one of the most amazing pieces of rhetoric I've ever read. (You can read it on the page on Pericles on his wikipedia.com page.) More thought provoking and touching than his 'Funeral Oration' is Pericles' speech in defense of his position to go to war against Sparta and the Peloppenese, which though democratically and popularly arrived at, soon became unpopular due to military setbacks, as well as a thoroughly devastating plague that swept through Athens, killing large swathes of the population in the process. As a result of these events, the people of Athens developed an intense anger towards Pericles. His response to it was quite extraordinary. Here are some excerpts:

"I expected this outbreak of anger on your part against me, since I understand the reason for it and I have called an assembly with this object in view, to remind you of your previous resolutions and to put forward my own case against you, if we find that there is anything unreasonable in your anger against me and in your giving way to your misfortunes. My own opinion is that when the whole state is on the right course it is a better thing for each separate individual than when private interests are satisfied but the state as a whole is going downhill. However well of a man may be in his private life, he will still be involved in the general ruin if his country is destroyed; whereas, so long as the state itself is secure, individuals have a much greater chance of recovering from their private misfortunes. Therefore, since the state can support individuals in their suffering, but no one person by himself can bear the load that rests upon the state, is it not right for us all to rally to her defense? It is not wrong to act as you are doing now? For you been so dismayed by disaster in your homes that you are losing your grip on the common safety; you are attacking me for having spoken in favor of war and yourselves for having voted for it.

'So far as I am concerned, if you are angry wth me you are angry with one who has, I think, at least as much ability as anyone else to see what ought to be done and to explain what he sees, one who loves his city and one who is above being influenced by money. A man who has the knowledge but lacks the power clearly to express it is no better off than if he never had any ideas at all. [Bush?] A man who has both these qualities, but lacks patriotism, could scarcely speak for his own people as he should.[Kerry? Pelosi? Murtha?] And even if he is patriotic as well, but not able to resist a bribe, then this one fault will expose everything took the risk of being bought and sold. [Both Bill and Hilllary Clinton?] So that if at the time when you took my advice and went to war you considered that my record with regards to these qualities was even slightly better than that of others, then now surely it is quite unreasonable for me to be accused of having done wrong."

"Confidence, out of a mixture of ignorance and good luck, can be felt even by cowards; but this sense of superiority comes only to those who, like us, have real reasons for knowing that they are better placed than their opponents. And when the chances on both sides are equal, it is intelligence that confirms courage-the intelligence that makes one able to look down on one's opponent, and which proceeds not by hoping for the best (a method only valuable in the depserate situations), but by estimating what the facts are, and thus obtaining a clearer vision of what to expect.

'Then it is right and proper for you too to support the imperial dignity of Athens. This is something in which you all take pride, and you cannot continue to enjoy the privileges unless you also shoulder the burdens of empire. And do not imagine that what we are fighting for is simply the question of freedom or slavery; there is also involved the loss of our empire and the dangers arising from the hatred which we have incurred in administering it. Nor is it any longer possible for you to give up this empire, though there may be some people who in a mood of sudden panic and in a spirit of political apathy actually think that this would be a fine and noble thing to do. Your empire is now like a tyranny; it may have been wrong to take it, it is certainly danngerous to let it go. And the kind of people who talk of doing so and persuade others to adopt their point of view would very soon bring the state to ruin, and would still do so even if they lived by themselves in isolation. For those who are politically apathetic can only survive if they are supported by people who are capable of taking action. They are quite valueless in a city which controls an empire, though they would be safe slaves in a city that was controlled by others."

Relevent to today's situation here in America? You be the judge. But I happen to think these words, spoken almost 2500 years ago, succinctly describe what is going on today in this country.

The Story So Far....Book-wise

Almost to the halfway mark of 2006, I figured it would be a good time to take inventory of Spitfire's completed reading for the year. Here goes:

a.) Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic, by Tom Holland

Clearly written and gripping, this book details the last hundred or so years prior to the end of the Roman Republic, starting with the bloodfeud between two competing Roman generals (Sulla and Marius) that tore apart Roman society and eventually resulted in Sulla marching into Rome under arms (an egregious violation of the Roman constitution) and rigging a senate vote to himself declared dictator. Even though Rome eventually reverted back to a representative republic when Sulla retired, the precedent had been set for future generals to act in the same manner. It didn't take but a few decades after for it to happen, when Gaius Julius Caesar did the same thing, only this time, the prospect of a reversion back to republicanism looked much more remote. His assassination and the civil war that grew out of it, between the republicans led by Caesar's assassins, Cassius and Brutus, versus Octavian (later Augustus) and Marc Antony (Caesar's second in command) destroyed the republic for good, with Augustus assuming absolute power and delcared emperor. A well-written book by a thorough historian.

b.) Twelve Caesars-Suetonius

Why read modern day historians when you could read the real McCoy? Suetonius, a contemporary of the Emperor Hadrian, puts to record all the rumors, innuendos, reputations, physical and mental characteristics of the first twelve caesars, starting with Gaius Julius Caesar. "Too many rulers are a dangerous thing", said Suetonius, and rightly so. With few exceptions, virtually every Roman emperor was a cruel, lacked judicious temperament, was immoderate, and murderous. (The exceptions were, strangely enough, Julius Caesar and Augustus.) A worthwhile read, and pretty salacious, too.

c.) Goshawk Squadron-Derek Robinson

A work of fiction (gasp!) that I got talked into reading by my friend Fireman John. About a squadron of First World War pilots in France, the book describes the mercilessness of the air war fought between the British and Germans, destroying the misconception that there was something romantic about war in the air in the process.

d.) Makers of Rome-Plutarch

Back to the non-fiction! Plutarch's works were written around the end of the first century, and this book, which chooses nine lives of prominent Roman figures, gives a pretty good idea of all the major players of the Republic, from about 500 BC to 10 BC. Profiled here are most of the "big" names: Marcus Antonius (Marc Antony), Brutus, Marcellus and Fabius Maximus (two generals who fought Hannibal). Though a truncated version of Plutarch's "Lives", it was worth the read.

e.) History of the Peloppenian Wars-Thucydides

Not even close to being done with this one, this book is considered one of the earliest works of objective history in...well...history. Athens and Sparta go through twenty seven years of war and succeed in essentially grinding down Greece to impotence, leading inevitably to Roman domination. More on this one when I'm done.

Enough of my self-indulgent post. Have a great Sunday!

Getting Serious About Security

By Mark Levin


I honestly am appalled at the arguments I hear against our intelligence activities in the face of an enemy who has already infiltrated our country and unleashed attacks from within, killing thousands of our fellow citizens. I get the impression that too many do not take this war seriously.

The NSA intercept program shouldn't be controversial. The Constitution and precedent make clear that the president, especially during war-time, can intercept enemy communications, including if those communications involve U.S. citizens within the United States. It is absurd to argue otherwise.

And now, we're supposed to be offended when the government data-mines third-party phone records. This doesn't involve eavesdropping, but merely running these millions of phone numbers and tens of millions of phone contacts through some kind of computer analysis.

This has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. The case law couldn't be clearer. And those who demand judicial oversight do so not because they want or hope the courts will affirm these intelligence-gathering methods, but because they oppose them and hope some activist court will kill them.

Disarming as this enemy plots against us, even where the Constitution doesn't require it, is a perverse view of civil liberties. It's not the lawyers in the courtrooms who are challenging or will challenge these basic intelligence gather practices who are protecting our civil liberties. It's the soldiers, spies, intelligence analysts, and law enforcement, led by a president with the guts to face down this enemy, who are doing so.

Is not life the most important of civil liberties? These intelligence programs are trashed without any curiosity as to whether they've prevented any attacks and saved any lives. The hostile responses are largely knee-jerk and lack any kind of context. The arguments are abstract and descend into fear-mongering. While I'm all for philosophical debates, how about a little more reality when it comes to fighting and winning this war—a real war against a horrific enemy.

New York City Observations

About a week ago I was riding on the M Train into Lower Manhattan and observed a fellow passenger sitting diagonally from where I was sitting. A rather large, burly fellow, this passenger seemed like a blue-collar sort, but he had his head buried in a somewhat serious, hardcover tome with a stylish jacket cover. Since this fellow appeared to be an anamoly of sorts, that being a blue-collar guy reading a serious book, I peered with a bit more focus to see what it was that he was reading. It turned out to be "The Best of Lebian Erotica". Go figure.

******************

About five years ago I was walking with a friend of mine named Danny, who bore an uncanny resemblance to the cartoon Beavis, of "Beavis and Butthead" fame. Danny was a quirky fellow, which is why I liked hanging out with him. He had strange theories about things, and while he was an intelligent guy, he was also semi-demented....which was why, again, I liked him. Anyway, I was walking down 3rd Ave with Danny to go eat at a Mexican fast-food restaurant named Fresco Tortilla (sadly no longer there) and we came across this homeless guy that Danny had made an acquaintance with. Danny was and is Jewish, and so was this homeless fellow, as evidenced by the yarmulke that he wore. Evidently, this homeless fellow had a previously in-depth discussion with Danny about Judaism, Kabbalah, and overall Jewish philosphy. But...I digress. So as we walk up on this homeless guy, who was sitting on the street, Danny enthusiastically says to the homeless guy, "Hey guy! How's it goin'?!?" The homeless guy takes a second, looks up at Danny with an incredulous look, and says, "Uh....terrible!", as if there could be any other answer a homeless guy could give. This story might lose something in translation, but the scene still makes me chuckle.

*****************

This story was conveyed to me by someone I used to know:

On the 6 Train, a guy dressed like Bootsy Collins (in other words, dressed like some kind of a funky space guy) came into the subway car, explained that his spaceship needed repairs to that he could get back to his home planet, and that he needed money to get it fixed so that he could get home. He then proceeded to play his saxophone in the most excrutiating, screaching manner possible, exclaiming that donations for his spaceship repair fund would make him cease playing saxophone. So bad was he that he elicited a fair amount of change from the tortured passengers.

A Few Thoughts

Why is it that some people say that the release of "United 93", a film about 9/11, is "too soon", yet no one said as much about "Fahrenheit 9/11", Michael Moore's conspiratorial (and largely apocryphal) documentary? I guess it wasn't too soon to accuse President Bush of being complicit in 9/11, but it is too soon to remind people, in a truthful way, what really happened on 9/11. God forbid that Americans are reminded that we're at war, versus being out of their wits about, say, global warming.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why do lefties always seem to hide behind their ugly, ad hominem, and mostly ill-informed statements about Bush by saying that "they're only asking tough questions"? When Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, who I'm sure knows less about history and politics than I did when I was, say, seven, goes to London and says, "I just want to let it be known that we're ashamed that President Bush is from the same state as us, Texas" (or something like that), then comes back and claims that she's only "asking tough questions", I have to scratch my head at the excuse. Where was the question? Sounded more like a statement. If they're only asking "tough questions", perhaps they should take it upon themselves to find out the answers. There are no questions, just bitter, rancorous idiocy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Have a nice day!

The Longview of History

In May of 1945, after VE Day, Allied intelligence debriefed a number of high-level government Nazis regarding their knowledge of their departments. Primary amongst these officials was Albert Speer, originally Hitler's official architect, who rose to the level of Minister Of Armaments in the regime. The information Allied interrogators gleaned from the debriefing was eye-opening, to say the least. Speer had communicated to the Allies that contrary to their intelligence reports, Allied bombing sorties, which numbered in the tens of thousands over a two year period and cost the Army Air Corps 26,000 men (not to mention thousands of British RAF personnel) had made but a negligible dent in the German military-industrial capacity. Interrogators were stunned, but Speer was smart enough during the war not to centralize German industrial production, and thus, negated the efforts of Allied bombers to destroy German industrial might. Seems the Americans in particular, who lauded the effectiveness of daylight precision bombing, had it all wrong. Speer also went on to say that the Germans were operating at 80% industrial capacity right to the very end, particularly in regards to German aircraft production. What was ironic about this was that the primary focus of the American bombing campaign was specifically to target the German's ability to produce Luftwaffe aircraft; clearly this aim was not achieved. What WAS achieved was that the Germans, as a result of unsuccessfully attempting to ward off all these bombing sorties, wound up burning out and/or losing all of their fighter-interceptor pilots through attrition. Too many Allied bombers, not enough German fighter pilots to take them down. Allied intelligence never even picked up on this until after Speer told them post-bellum. The Allies didn't stop the production of aircraft; they destroyed the supply of pilots to fly them.

Which brings us to Iraq.

The Left have blathered their usual crap about how our presence in Iraq has made the Islamo-terrorist threat more acute, though they have nothing to base this theory on, save their own anti-American feelings. That said, there's really no way to know for sure if they're right or not. I happen to think they're full of it (not a stretch; they usually are), but there's no statistical way to know, not one that anyone can cite, that is. Perhaps our presence in Iraq has created "1000 bin Ladens" as some have said, but I'd say it actually has dissuaded, more than persuaded, potential jihadists, particularly since the jihad in Iraq is failing so egregiously. And how would I know that? Perhaps it might have something to do with the al Qaeda documents that were intercepted by our forces in Iraq. Here's what these docs had to say:

"At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin's control and influence over Baghdad."

Is this a de facto admission on the part of the jihadists in Iraq that they're losing? (By the way, al Qaeda isn't in Iraq, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or Iraq....or 9/11, and it's all about cheap oil for our gluttonous SUVs and Hummers...no wait, it's al about making oil expensive to line the pockets of Bush's oil company buddies...no wait...doesn't compute....) Maybe, maybe not. It could be a psychological ploy, a forgery, as some on the Left have said, put out by our own military intelligence. I'm not willing to dismiss that outright, but I doubt it. Almost five years after 9/11, and the jihadists haven't been able to launch a successful attack on American soil. Some say it is because they're lying in wait, but I doubt that. Bin Laden's last few recordings keep on making the charge that a big attack is coming, but nothing seems to have happened. My theory is that all the jihadists are losing their lives in Iraq, and all of the money and support is drying up. How do I know this? I don't, and least not factually. Like all of us, I'm going to have to get my answers when the war is over.

If the Left had any brains, they would too.

But then, I'm a trained historian. I take the longview. I'll get my definitive, factual answers to this after we win in Iraq, the Islamic world is liberalized (if not democratized), and their government's files are opened. (Can't wait to read what was going on behind the scenes in Syria and Iran; that'll be quite a read.) Then we'll see, from primary source documents, what really was going on in Iraq. Already the American military has seized documents from the Saddam Hussein era which clearly articulate a working relationship with al Qaeda dating back to the mid 90's. Of course, you probably didn't read that in the mainstream media....did you....

The history of this administration, this war, and this era has yet to be written. Two decades after the Reagan era, even liberals are now heaping encomiums on the man. Bush might have the last laugh yet.

The Lost Standard Of Journalism Found

Given the fact that the vast majority of reporters in Iraq are getting their stories from outside sources via phone, whilst ensconced in their secure hotel rooms, I found this excerpt from "The History of the Peloponnesian War" to be particularly illuminating. Kind of makes one think wistfully of what the real stories from Iraq (and elsewhere) would be if the standard set down by Thucydides, two thousand forty seven years ago, were followed today. One can only dream:


And with regard to my factual reporting of the events of the war I have made it a principle not to write down the first story that came my way, and not even to be guided by my own general impressions; either I was present myself at the events which I have described or else I heard of them from eye-witnesses whose reports I have checked with as much thoroughness as possible. Not that even so the truth was easy to discover; different eye-witnesses give one side or the other or else from imperfect memories. And it may well be that my history will seem less easy to read because of the absence in it of a romantic element. It will be enough for me, however, if these words of mine are judged useful by those who want to understand cleary the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future. My work is not a piece of writing designed to mee the taste of an immediate public, but was done to last forever.

--Thucydides, Book One, Page 48, "The History of the Peloponnesian Wars", 431 BC

Shareholder Revolt @ The New York Times

Well, as my friend Fireman John has oft repeated, "the markets are ALWAYS right". And so it goes at the New York Times. Not sure if readers of this blog are aware of this, but the New York Times is a publicly traded company on the NYSE under the symbol NYT. At the moment, the investment bank Morgan Stanley, which has a sizeable stake in NYT, is leading a shareholder revolt against the Sulzberger family and their confederates, who Morgan Stanley feel are inept and are running the newspaper, and as a result, the stock, into the ground. Additionally, NYT trades two sets of shares, an A and B set, in which one is a voting class for shareholders, and the other is not. The Sulzberger family owns the majority in one class, which they use to put their cronies and such into positions of power by vote, whereas the other class has no voting rights to say a thing. Morgan Stanley is looking to put an end to these dual classes so as to destroy the monopoly on management decisions that Arthur (Pinch) Sulzberger Jr. has at the moment. It is not an exaggeration to say that the New York Times has become a journalistic joke these last couple of years, specifically since the beginning of the W. era. No story that reveals state secrets is sacrosanct (witness James Risen's NSA story regarding warrantless wiretapping of international calls from domestic sources), nor is any story of dubious veracity halted before publication (witness the al Qaaqaa, Iraq story on the eve of the election in '04, which purported that the U.S. military had allowed intermediate range missles to be looted AFTER American troops had secured the surrounding area....a story which later turned out to be apocryphal). And so....the New York Times stock is tanking, down 50% from its 2000 highs to below 25, despite the powerful bull market we've witnessed starting in October of 2002. Here's an excerpt from the Journal about this story:

"Investors are increasing their bets that the slumping New York Times stock, which has plunged 25 percent in the past year, won't bounce back anytime soon.

Short sellers, who profit when a stock's price falls, increased their positions to 14.6 million shares in April. Short sellers held 14 million shares in March and just 6.4 million shares last April.

Yesterday, the stock closed at $24.24, down 6 cents or 0.25 percent. The stock has not been this low since October 1998.

The blossoming short selling in Times stock is a key sign that investors feel the newspaper titan and its boss, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr., have done little to quell stockholder unrest that cropped up at its mid-April board meeting."

Allow me to be the first.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Okay....got that piece of shadenfreud out of the way. Have to get Saturday started.