"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
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
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.
"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.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
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!
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!
Friday, May 12, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
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.
******************
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.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
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!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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!
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, May 08, 2006
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
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
Saturday, May 06, 2006
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.
"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.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Random Thoughts 4/29/06
Greetings, Mein Froinds!
Pardon, once again, the rather skint entries to the blog. Work has been busy, profitable, and exhausting, and thus, posting at the end of these vigorous workdays can be nigh impossible. That said, it has been an interesting few weeks news-wise (when isn't it?). Nothing out of the ordinary, mind. Gas prices went higher, leftist demogogues came out in full force decrying price gauging (when is someone going to teach these people Economics 101?), Iran once again thumbed its nose at the perpetually impotent United Nations (so much for multi-lateralism!), the Fitzgerald special prosecution has called Karl Rove for a FIFTH time to talk about who leaked Valerie Plame's name (while, of course, failing to disclose to the public whether she was a covert agent or not; more on this later), and Dana Priest of the Washington Post and James Risen of the New York Times won the Pulitzer for their seditious journalism, aiding al Qaeda in the process. (Thanks, folks! I'll touch on that later, as well.) Anyway....
* I read an article that Andy Garcia has written, directed, and produced a movie called The Lost City (pardon the lack of link; writing on the Mac today!), which depicts Che Guevara in his true (ie bad) light. Seems this has a few people upset out there, and thus he didn't have the easiest time getting the movie made. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that scream, curse, yell, and cry about the supposed erosion of civil liberties here (four years plus since 9/11, I haven't felt any erosion at all; then again, I'm not a muslim and/or attempting to sabotage the United States...), call Bush every name in the book (King George, George W. Hitler, etc...etc...ad nauseum), but defend the Castro-ite regime to the fullest. Said Garcia, "There have been festivals that wouldn't show it. That will continue to happen from people who don't want to see the image of Che be tarnished and from people who support the Castro regime. He still has a lot of supporters out there. Some people think Castro is a savior, that he looks out for the kids and the poor. It's a bunch of hogwash. In the 45 years since Castro came to power, Cuba has been in the top three countries for human rights abuses for 43 of those years. People turn a blind eye to his atrocities." Go Andy. And thank you for revealing, yet again, the complete falsehood that the leftists of this world are interested in peace, human rights, and liberty for all. It couldn't be further from the truth.
*The Left once again has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with security issues in this country, unless of course, you're the enemy. Then they can be consistently counted on to publish classified information which damages the United States, as was the case with Dana Priest of the Washington Post (who published the story that the U.S. was working with Romania, Poland, and a few other Eastern European nations in setting up secret holding sites for al Qaeda captives) and James Risen of the New York Times (who published the NSA wiretapping of international calls story). For this, these two seditious morons won a Pulitzer Prize. (Think Claudia Rossett, who doggedly unearthed the United Nations oil-for-food scandal got a Pulitzer? Nah....she wasn't even nominated.) I fail to see how publishing these stories was of any benefit to anyone, save giving the seditious Left yet another cudgel from which to beat on Bush and, obviously, al Qaeda.
*On a related note, the CIA fired the leaker of the secret prisons story, a woman named Mary McCarthy. Not coincidentally, McCarthy was a campaign contributor to the John Kerry campaign ($2000 contribution) and was a Clinton appointee to several positions during his tenure. Of course, in the eyes of the seditious Left, McCarthy isn't a "leaker", but rather a "truth-teller". Well, yeah....she told the truth. So what? She also jeopardized the war effort against Islamo-fascism. And for what? Because her favored nominee lost the election? I'll tell you, if the security of this nation is consistently compromised by people within government who put their party (Democratic, in this (and most) cases) above the safety and security of the American people, I fear for the future in a deep way. And yet, this ridiculous Valerie Plame investigation continues. Which brings me to....
*...the Valerie Plame investigation. Why can't Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald just say flat-out whether Plame was an undercover agent or not? My guess is that she wasn't, that the revealing of her name was a non-story, and this thing is gone completely off the rails. Just to recap for all of you, Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, was sent by the CIA (at her urging) to Niger to verify whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from them. Turns out that Saddam DID in fact attempt to buy uranium from Niger in '99, just as he had succeeded in doing in the early 90's. Wilson told this to the CIA, but then, in a fit of Bush hatred (this should be diagnosed and entered into psychiatric journals as a bonafide mental illness, no?), wrote the opposite in a New York Times op-ed piece. So, the Bush White House, when asked who Wilson was and why he was sent to Niger, told the truth: we didn't send him, his wife did. So....how do we know that Wilson lied in his NYT op-ed piece? Because a.) he said the opposite to his CIA debriefers, and it was reflected in the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Estimate report, b.) the British Government's Butler Report also verified that Saddam sought to acquire uranium from Niger, and c.) Wilson claimed that the forged documents that had been floating around, that were ancillary to his original observations regarding this story, had dates and names wrong....though Wilson, while using this as additional evidence that Saddam HAD NOT sought to acquire uranium, had never seen the documents himself. (And later admitted that he hadn't.) And yet, Scooter Libby has been indicted for perjury for supposedly lying about who told him about Valerie Plame, even though Valerie Plame wasn't even undercover, and Karl Rove is STILL getting questioned over this non-leak. And yet, Dana Priest and James Risen parade their Pulitzers around with pride in having weakened their country with a REAL and damaging leak. Unbelievable.
*On a different note, I'm almost through Plutarch's "Makers Of Rome", which is a truncated version of "Lives". Many interesting short biographies on the great Roman figures. I was struck by this quote by Sertorius, as recorded by Plutarch, "A man of noble spirit welcomes victory if he can achieve it with honor, but he will not embrace dishonor even to save his own life".
Except, of course, if you're seditious leftist. (Pardon the redundancy there.)
Pardon, once again, the rather skint entries to the blog. Work has been busy, profitable, and exhausting, and thus, posting at the end of these vigorous workdays can be nigh impossible. That said, it has been an interesting few weeks news-wise (when isn't it?). Nothing out of the ordinary, mind. Gas prices went higher, leftist demogogues came out in full force decrying price gauging (when is someone going to teach these people Economics 101?), Iran once again thumbed its nose at the perpetually impotent United Nations (so much for multi-lateralism!), the Fitzgerald special prosecution has called Karl Rove for a FIFTH time to talk about who leaked Valerie Plame's name (while, of course, failing to disclose to the public whether she was a covert agent or not; more on this later), and Dana Priest of the Washington Post and James Risen of the New York Times won the Pulitzer for their seditious journalism, aiding al Qaeda in the process. (Thanks, folks! I'll touch on that later, as well.) Anyway....
* I read an article that Andy Garcia has written, directed, and produced a movie called The Lost City (pardon the lack of link; writing on the Mac today!), which depicts Che Guevara in his true (ie bad) light. Seems this has a few people upset out there, and thus he didn't have the easiest time getting the movie made. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that scream, curse, yell, and cry about the supposed erosion of civil liberties here (four years plus since 9/11, I haven't felt any erosion at all; then again, I'm not a muslim and/or attempting to sabotage the United States...), call Bush every name in the book (King George, George W. Hitler, etc...etc...ad nauseum), but defend the Castro-ite regime to the fullest. Said Garcia, "There have been festivals that wouldn't show it. That will continue to happen from people who don't want to see the image of Che be tarnished and from people who support the Castro regime. He still has a lot of supporters out there. Some people think Castro is a savior, that he looks out for the kids and the poor. It's a bunch of hogwash. In the 45 years since Castro came to power, Cuba has been in the top three countries for human rights abuses for 43 of those years. People turn a blind eye to his atrocities." Go Andy. And thank you for revealing, yet again, the complete falsehood that the leftists of this world are interested in peace, human rights, and liberty for all. It couldn't be further from the truth.
*The Left once again has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with security issues in this country, unless of course, you're the enemy. Then they can be consistently counted on to publish classified information which damages the United States, as was the case with Dana Priest of the Washington Post (who published the story that the U.S. was working with Romania, Poland, and a few other Eastern European nations in setting up secret holding sites for al Qaeda captives) and James Risen of the New York Times (who published the NSA wiretapping of international calls story). For this, these two seditious morons won a Pulitzer Prize. (Think Claudia Rossett, who doggedly unearthed the United Nations oil-for-food scandal got a Pulitzer? Nah....she wasn't even nominated.) I fail to see how publishing these stories was of any benefit to anyone, save giving the seditious Left yet another cudgel from which to beat on Bush and, obviously, al Qaeda.
*On a related note, the CIA fired the leaker of the secret prisons story, a woman named Mary McCarthy. Not coincidentally, McCarthy was a campaign contributor to the John Kerry campaign ($2000 contribution) and was a Clinton appointee to several positions during his tenure. Of course, in the eyes of the seditious Left, McCarthy isn't a "leaker", but rather a "truth-teller". Well, yeah....she told the truth. So what? She also jeopardized the war effort against Islamo-fascism. And for what? Because her favored nominee lost the election? I'll tell you, if the security of this nation is consistently compromised by people within government who put their party (Democratic, in this (and most) cases) above the safety and security of the American people, I fear for the future in a deep way. And yet, this ridiculous Valerie Plame investigation continues. Which brings me to....
*...the Valerie Plame investigation. Why can't Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald just say flat-out whether Plame was an undercover agent or not? My guess is that she wasn't, that the revealing of her name was a non-story, and this thing is gone completely off the rails. Just to recap for all of you, Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, was sent by the CIA (at her urging) to Niger to verify whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from them. Turns out that Saddam DID in fact attempt to buy uranium from Niger in '99, just as he had succeeded in doing in the early 90's. Wilson told this to the CIA, but then, in a fit of Bush hatred (this should be diagnosed and entered into psychiatric journals as a bonafide mental illness, no?), wrote the opposite in a New York Times op-ed piece. So, the Bush White House, when asked who Wilson was and why he was sent to Niger, told the truth: we didn't send him, his wife did. So....how do we know that Wilson lied in his NYT op-ed piece? Because a.) he said the opposite to his CIA debriefers, and it was reflected in the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Estimate report, b.) the British Government's Butler Report also verified that Saddam sought to acquire uranium from Niger, and c.) Wilson claimed that the forged documents that had been floating around, that were ancillary to his original observations regarding this story, had dates and names wrong....though Wilson, while using this as additional evidence that Saddam HAD NOT sought to acquire uranium, had never seen the documents himself. (And later admitted that he hadn't.) And yet, Scooter Libby has been indicted for perjury for supposedly lying about who told him about Valerie Plame, even though Valerie Plame wasn't even undercover, and Karl Rove is STILL getting questioned over this non-leak. And yet, Dana Priest and James Risen parade their Pulitzers around with pride in having weakened their country with a REAL and damaging leak. Unbelievable.
*On a different note, I'm almost through Plutarch's "Makers Of Rome", which is a truncated version of "Lives". Many interesting short biographies on the great Roman figures. I was struck by this quote by Sertorius, as recorded by Plutarch, "A man of noble spirit welcomes victory if he can achieve it with honor, but he will not embrace dishonor even to save his own life".
Except, of course, if you're seditious leftist. (Pardon the redundancy there.)
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
ANZAC Day
Today, our compatriots in the Anglosphere, Australia and New Zealand, commemorate ANZAC Day. The story of what this day is and what is means is below:
What is ANZAC Day?
ANZAC Day - 25 April - is probably Australia's most important national occasion. It marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. The soldiers in those forces quickly became known as ANZACs, and the pride they soon took in that name endures to this day.
Why is this day so special to Australians?
When war broke out in 1914 Australia had been a federal commonwealth for only fourteen years. The new national government was eager to establish its reputation among the nations of the world. In 1915 Australian and New Zealand soldiers formed part of the allied expedition that set out to capture the Gallipoli peninsula to open the way to the Black Sea for the allied navies. The plan was to capture Constantinople (now Istanbul), capital of the Ottoman Empire and an ally of Germany. They landed at Gallipoli on 25 April, meeting fierce resistance from the Turkish defenders. What had been planned as a bold stroke to knock Turkey out of the war quickly became a stalemate, and the campaign dragged on for eight months. At the end of 1915 the allied forces were evacuated after both sides had suffered heavy casualties and endured great hardships. Over 8,000 Australian soldiers were killed. News of the landing at Gallipoli made a profound impact on Australians at home and 25 April quickly became the day on which Australians remembered the sacrifice of those who had died in war.
Though the Gallipoli campaign failed in its military objectives of capturing Constantinople and knocking Turkey out of the war, the Australian and New Zealand troops' actions during the campaign bequeathed an intangible but powerful legacy. The creation of what became known as an "Anzac legend" became an important part of the national identity of both nations. This shaped the ways they viewed both their past and their future.
What is ANZAC Day?
ANZAC Day - 25 April - is probably Australia's most important national occasion. It marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces during the First World War. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. The soldiers in those forces quickly became known as ANZACs, and the pride they soon took in that name endures to this day.
Why is this day so special to Australians?
When war broke out in 1914 Australia had been a federal commonwealth for only fourteen years. The new national government was eager to establish its reputation among the nations of the world. In 1915 Australian and New Zealand soldiers formed part of the allied expedition that set out to capture the Gallipoli peninsula to open the way to the Black Sea for the allied navies. The plan was to capture Constantinople (now Istanbul), capital of the Ottoman Empire and an ally of Germany. They landed at Gallipoli on 25 April, meeting fierce resistance from the Turkish defenders. What had been planned as a bold stroke to knock Turkey out of the war quickly became a stalemate, and the campaign dragged on for eight months. At the end of 1915 the allied forces were evacuated after both sides had suffered heavy casualties and endured great hardships. Over 8,000 Australian soldiers were killed. News of the landing at Gallipoli made a profound impact on Australians at home and 25 April quickly became the day on which Australians remembered the sacrifice of those who had died in war.
Though the Gallipoli campaign failed in its military objectives of capturing Constantinople and knocking Turkey out of the war, the Australian and New Zealand troops' actions during the campaign bequeathed an intangible but powerful legacy. The creation of what became known as an "Anzac legend" became an important part of the national identity of both nations. This shaped the ways they viewed both their past and their future.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Al Gore, Scaremonger
Seeing red over 'green scare'
Jonah Goldberg
April 20, 2006
MEET AL GORE, scaremonger. In 2004, Gore denounced President Bush for "playing on our fears." Today, he is at the forefront of a "green scare" about global warming intended to terrify Americans into submitting to his environmental policies.
Consider the trailer for "An Inconvenient Truth," Davis Guggenheim's documentary about Gore's green crusade. It promises to be the most adept piece of scaremongering ever captured on film, making "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" seem like "Toy Story 2." The movie's poster shows penguins walking across a desert. The trailer says, "If you love your planet … if you love your children … you have to see this movie." In case you're thick in the head, the producers spell it out for you: "By far, the most terrifying film you will ever see!"
Of course, Gore is not alone. A host of new environmental scare books are out or on the way. Last month, Time magazine's cover warned, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." Those renowned climatologists who make up Vanity Fair's editorial board have unveiled a "green issue" that informs us that "green is the new black" and that global warming is a "threat graver than terrorism." It says so right there on the cover, above Julia Roberts' hip. And she's dressed like a forest nymph, so it's got to be true.
Now, it's true that Earth has gotten warmer — one degree since the 19th century — and it will probably get warmer still. And it's probably true that human activity plays a significant part in all that. But it's also true that we don't have a clear picture of what's happening now, never mind what will happen. Just ask the 60 climatologists from around the world who wrote Canada's prime minister that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future." But that's all beside the point to Gore & Co., who say the time for debate is over. And if you disagree, get ready for the witch hunt. Major news media have gone after scientists who argue there's still time to study global warming rather than plunge into some half-baked environmental jihad that could waste possibly trillions of dollars.
As Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, recently lamented in the Wall Street Journal: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
In Vanity Fair, writer Mark Hertsgaard alleges that Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences and the former president of the prestigious Rockefeller University, was a shill for, of all things, the tobacco industry. A press release by the National Environmental Trust proclaims "Scientist Who Spearheaded Attacks on Global Warming Also Directed $45M Tobacco Industry Effort to Hide Health Impacts of Smoking." Seitz, a giant in American science, says this is all "ridiculous, completely wrong." Now 94, Seitz explained to TCSDaily.com that R.J. Reynolds had given Rockefeller University $5 million a year for basic research. Seitz says he directed the money toward non-tobacco-related efforts in the study of prions (the virus-like proteins that cause mad cow disease), tuberculosis and other diseases. Prion researcher Stanley Prusiner thanked both R.J. Reynolds and Seitz in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
But Gore & Co. aren't troubled by such details because the smears are all for a good cause. That's why Gore saw nothing wrong in bullying dissident climate change scientists when he was a senator or waging a mean-spirited campaign to discredit the work of his old mentor, Harvard oceanographer Roger Revelle, because Revelle thought alarmism was unwarranted.
Hence the irony of the title "An Inconvenient Truth." It is the green scare that has no patience for inconvenient truths. For example, Gore blames the disappearing snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro on global warming, but a 2003 study in Nature identified the clear-cutting of surrounding moisture-rich forests as the culprit. In the famously fact-checked New Yorker, Editor David Remnick pens a love letter to Gore in which he laments that Earth will "likely be an uninhabitable planet" if we don't heed Gore's jeremiads. Oh … come … on!
This is just a small taste of the millenarian battiness running through the green scare. Sure, a one- or two-degree-per-century rise in average global temperatures may have unpleasant consequences — with some pleasant ones as well — but in what study did the New Yorker's fact-checkers verify that Earth will become uninhabitable? Moreover, the greens' proposed solutions to global warming are even more otherworldly. Reducing global carbon dioxide emissions to 60% of 1990 levels before 2050, while China, India and (hopefully) Africa modernize, is inconceivable, ill-conceived and also immoral because it would consign generations to poverty.
But none of that seems to matter to the greens. To them, the only thing we have to fear is the lack of fear itself.
Jonah Goldberg
April 20, 2006
MEET AL GORE, scaremonger. In 2004, Gore denounced President Bush for "playing on our fears." Today, he is at the forefront of a "green scare" about global warming intended to terrify Americans into submitting to his environmental policies.
Consider the trailer for "An Inconvenient Truth," Davis Guggenheim's documentary about Gore's green crusade. It promises to be the most adept piece of scaremongering ever captured on film, making "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" seem like "Toy Story 2." The movie's poster shows penguins walking across a desert. The trailer says, "If you love your planet … if you love your children … you have to see this movie." In case you're thick in the head, the producers spell it out for you: "By far, the most terrifying film you will ever see!"
Of course, Gore is not alone. A host of new environmental scare books are out or on the way. Last month, Time magazine's cover warned, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." Those renowned climatologists who make up Vanity Fair's editorial board have unveiled a "green issue" that informs us that "green is the new black" and that global warming is a "threat graver than terrorism." It says so right there on the cover, above Julia Roberts' hip. And she's dressed like a forest nymph, so it's got to be true.
Now, it's true that Earth has gotten warmer — one degree since the 19th century — and it will probably get warmer still. And it's probably true that human activity plays a significant part in all that. But it's also true that we don't have a clear picture of what's happening now, never mind what will happen. Just ask the 60 climatologists from around the world who wrote Canada's prime minister that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future." But that's all beside the point to Gore & Co., who say the time for debate is over. And if you disagree, get ready for the witch hunt. Major news media have gone after scientists who argue there's still time to study global warming rather than plunge into some half-baked environmental jihad that could waste possibly trillions of dollars.
As Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, recently lamented in the Wall Street Journal: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
In Vanity Fair, writer Mark Hertsgaard alleges that Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences and the former president of the prestigious Rockefeller University, was a shill for, of all things, the tobacco industry. A press release by the National Environmental Trust proclaims "Scientist Who Spearheaded Attacks on Global Warming Also Directed $45M Tobacco Industry Effort to Hide Health Impacts of Smoking." Seitz, a giant in American science, says this is all "ridiculous, completely wrong." Now 94, Seitz explained to TCSDaily.com that R.J. Reynolds had given Rockefeller University $5 million a year for basic research. Seitz says he directed the money toward non-tobacco-related efforts in the study of prions (the virus-like proteins that cause mad cow disease), tuberculosis and other diseases. Prion researcher Stanley Prusiner thanked both R.J. Reynolds and Seitz in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
But Gore & Co. aren't troubled by such details because the smears are all for a good cause. That's why Gore saw nothing wrong in bullying dissident climate change scientists when he was a senator or waging a mean-spirited campaign to discredit the work of his old mentor, Harvard oceanographer Roger Revelle, because Revelle thought alarmism was unwarranted.
Hence the irony of the title "An Inconvenient Truth." It is the green scare that has no patience for inconvenient truths. For example, Gore blames the disappearing snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro on global warming, but a 2003 study in Nature identified the clear-cutting of surrounding moisture-rich forests as the culprit. In the famously fact-checked New Yorker, Editor David Remnick pens a love letter to Gore in which he laments that Earth will "likely be an uninhabitable planet" if we don't heed Gore's jeremiads. Oh … come … on!
This is just a small taste of the millenarian battiness running through the green scare. Sure, a one- or two-degree-per-century rise in average global temperatures may have unpleasant consequences — with some pleasant ones as well — but in what study did the New Yorker's fact-checkers verify that Earth will become uninhabitable? Moreover, the greens' proposed solutions to global warming are even more otherworldly. Reducing global carbon dioxide emissions to 60% of 1990 levels before 2050, while China, India and (hopefully) Africa modernize, is inconceivable, ill-conceived and also immoral because it would consign generations to poverty.
But none of that seems to matter to the greens. To them, the only thing we have to fear is the lack of fear itself.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Happy Easter....
To all readers of this blog. Let us never forget who we are, what we are, and the civilization that we have built. Let us also take stock of the fact that it is under assualt from the leftist fifth column within our ranks, and the Islamic hordes seeking to infiltrate and destroy our culture. And Happy (belated) Passover.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
More Catonian Wisdom
Something to remember when people of low character and bitter dispositions verbally attack you(an excerpt from Plutarch's Lives):
"When he himself (Cato the Elder) was attacked by a man who led an infamous and dissolute life, he retorted: 'We can never fight on equal terms: you are so hardened to abuse that you can return it just as easily as you suffer it, whereas for me it is as unusual to hear as it is unpleasant to utter'."
"When he himself (Cato the Elder) was attacked by a man who led an infamous and dissolute life, he retorted: 'We can never fight on equal terms: you are so hardened to abuse that you can return it just as easily as you suffer it, whereas for me it is as unusual to hear as it is unpleasant to utter'."
Pop V. Soda
One of the stranger things I recall coming across when I was a wee lad was the difference in terminologies from region to region. At age ten, I visited some relatives in West Virginia, and wheneven I was a guest in their house, they would ask me if I wanted a "pop". What they heck was "pop"? Eventually realizing that they meant "soda", I accepted, but never could get over how weird it was to call soda "pop". Well, here's a map that makes sense of it all. If any of you plan on traveling throughout the United States and/or Canada, this will help you tremendously to make sense of where to order a soda, a pop, or a Coke.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Quote Of The Day
"How can a body lke this be on any service to the state, when everything in it from the gullet to the groin is devoted to the belly?"
--Cato The Elder, 234-139 B.C.
The observation above was in reference to a certain Roman senator, a contemporary of Cato's. Take a moment on ponder which current U.S. Senator this quote would also be applicable to. Feel free to post your answers on the comments page.
--Cato The Elder, 234-139 B.C.
The observation above was in reference to a certain Roman senator, a contemporary of Cato's. Take a moment on ponder which current U.S. Senator this quote would also be applicable to. Feel free to post your answers on the comments page.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
"Life Coaches"
Penn and Teller's "Bullsh*t" show on Showtime did an episode on these people, and one needn't wonder what their take on them was. Below is an article by Myrna Blythe about the same people. Worth reading:
Grow Up Already
Mothers are the best life coaches.
"Maybe I need a life coach," a formerly sensible friend of mine said at lunch the other day. "Life coaches. Career coaches. They are really, really big." Yeah, I know. I read all about it this weekend in the "Style" section of the New York Times.
The New York Times, by the way, might need a coach itself fairly soon — a journalism coach. In the last couple of weeks the paper of record has made two major flubs, about which you may have heard. One was running a page-one hand-wringing story about a man who claimed he was the prisoner shown in one of most dismaying photos from Abu Ghraib. He wasn't. The Times' explanation: the guy had told the same whopper to Vanity Fair, so they believed him too. Another story was about a woman who claimed she came from Biloxi, Mississippi, and that after Katrina she was mistreated by FEMA. Only trouble: She was a complete phony and cheat who had never lived in Biloxi. It seems no reporter had bothered to check. Duh!
But back to those life coaches who, according the Times, have become a favorite in Hollywood where performers, writers, and producers have traded in their therapists for these very personal trainers. What do these life coaches do exactly? Well, Paul Towle, a psychotherapist and life coach, told the Times, "The difference between life coaching and psychotherapy is that therapy is about helping people heal their wounds and coaching is about helping people achieve the highest level of their fulfillment or happiness or success, whether they're wounded or not." He reportedly makes $40,000 a month saying things like that to members of rock bands. Clearly, it's a good gig.
Jeff Davis, a 30-year-old producer, told the Times he is very pleased with his coach, who, he said, has helped him get in touch with his "inner killer." Nancy Noever's coach helps her figure out "why I can't put myself first." Obviously life coaches, for their $100-a-phone-call fees, also teach their clients how to share their crassness and self-obsession with the press without blushing or considering how shallow they might sound.
But hey, shallowness nowadays is clearly bi-coastal. New York Magazine this week has a front page story on parents in their 30s and early 40s who look, talk, act, and dress as if they were -22 — and darn proud of it. (By the way, anyone who has an adult child knows most 22-year-olds today act like they're barely 15.) The article calls this "forever youngish" cohort "Grups" after a Star Trek episode in which Captain Kirk lands on a planet ruled by children because there's a strange virus and — actually, it doesn't really matter. Our New York Gruppies, in their hoodies and their retro sneakers, have decided it is really very cool to remain childish even when they have children of their own.
I know the media in its endless search for what's new, what's "in," and what's hot, is always making a big to-do over very little. For example, remember "metrosexuals," and how nowadays guys in great numbers — even straight guys — had supposedly fallen in love with grooming and non-stop shopping? Well, the two magazines launched with great fanfare for those "metrosexuals" have just folded because of lack of circulation. The lamented hordes of shopping-bag-toting men were more hype than reality.
So I only can hope that the rage for life coaches who encourage self-centered people to be even more self-centered, and parents who think they need play dates, are as much a media exaggeration as those two news gaffes in the Times.
But, just in case they are not, here is some advice that the best life coaches of all — mothers — often give: "Just stop always thinking about yourself! And, for goodness sake, grow up."
— Myrna Blyth, former long-time editor of Ladies' Home Journal and founding editor of More, is author of Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness — and Liberalism — to the Women of America. Blyth is also an NRO contributor.
Grow Up Already
Mothers are the best life coaches.
"Maybe I need a life coach," a formerly sensible friend of mine said at lunch the other day. "Life coaches. Career coaches. They are really, really big." Yeah, I know. I read all about it this weekend in the "Style" section of the New York Times.
The New York Times, by the way, might need a coach itself fairly soon — a journalism coach. In the last couple of weeks the paper of record has made two major flubs, about which you may have heard. One was running a page-one hand-wringing story about a man who claimed he was the prisoner shown in one of most dismaying photos from Abu Ghraib. He wasn't. The Times' explanation: the guy had told the same whopper to Vanity Fair, so they believed him too. Another story was about a woman who claimed she came from Biloxi, Mississippi, and that after Katrina she was mistreated by FEMA. Only trouble: She was a complete phony and cheat who had never lived in Biloxi. It seems no reporter had bothered to check. Duh!
But back to those life coaches who, according the Times, have become a favorite in Hollywood where performers, writers, and producers have traded in their therapists for these very personal trainers. What do these life coaches do exactly? Well, Paul Towle, a psychotherapist and life coach, told the Times, "The difference between life coaching and psychotherapy is that therapy is about helping people heal their wounds and coaching is about helping people achieve the highest level of their fulfillment or happiness or success, whether they're wounded or not." He reportedly makes $40,000 a month saying things like that to members of rock bands. Clearly, it's a good gig.
Jeff Davis, a 30-year-old producer, told the Times he is very pleased with his coach, who, he said, has helped him get in touch with his "inner killer." Nancy Noever's coach helps her figure out "why I can't put myself first." Obviously life coaches, for their $100-a-phone-call fees, also teach their clients how to share their crassness and self-obsession with the press without blushing or considering how shallow they might sound.
But hey, shallowness nowadays is clearly bi-coastal. New York Magazine this week has a front page story on parents in their 30s and early 40s who look, talk, act, and dress as if they were -22 — and darn proud of it. (By the way, anyone who has an adult child knows most 22-year-olds today act like they're barely 15.) The article calls this "forever youngish" cohort "Grups" after a Star Trek episode in which Captain Kirk lands on a planet ruled by children because there's a strange virus and — actually, it doesn't really matter. Our New York Gruppies, in their hoodies and their retro sneakers, have decided it is really very cool to remain childish even when they have children of their own.
I know the media in its endless search for what's new, what's "in," and what's hot, is always making a big to-do over very little. For example, remember "metrosexuals," and how nowadays guys in great numbers — even straight guys — had supposedly fallen in love with grooming and non-stop shopping? Well, the two magazines launched with great fanfare for those "metrosexuals" have just folded because of lack of circulation. The lamented hordes of shopping-bag-toting men were more hype than reality.
So I only can hope that the rage for life coaches who encourage self-centered people to be even more self-centered, and parents who think they need play dates, are as much a media exaggeration as those two news gaffes in the Times.
But, just in case they are not, here is some advice that the best life coaches of all — mothers — often give: "Just stop always thinking about yourself! And, for goodness sake, grow up."
— Myrna Blyth, former long-time editor of Ladies' Home Journal and founding editor of More, is author of Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness — and Liberalism — to the Women of America. Blyth is also an NRO contributor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)