Vox Rodentae

Che'? No way man, Jesus Hands Down!

2006-10-08T02:14:00.000-04:00

Just a quick musing (okay, not so quick - it's me after all): I was on Assistant Village Idiot's website (also here on blogger, see link), and he mentioned how Kos wants to set up some sort of liberal mega-un-church for disenfranchised lib's, who ache for all the trappings of a well-knit, supportive, Christian community, minus all that Christ stuff and his Message (can't have all that brotherly love cluttering up the place if it means having to embrace folks who yearn to own ATV's, love anything X-treme, eat processed foods and red meat without regard to whether it's been injected with hormones or the like, love NASCAR (that liberal litmus test of white-trashdom), go to County and State Fairs, and watch shows like King of the Hill, Dog the Bounty Hunter-- or for that matter, own a closet/dresser/bedroom floor full of Big Dog or Big Johnson wear!).

They never quite get it, do they? The reason Christians (the Midwest Protestants he's referring to, I guess) gather together (even if maybe the Pastor's wife is is into everyone's business, and Brother So-and-So's Wife gossips about everyone, and the Deacon's Wife is acting above herself, and everyone is driving everyone crazy - as is so often the case in just about any group of people that gather together) is that, deep down they really do share the same belief, in the same message, and most importantly, have the same faith in God's Love. And it's that which draws and binds them together. That and the Christian tradition of loving one's neighbor, and working to help your community -- and I don't just mean with the recycling (which obviously happens to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the parrish - no one's perfect). It's that darn, pesky Jesus guy again - can't we just get rid of him?

What exactly is it that's supposed to draw and bind together the Kos Kids? Mudslinging - while fun in the actual (a good, gooey mud fight is a delight at the right time and place) is dreary and depressing as a full time activity. Complaining? That ought to be a hoot. Maybe that crowd could form its own breakaway sect and provide us with some real entertainment. The sheer viciousness and petty hatred that form the hallmark of his site (and the crowd who frequent it) are nothing but an utter degradation of the entire human condition. (And no, the cutesie comments about "pooties" cannot redeem them.) And for goodness' sakes, what on Earth will they call themselves? I can see it now: The Highly Liberal Four-Square Tabernacle of the All Democratical Kos in Whom We Kvetch. Or maybe The Most Avowedly Non-Un-Anti-In-No-Way-Possibly-Like-A-Church For the Propagation of Lofty Liberal Ideals (Java Included, Free Childcare for EarthFirst Members)... In his short yet entertaining post, AVI wonders who will come, and when, and "How long does he think people will provide free babysitting for an amorphous progressivism?"

I have a really great idea: if all these Kos-acks out there are feeling a little jealous of all those right-wing Repub's supposedly hogging all the community fellowship, why don't they crack open a Bible and actually read it? Jesus was, in many respects, quite the liberal and indeed, quite the revolutionary -- am I crazy in suggesting he could be a subversive hero figure for the new age? We know he was better looking than Che' (I mean, who isn't?), so maybe we could get all those homely undernourished college kids to burn all those dumb shirts finally... Ah, me and my pipe dreams....

I'll have to look into this thing a little more fully - sounds like quite the misadventure to me, and an opportunity for Schadenfreude you could jump into with hipwaders (unless it ever gets off the ground, in which case only deep sea gear would suffice I suspect, *chuckle*). bloop..... bloop....bloop......

I think Islam needs a lengthy "time out"

2006-09-30T14:55:00.000-04:00

Greetings, all! I am back after my lengthy hiatus from the 'net. During this time, I've tried (as much as one can in our digital age) to ignore the Mass Media and all on-goings not directly related to friends and family. It's been quite peaceful. But I can't live in an acorn; it's a big world out there and it's time to get back into the swing of things.

One issue which has captured my interest lately is the tempest in a teapot stirred up in the muslim community (where else? you might well ask) over the address made by the Holy Father at the University of Regensberg during his visit to Bavaria. Now, I'll admit it at the outset: I'm a big fan of the Holy Father. He's a traditionalist, a conservative, an extremely knowledgeable theologian and a scholar of immense (and well-deserved) renown. When he speaks, even if you don't agree with what he says, you can bet that a good deal of thought has gone into his words and he's said them for a reason. So knowing only that the muslim community was miffed with remarks made by Il Papa, I resolved first to study his address in its entirety, and then read about the controversy and defense.

Having done so, I must say it was all pretty much as expected, excepting only that the Vicar of Christ maintained greater circumspection in his remarks than would have a man of less grandeur of spirit. And as have many before me I say the muslim response completely proves and justifies his words. Oh, he released the demanded apology, but thankfully it was merely to say he was sorry people decided to be offended at his words; the only apology merited under the circumstances. I enjoyed both his steadfastness of opinion and refusal to bow to popular (appeasement) pressure, as well as his subtle re-emphasis of his right to free speech - popularly enjoyed in the West, but greatly suppressed in Islamic countries.

One of the most illuminating articles I've read about it is the transcript of an interview from the Jim Lehrer news hour on PBS. It features Moderator Gwen Ifill, Senior Fellow for the Ethics and Public Policy Center George Weigel, and Council on American-Islamic Relations apologist Nihid Awad (yes - this sounds biased, but it's what the man does - he doesn't answer questions directly, but turns his answers into "Western-Oppression of Islam" being the cause of all misery and evil in the world). My impression is that Ifill was more kindly disposed toward Awad (whether through belief or appeasement mode, I don't know), but all he does is trot out the usual exhausted tropes about Islam being the religion of peace, and that it's Western (deliberate) misunderstanding of Islam that perpetuates the violence in the world. Weigel, on the other hand, is stunningly eloquent and to-the-point in his answers, presenting a well-thought out and reasoned theory as to the Pope's motivation in his address. An example of the exchanges:

GEORGE WEIGEL, Ethics and Public Policy Center: Pope Benedict XVI is a world-class scholar, a gentleman, who says what he means and means what he says, so this was not an offhand remark at all. I think he was trying to make three critical points, Gwen. The first is that, in a religious dialogue, genuine dialogue between people of different religious convictions must be based on reason. It can't be based on passion. Secondly, attempts to justify violence in the name of God are themselves irrational and, therefore, impede that kind of dialogue. And, therefore, the challenge I think he was trying to pose to Islamic leaders throughout the world -- some of whom have accepted that challenge -- is to discipline and correct those within their own community who would make the case that God commands the murder of innocents. That's not a basis on which genuine religious dialogue can go forward, and I think it's very important to recognize that, until Islamic religious leaders, scholars, legal authorities develop the capacity to chastise, to discipline their own extremists, every Muslim in the world -- indeed, everyone in the world -- is hostage to the most extreme elements which would claim that violence against innocents is doing the will of God.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Awad, in listening to the pope's remark and now listening to Mr. Weigel's interpretation, is that the way it struck you?

NIHAD AWAD, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Well, actually, there is a gross misunderstanding of Islam. Dialogue should be based on knowledge, and that knowledge will produce a correct understanding, a mutual respect. And the unfortunate fact is the pope is a top-notch theologian on Catholicism, but he's no expert on Islam. And therefore most of the quotations, if not all, that he cited in his academic presentation were historically inaccurate. I'll just go through them very quickly. Number one, he said that Muhammad commanded his followers to spread the faith by the sword. This was never happened. In fact, historically, it cannot be proven that Muhammad commanded any of his followers to spread the faith with the sword. In fact, it contradicts the second sentence or phrase that the pope has cited, which is a verse in the Koran, chapter two, verse number 256, and it says there should be no compulsion of religion. That's a direct command from the Koran, God's (inaudible) text, that you cannot spread faith with force and it has to be on conviction and reason. So these are historic inaccuracies that the pope has cited, and that's what upsets Muslims and those who know about Islam. The third and last thing is holy war. This is a mistranslation. Although this network and many networks sometimes use the term "holy war," it is inaccurate. There is no term in Islamic text, whether the Koran or the prophetic tradition, the sayings and these of the prophet, that the word "jihad" means holy war.

Okay. Now you can take your chest waders off, and I'll let you pause for a moment or so and absorb the wonderful obfuscations and misdirections of Mr. Awad's reply. I guess he figures no one has or can read the Koran to read those words for themselves. Honestly -- how long will breathing, thinking people keep swallowing this ordure? All evidence presented by the muslim community has shown that the Pope's words were, if anything, not strong enough. And despite AQ bigwig Az-Zawahiri's comments about ignoring Il Papa's words, and "killing him with kindness" (rather ominous sounding, given their source), there have been a disturbing number of violent riots, burnings of the Pope in effigy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian acts throughout the muslim world (all of which the press coyly reports as "not known whether or not [they] are related to the Pope's words") to support them.

As I've said repeatedly, Islam is a religion that seems to inspire extremely childish and dangerous behaviour in its adherents. Few reasonable people would deny that the worst way to respond to a perceived insult is by behaving in the exact way the insult says you behave. Yet there they were in their thousands, exercising the one "free speech" option available in the mullahcracies of the muslim world: protesting against the West in general, and Christianity in specific, hurling their death threats, burning their effigies and the like. In Somalia a 65-year old nun was shot, but of course the jury's still out in the West as to whether or not it was "related" to the Pope's address. Of course, in Somalia it could just have been for sport, or because she was a woman who knew how to read, but you get the point.

I guess most of us really have taken leave of our senses: either people swallow the tripe hook, line and sinker, or they withdraw in resignation, exhausted by the utter moral depravity and mental gymnastics necessary to live alongside the dhimmi manner of thinking (I'm kind of ashamed to say I'll have to include myself in this second batch). But sooner or later, we'll have to get up and deal with this; I know I'm all the more brutal when roused out to reluctantly deal with aggressive and persistent stupidity -- I suspect I'll be in good company.

No, I haven't forgotten, nor have I given up!

2006-09-06T08:29:00.000-04:00

Dear Readers,
My many apologies for the very long hiatus. I have been attending to some family business and will be finishing up in the next couple of weeks, at which point the words (and bile) will flow once again.
I've been keeping up with the "news and the international catastrophes" (in the words of T.S. Eliot), and will be back soon, raring to go. In the meantime, my best to all of you.

Win One For The Gipper

2006-08-06T20:55:00.000-04:00

They're at it again; the Powers That Be in this world seem to be steering us toward an 80's redux now - Israel duking it out with Lebanon, Iran waxing megalomaniacal, Europe going down the can, the UN demonstrating new and creative ways to be even more corrupt, Russia telling the US to get stuffed, China telling everyone to get stuffed, North Korea bullying the South and Japan, and over it all, the threat of nukes wafting gently on the evening breeze. If you close your eyes, you can almost hear Stacey Q in the background...

Well, at least the music was much better in the 80's (Violent Femmes, Erasure, pretty much everything off Just say yes/da/yo/mao). But we're missing something critical right now, something that could make things come out right: Ronald Reagan, actor, patriot and former president, RIP, and Baroness Margaret Thatcher, Britain's famed "Iron Lady" - almost a superhero duo, especially when compared to most of our damp-eyed, appeasing and dhimmified politicians and diplomats of today. Under Reagan, we got a chance to get a breathe of fresh air and be patriots again. When Reagan did something, he did it and didn't waste time afterward justifying himself and apologizing. And the Iron Lady made him look a complete girl's blouse, not stopping for so much as a by-your-leave when it was time to do what she had to do.

No, if we can stave off the padded shoulders, frightening prints, and chinese calligraphy that no doubt kept the citizens of many a Chinatown in tears for ages, not to mention the worst of the 80's pop, an 80's redux might not be so bad: We desperately need to find a good way to dredge up some of that chutzpah. There's nothing worse than a ditherer, especially when he's the person in charge. I don't care if their owner has to be rolled into place; we need someone with big, brass balls to order up a no-holds-barred blitz on the heartland of Islamofascism and obliterate it. I know that many innocents were killed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as Dresden), but in the end, their losses prevented much greater and more horrific losses should Operation Olympic (the invasion of the Japanese homeland, should the bombings not have worked) have been ordered into effect. And although this proves me unspeakably violent and evil, I have to say that in a land where hatred is fed to babies with their mothers' milk, there are no innocents. We (meaning the US, UK, Israel, Australia - whoever'll stand up with us) need to get our gear in order, get over there, do everything that needs to be done (without regard for the sensitivities of world opinion), pack up when it's all over, and come back home. If someone complains, we can kick them in the backside and send them packing with the message that any further complaints will be handled in a far less amicable manner. The time for pussyfooting and appeasement is over. It's time to get in there and win one for the Gipper!

In The Midst Of The War Zone

2006-08-05T22:44:00.001-04:00

Where did the idea come from that the only casualties in war are supposed to be those of military combatants? For some time now, I've been hearing the wails and cries of various groups bemoaning the horrific number of civilian casualties in the War On Terror, obviously from people with no memory for history.

Civilian casualties and deaths have ALWAYS been a deplorable side effect of war. As a matter of fact, it was only in the 20th century that the concept of the "civilian" or "non-combatant" came to be recognized and acknowledged - before that you were either unlucky or a fool to be caught in the war zone. Indeed, traffic with remaining civilians (generally in the forms of rapine and looting) was considered a form of payment in kind to soldiers way, way back in the day. To believe that you can fight a war, especially a war with the guerilla-type battles our forces fight in currently, while easily avoiding any civilian casualties is nothing short of the grossest stupidity. Even if they weren't all hiding amongst the skirts of their women with babies, along with the little children, which would obviously be asking too much of them.

Yet there is still a distinct difference in the Western policy versus the jihadist one: if/when there are civilian casualties as a result of our military actions, they're never deliberate; they're considered a failure of sorts, a mistake, and deplorable. To the jihadists, it's a cause for celebration and one of their main policy goals. (This exact same can be said for Israel vs. H'bolla - to the Israelis, any loss of life other than that of the terrorists is regretable, for the Hebl's it's just par for the course.)

And we're still the bad guys because... why, again? Oh, because we still haven't noticed how much Cindy suffered dwindled because of her fast, we've let slip our subscriptions to the NYT, and now the Administration's imposition of a merciless Christian theocracy has opened the door to our new, brutal age of Bible camps, sing-alongs, and the barbarous imposition of a barbaric new, crafts-based trade economy (Yarn weavings, and popsicle crucifixes and the like - the horror, the horror...).

For my part, I'm sticking with the Fashionistas: DOWN WITH ISLAM!! SAY NO TO HIJAB! TOSS THE BURQA ONTO THE FLAMES!! Not only are the damn things unfashionable as hell, but they clash like the dickens with my jackboots, and I've only just started to fit my Stormtrooper uniform again. (And, it would be SO mortifying if I kicked in someone's door and tripped on the damn thing on the way in!)

America Doesn't Raise Us For Death Cults...

2006-08-03T21:03:00.000-04:00

In my travels of late, I've heard many a discussion that pulls me back to the Cold War days, as Iran With Nukes* looms on our collective horizon (*this could have been the name of a cool 80's garage band, if it wasn't such a sinister idea). The main question goes something along the lines of: "Do you think the Russians will use their nukes against us?", to which you'd get various answers such as "Probably", "Damn straight they would, commie bastards!!", and of course Sting's song immemorial "If The Russians Love Their Children, Too"(I'm not one for politics in music -with some notable exceptions- but I did like the music for this one). As the Cold War progressed through detente to its drawdown, I think we came to accept that neither party was particularly keen on the idea. Now as I hear the same questions posed about Iran, the answers don't seem quite so straightforward when you toss militant, death-loving jihadis into the equation.

There's a lot of hype (on one end of the pendulum, PC/pro-jihadist CAIR-type org's who insist Islam is the Religion of Peace {huh.yeah} and muslims are Victims of Islamophobia [of which more later], and a vicious smear campaign to suppress them; and on the other, hard-charging Christians and severely patriotic Americans -the love it or leave NOW!! crowd, who are seeing their First Amendment rights disappearing faster than a guinea pig can chew up a carrot) about all of this, which goes far toward obfuscating the real matter at stake here, which is basically this: 1) How are we to deal with the immediate situation between Israel/ Hizbollah, Hamas, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Iran? and 2) Can we come to an accurate estimate of the risk that Iran will or will not use whatever nuclear material (whether it be "dirty" or "clean" and fully developed) against either Israel or US/ Western interests? To answer what is basically one long question in a "to be continued" form, we have to be able to look at ourselves through the eyes of our foes, and therein lies our problem.

When we try to understand the people of the Arab and Persian worlds, both currently and in the recent past, we cannot ascribe our Western views and Judeo-Christian morality to a group of people of whom we have no understanding how they really think of or perceive the world.

Our foes (the muslims involved in this jihadi mindset) are effectively functioning as members of a cult. Their religion, especially as interpreted to them by their controllers (read: mullahs), teaches them that Death is the preferred end state for their current situation (ie. a world currently dominated by non-muslims, which can be won "back" to Islam through the sacrifice of their lives). In reading the Qur'an, or any of its many interpretations, Paradise is a lush and beautiful place, full of material rewards and comforts for the worthy warrior for Allah. For many people in the Arab/Persian worlds, this provides a vital meaning and context to lives that have been informed by little else than the misery of their material situation (face it; even the nicer parts of the Middle East are filthy and miserable, and look even worse from up close), a zero-sum mind-set, and a culture in which the jealousy of a "have-not" for the trappings of a "have" are designed to arouse not a sense of grievance, but an obligation to acquire those specific trappings from the "have" in question.

Nothing in our society or culture prepares us for dealing with an ideology this alien. The founding of our country is based on the diametrically opposite proposition; Ours is the only revolution in history generated to enable men to keep their own property, rather than to gain the property and positions of others.

Until you can really understand that the person who embraces you in love and friendship, looking you lovingly in the eyes and pledging eternal solidarity can also be conspiring with other people to bring about your destruction and probably your death at the very same time, you will never be able to begin to comprehend the Arab world, let alone deal with it, especially on its own terms. I mean this very literally - you really have to jump into the full thought and feeling of this with both feet; in my several brushes with politicking among Arabs and a lone Persian of once high standing (in many cases I was unaware I was even involved in such), there were a good several times I came out distinctly at the bottom for being unknowing, incapable of, or unwilling to indulge in the kind of behaviour that not only would have enabled me to come out on top, but is considered standard in Arab society. It's like meat and bread to them - the tapestry-like weaving in and out of family, social and political threads, coupled with a nearly invisible but highly distinct hierarchy of favours, gift-giving, hospitality, and of course, feuds. The average American has little if any experience with this type of culture, let alone the mindset behind it. Yet it's very important that we learn to decipher this dichotomy, because we're already behind the power curve in addressing our concerns.

In my view we're long overdue in acknowledging and working to fully comprehend this topic. We've tried the measured approach (ie. diplomacy, appeasement, conciliation, and baksheeshing huge amounts of "protection money" to suspicious men with a taste for strong cologne) for the last 30 some-odd years, and this is where it's gotten us. A new approach is obviously in order; might I suggest a trip to the attic to see if we can find where Teddy Roosevelt stashed that Big Stick of his?

NEO, not PETA

2006-07-24T22:32:00.000-04:00

I just finished commenting on another blog in reference to PETA's outrage that US forces refuse to evacuate people's "friends" (ie. their pets) with them during the evacuations from Lebanon. It suits my mood this evening to reproduce it here:

I don't think any reasonable person would see a need to deliberately abandon any animal that could feasibly be rescued, but at the same time, when you are conducting a NEO (noncombatant evacutation operation), there is a HUGE amount of material to coordinate (passports, birth certificates, citizenship or immigration/visa papers, shot records, financial paperwork, any and all paperwork to do with children, your job, your possessions, your house/property in the country you're fleeing, and so on and so forth), and they are having to do this on the fly for several thousand people while all of them are in the way of fire. When you add to this the potential of having to house and feed animals (because you know there will be more than just dogs and cats), you'll have to account for all rabies, parvo, feline leukemia vaccinations (and all the gazillion others I can't remember/think of), you'll have to be able to guarantee them a safe berthing space, ensure they'll be in no danger from or especially *no danger to* any and all crew and passengers, not to mention coordinating whether or not the docking port will even receive them. I'm sure there are many other things I've left out. When I was in the Army, serving in Korea, I was the NEO control NCO for our area, and it was my job to ensure that all the civilian contractors, their wives and dependents, and all the military wives and dependents (both command-sponsored and non-command-sponsored) could be speedily evacuated in the event of Dear Leader Kim's desire for a beach party in Pusan. Those were some of the most grueling days I ever had in the Army, let me tell you, and that was just for an exercise! The USN/USMC have to do it for real, under fire, with frightened and possibly hysterical and ungrateful people - it's not a job for the faint of heart. Sometimesyou have to make painful choices about what's most important to you.

The people conducting these NEO's deserve our congratulations for their speed, courage and damned hard work! As I mentioned in the insert, even NEO exercises are grueling, but these Sailors and Marines are doing their country proud and deserve all we can give them in the way of respect. I hope sincerely that the folks they're rescuing are being very grateful to them, because I don't ever want to meet someone who was rescued who would have the gall to complain about it. Ever.

A quick ponder...

2006-07-23T22:38:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I feel as if I'm going slightly crazy. I maintain a fairly lively interest in world events, as well as in the many interpretations and analyses posited about them. I enjoy debating my views with the few people in my sphere who don't spend all their time discussing Oprah and Dr. Phil. I'm reasonably well-educated in re: the history of most situations currently in the news, and have insight into a good many things the average citizen doesn't, by virtue of past work experience.

But when I read all the news, I'm stuck wondering what alternate universe are most of the press reporting or editorializing on? Whether it's criticism of the US (which is so old hat, I suspect even that will stop making print soon), or decrying rampant Western Islamophobia (I think "Islamophobia" isn't quite the right word for most of what I've been hearing and reading from folks; the reaction to Islam isn't fear, it's disgust, annoyance, or downright loathing), or lauding the "Freedom Fighters" (how can someone be called a freedom fighter whose main mission is the genocide of all members of another religion?), a neverending parade of the most bizarre excuses and opinions are presented for the corkscrewed mind to... what, curl into a little queue?

When did such a large group of the West's population abandon reason for the sorry failed re-tread of socialism, and in so doing, subject themselves to the baroque mental gymnastics required by that ideology? The kind of loops one is put to think through would put M.C. Escher to shame. And I think the reason they always sound so angry is that they know that what they are doing and saying is wrong. Much the same way a teenager goes on the offensive when caught doing something naughty or illicit, these neo-socialists attack logical thinkers with hackneyed, highly knee-jerk terms that have lost their meanings through overuse and misuse. In worldwide protests, you see frequent comparisons of Bush to Hitler, Israel to Hitler, Rumsfeld to Hitler, or basically anyone currently out of favour to Hitler, as if that's the dirtiest word they can think of at the moment. One gets the feeling if they had come up with something like "poodle- humper" instead, that would have been on the placards. There are also the endless references to Nazism (ie. US are Nazi's, Britain are Nazi's, Israel are Nazi's) - without even continuing on to remember that "Nazi" stood for "National Socialist" Party, as in socialists, which most of them are. But when did knowledge or common sense ever come into it?

Another element of the press (notably our national press) in large part (except for lauding our international "failures" - which often aren't), is that they pretend as if nothing is going on but the upcoming elections, and the Important Issues, such as who can rake whom over the coals about spending, support of the war (which is now a Gross Failure according to common (Leftist) wisdom), support of various welfare and school spending programs, and ability to Connect With The Little Man. At this point, reading about many of the candidates up for election throughout the states (of either party), you'd probably be much better off picking a name at random from the phone book and writing it in; at least you'd stand a chance of getting someone with a work ethic and a sense of obligation to their constituents!

But when all is said and done, we know there's a big world out there, bustling with activity, and sitting here in the States, stuck home for lack of the price of a ticket, we are just going to have to do the best we can (as always - that good old American ingenuity!) and reach out around the world to those we can find (the blogosphere is a great way to do this), and try to keep ourselves posted. If only we had enough hours in the day to really stay on top, eh?...

Mark bar Filistine!!

Entitlement, Tough Love, and the Bat

2006-07-19T23:37:00.000-04:00

A lonely young man sits on a bench in a small town. It's a place he's come to from somewhere much smaller, and though this town seems big now, soon it will become too small for him, too. The small town he left is no place special; just a little place where people are born and die, and in between they manage to grow enough to put food on the table and clothes on their backs. The only thing he ever had was hard work, pounded into him day after day, because there wasn't anything else. The young man sighs, and gets to his feet. It's been a long day hunting for a job, but tomorrow, he vows, tomorrow is the day he will be hired, and then no one can stop him. A few years pass, and the man is no longer quite so young. He's married now, and has 3 kids, and the family's looking at moving to The City because there's more opportunity there. His family isn't poor, not like he was coming up, because he promised himself that his children would know a better life, and have real opportunities - he would serve as their example. Many years down the road, the children have all grown up and moved away from home; there are grandchildren now. He and his wife are comfortable, and their children are doing well. Their father made it his mission to instill in them the meaning and the value of work. They absorbed this lesson, to varying degrees, and have been happy with their lives because their accomplishments are their own. They've made their way to where they are now by the dint of their own hard work. And somewhere inside that old man, sits a young man on a bench who can sit and relax for a minute longer, because there isn't a rush anymore.

Don't know what made me think of that, except maybe the growing feeling I have about the Cult of Entitlement that has pervaded our society so deeply that we have all become influenced, often without even realizing it. It seems to go wonderfully hand-in-glove with the Cult of Victimhood; when one is a "victim" society obviously "owes" the victim some form of compensation for that status. Or so we've been led to believe. It comes out in a variety of ways, from the simple: " I should get that because I want it/I was good in the store" that you might hear from a child, to the slightly more (and I hesitate to even use this term) mature extortion you hear from, say, the crooks/ politicians in New Orleans.

Something has gone seriously wrong. When did we, as a people, go from picking ourselves up after an accident or storm and setting about clearing away the damage, fixing what could be fixed, helping our neighbors and getting on with life? I'm pretty sure those are the people federal aid grants were intended for, and not the trash who invaded Houston, jacking up the crime rates, lowering the education rates, and making the lives of hotel workers in the city a living nightmare. Nor, I'm sure, were they intended to support people who are actively trying to kill us. (At least I'm really hoping that's true!)

Somewhere I read that all our federal aid packages paid out around the world were basically bribes to all the little tinpot dictators in the world to try and keep their countries from causing or going to war. It might be true, might not. But what it's done is create a sense of entitlement in most countries around the world that the US owes them money because it's bigger and better than they are. Well, yes, we are. But I certainly don't see that as any reason to compensate them for taunting or sniping at us. If they want those aid dollars, I say let them earn 'em the hard way - through work. Do you have a tour industry? Organize pleasant trips for American tourists. Do you have a work industry? Get back to work! Are you sending your children (girls included) to school? Well, what are you waiting for? - Get those kids over there now! I'm not against incentives for things like learning not to pee in your drinking water, suppressing marxist thought (one of the single most lethal things in the 20th century), how a modicum of family planning can improve your situation in life, or the teaching of basic human hygiene (always a good one, that). Real civil engineering can maybe net a bigger prize or bonus, and choosing a fair representative government (doesn't even have to be a democracy) for the people could be like a sort of jackpot. I don't know - it's quite late at night, and at this point, I'm wagging it, but sooner or later the Tough Love bat has got to come out - maybe this should be before the warthog has grown to its full size?

Trolling for the Left... (ugh, no - toss that one back!)

2006-07-18T22:25:00.000-04:00

In my recent travels around the web, I've begun to see more and more liberal postings (aka "trollings") on conservative sites, wherein the poster (apparently) deliberately posts things to taunt, mock or enrage the conservative audience. I think this is something we're going to see a lot more of, since one of the Left's favourite techniques is to shout and jeer down everyone who doesn't agree with them.

For example, several posters have mounted vicious ad hominem attacks on the site hosts as on Dr. Sanity and BlackFive, or with mental case/potential malign stalker Deb Frisch vs. Protein Wisdom host Jeff Goldstein. Some posters start off mildly arguing an opposite opinion, and then fall to abuse and invective when challenged on their logic or asked to present supporting data. Others go straight into the abuse, while others just hammer away with such bizarre logic you can only assume someone in an institution got into the Dr's office while the computer was still on. But the one thing they all are, is increasing.

I've noticed a couple of other similarities among these postings: randomly stated party-line opinions with no viable evidence to back them up, rapid descent into vitriolic attacks on site hosts or commenters who question their logic or research (most conservative posters on the sites I visit have very high research standards, so if you toss an opinion out, you'd better be well-prepared to defend it, regardless of your political leanings), ritual incantations of Bush-hatred or Bushitler comparisons (these are more common than Catholics crossing themselves), the aforementioned ad hominem attacks, and now a new element: gloating, as they see themselves "scoring points" off of people voicing righteous indignation at the Left's cowardice (physical and moral),stupidity and callousness, as well as the baselessness of their assertions.

What the Left doesn't see is, it isn't a game. Sometimes you hear someone say that a liberal is a conservative who refuses to grow up, but I think it goes much deeper than that: a deep self-loathing, which could exist for any of so many reasons (we're spoiled for choice here, when referring to this crowd). No wonder they scorn and disdain the first half of the 20th century; it's all about grown-ups shouldering life's burdens and taking on adult responsibilities, all the while doing twenty, thirty times what we do today. And they raised their kids, and they worked, and they fought in wars on the battlefront, or on the homefront, and they sacrificed, because they believed in what the Founding Fathers wrote, and knew their freedom carried with it an obligation, to give back for what you received. There was no self-analysing, no healing the abused inner child, none of our self-obsessed media-driven me, me, me cult of victimhood that dominates our domestic scene.

Often the Left voices a desire to leave this country to go somewhere where there isn't a fascist government whose jackbooted stormtroopers (yes, I've finally got my uniform in order!) are just about to break down their doors and haul them off to the gulags. I don't think they should have to leave their homeland: I'm all for giving them somewhere to live, so they can all gather together and make all the human rights and pc speech laws and resolutions calling the US a "great big meanie" that they want, just so long as it's somewhere we can ignore, so we can shoulder life's burdens and assume our big responsibilities and get on with life.

Ethnic Cleansing - a great new product

2006-07-18T21:01:00.000-04:00

In defense of my somewhat lengthy hiatus, I've been combing the web and the news, taking in all the differing opinions and projections of the happenings in the ME. By now we've all weighed in with or against Israel (hopefully with), and there's been much excellent commentary about the why's and wherefore's thereof. But there are a couple of angles that haven't been addressed by anyone, other than maybe the off-hand word here or there, and those are the things I'd like to know about.

At one point while I was out this morning, a tv flashed the banner "Israel proposes conditions for cease-fire", which about knocked me down. Of course, my mind was full of other things (chores, my son with me, the awful heat, etc.) so it took me a moment to realize the tv was tuned to ... you guessed it, MSM. I hurried home to check out the real news and found out an EU negotiator had spoken with Israel's Foreign Minister, and as near as I could tell, harangued her and wrangled a highly hypothetical possibility of the potential of a possible cease-fire, or something possibly more vague than that. Tzipi Livn, Israel's Foreign Minister, seems like one tough cookie, and I can't see her coming along in halter to the EU's 'greater wisdom'.

Another thing I found out is that one of the soldiers being held by Hezbollah is a Druze. The Druze are a branch of the Ismaili sect of Islam who have a much broader view of Islam (considered heretic and anathema to orthodox muslims) that encompasses elements of Greek, Jewish and Christian philosophy (although not Sufism, as some think). They're the only muslims who serve/are allowed to serve in the IDF, which they've been doing voluntarily since 1948. Big players in the Lebanese civil war, they beat the Christian Phalangist militia and signed a treaty with them which led to the two groups becoming allies. They are centred in the Chouf Mountains, between Lebanon and Syria, and have a reputation for fierceness and brutality, as well as braveness and loyalty. I'm very curious as to where they are and what they're doing right now. How are they taking the kidnap of a fellow Druze? Are they working behind the scenes in Lebanon? What does Walid Jumblatt have to say about all of this?

As some elements of the Left grudgingly admit to Hezbollah's and Hamas's dictate to annihilate all the Jews, the phrase "ethnic cleansing" has been trotted out again. This phrase really annoys me. It's the sort of prissy little euphemism people use to distance themselves from the blood and guts, the rotting bodies and desecration and horror inherent in the act. Even "genocide" has begun to lack impact any more as used in Amnesty International and UN reports describing not only true atrocities, but acts like Israel's bombing Southern Lebanon (for which they issued warning flyers well before bombing started). Warning to the wise, folks: don't inflate your opinions by using more harsh or severe terms than they warrant, or you risk watering them down so they come to mean nothing at all. They talk about ethnic cleansing as if it was some great new kind of laundry detergent:

"Ethnic Cleansing!" Are those troublesome ethnic groups getting you down and keeping your country from having the tidy ethnic majority you prefer? Have they complicated your life with the interference of watchdog NGO's and human rights agencies, or disrupted the system of bribes and corruption that keep your country going? Just try our latest product "Ethic Cleansing"! One good shot of this, and your problems will be cleaned away, no mess, no untidy questions. It's the hot new thing that all the dictators are talking about - so don't get caught without it! Get your "Ethic Cleansing" today! --[cut to picture of smiling dictator holding product box]

Honestly, if there's one thing we can do immediately, it's take back our language. It's been hijacked by PC people who don't want to see or think about the fact that life is often ugly, and made uglier by bad people. And further, that sometimes it requires the sacrifice of good people to get rid of those bad people. The least we can do for those who are killed is give them the honour due them: acknowledge their deaths properly, rather than giving their killers a pass because giving their actions their rightful name: slaughter, might make us feel a little squeamish.

2006-07-13T19:47:00.000-04:00

All The News That's Fit to Dodge: Fox Reporters Shot at by Israeli Forces in Gaza

In a stunning piece of crack journalism, a Fox reporter and his team were right on hand to get the story. Unfortunately, some of those details might have been just a bit too, well, detailed for the Israeli troops he was reporting on. They voiced their concern with some light gunfire, at which point, the now-prudent reporter high-tailed it away from the area. Honestly, this is something I'd have expected more from CBS or the like, but having an "off day" like this one can mean more than just coming home feeling a little run down; it can mean not coming home at all. The fact that those little blue flak jackets say "Press" on them does not confer immunity from gunfire, or for that fact, from the people firing those guns. Sic transit gloria belli...

No 70's Redux Without ABBA

2006-07-13T14:05:00.001-04:00

They're at it again. Iran, flexing its muscles (and intimating the likelihood of actual nukes now), has finally finally come into the open as the true supporter of all the little terrorist groups/states in the region, and seems set on engaging in its own little version of the 1970's redux*, but this time with a millenial twist.

*(Hasn't anyone told them that the '70's thing is just about over now, and we're getting ready to swing into a 1980's redux? Honestly, doesn't anyone in the ME keep up with the fashion mags?)

Israel is at war now, as if anyone could have doubted that eventuality. Most newspapers and talking heads relate the "atrocities" that Israel is committing, and their human rights offenses against the Palestinian people with their "unjustified" attacks. They (the world media) bemoan the deaths of so many over the life of just one (read: worthless) Israeli. Few, if any, mention the difficulties that the people of Israel are undergoing at the same time. They hide in their bunkers, and under their beds and under whatever cover they can manage, to escape the Kassam rocket attacks (which have been continuous since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2004), knowing that pretty much the entire world wants them to be destroyed, knowing that even if they get help, it may not be enough, or may not come soon enough).

I certainly can't imagine what it must be like to live like that: surrounded on almost all sides by several millions of people who want tapdance through rivers of your blood as it flows in the streets. When I was young and naive, I used to get so angry because I believed that there were normal, rational workaday Palestinians whose lives had been hijacked by terrorists like Yassr Arafat. I couldn't understand why they didn't just rise up and say "This git doesn't speak for us! Hey - you! Yeah, you over there - go back home, get a job, make something of your self and stop waving that gun around, it doesn't make you look manly at all; just silly! Go home!". But I'm older, and maybe even a little bit wiser, and what I do know is what the Palestinians say in interviews: that they elected Hamas to represent them because they want to send the world a message: that they mean to carry out Hamas's stated goal.

What we must realize is that they aren't just like us, and they don't want to be. It's one of the facts that Americans can't get through our heads around - there really are people out there who don't want to work and make a living, and run their own country and make sure its government helps properly govern the country. Palestinians are those kind of people. They have been seduced and drawn in by Arab rhetoric, fed on a gluttonous diet of victimization by the UN and all the other so-called human rights groups, and fattened up on Muslim terrorist hate-speeches. Scattered and living in other countries, they were unable to vote or hold citizenship and therefore had most of their lives decided for them. It must have come as quite a shock, getting their own land, and being expected to make something of it, but after all, they had an excellent example in Israel, next-door. Why not do Israel one better, and become better than them using them as the model?

I realize that may be way over the top, sarcasm and irony-wise, but I am quite serious. Why has the Arab world never figured out the "Beat them at their own game" kind of thinking? Because it requires work, and lots of it. It would require that the Palestinians give up their macho-istic revolutionary posturing, pick up a tool or some kind of implement and get to work. They could have gotten SO much cash from the UN for any kind of set-up project to establish viable public utilities, a workable, truly viable infrastructure, any attempt to establish a basis for a national economy, just about anything they wanted, but they'd rather sit and sift through their own dirt and garbage, revelling in their filth, just for the chance to bag some Israelis and spread a little more misery. Can they be helped? At this point, I'm not even sure they should be.

And we're the Greater Satan because...?

2006-07-09T21:02:00.000-04:00

Please forgive my absence - I've been researching the Wahhabi sect of Islam, and my simple research has netted me an avalanche of information that will take a good long while to sort through and organize. It's definitely confirmed to me that we all need to wake up and pay much closer attention to what the Saudi's have been up to, all over the world.

I was reading a story put out around the 3rd of July, wherein a poll conducted in England concluded that most British find Americans to be rude, vicious, cruel, loud, racist, class-driven, and money-obsessed people, waging an illegal war for self-interest and led by a hypocrite. The poll suggested that, while Brits might like Americans one on one, on the whole, they tend to fear us - afraid that we really are an imperialist power out to take over the world.

I found this really interesting, for several reasons: For starters, this poll comes from the country who practically invented class obsession. Except for some weenie academics, flesh mechanics and lawyers, few Americans feel the need to have KBE, OM, GCSI Esq, PDQ, ASAP, COD, or any other abbreviations listed after their names.

This poll comes from the country who gave the world its modern scourge: the Footer Yobbo, a character feared by nearly every country in the world, and banned by almost as many. This poll comes from the country that gave us Bad Girls, Mile High and Footballers Wive$, for goodness' sake!

And it comes from the country who has sheltered two viler hate-spewing radical Islamist preachers in the world, Abu Hamza (noted sponsor of the 1993 attempt on the WTC) and Omar Bakri Mohammed (deported from the UK for inciting to violence and terrorism).

Britain has one of the fastest growing populations of young Islamists in Europe. And its own native citizens feel they can no longer voice their dissent against radical jihadi speeches, protests and propaganda, because the police have been warned not to permit anyone to incense the muslim population lest there be an escalation of violence along the lines of 7/7.

Many countries in Europe are starting to realize that the concept "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which sounded good when both they and the muslims were anti-US, doesn't sound quite so good when your cherished liberal beliefs are going to the chopping block. So much for women's rights, reproductive freedom, abortion rights, animal rights, child rights, anti-slavery laws, gay rights and gay marriage, true multiculturalism, assimilation, religious freedom (or in the case of most Euro's freedom from religion), and universal suffrage. All of a sudden the kinder, gentler liberals of Europe greet the true face of the Islam they've fostered, but instead of the kind, gentle face of moderate Islam that many of them grew up with, they see instead a face with burning eyes, devoid of any emotion at all, save burning hate for everything but Islam - their very specific, strict, narrow Islam.

Europe is at far worse risk than we are, accessible not only by their close proximity, but by their minimalist immigration laws. The Netherlands has only started to realize, since the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, the lit stick of dynamite they are playing hot potato with: their famous hospitality and permissiveness (pot, prostitutes, anything goes...) has also brought them a sizeable muslim community that not only refuses to assimilate, but in the cases of many thousand immigrants, won't even bother to learn to speak Dutch. They do not abide by Dutch law (although they will accept Dutch welfare, healthcare and subsidies), and now insist that the Netherlands adopt Shar'ia as the national law. In Belgium, muslim clerics are calling for Arabic to be made one of the official languages of the country. Germany has been struggling for decades with the large influx of Turkish immigrants, but in the wake of floods of young Arab men who bring their Islamism with them, they are also realizing they have a problem that may be beyond their own control.

Yet somehow, we are still the Greater Satan. Maybe it's something along the lines of an abused woman being frightened by the goings-on of the people down the block, because it's too scary and painful to look at her own bruises or think about what will happen when her boyfriend comes back from the bar. And as in the case of every domestic disturbance, when the policeman comes to take the boyfriend away for beating her up, she'll turn against the policeman for being too "rough" or "mean" to him - the same old story that we, as The World's Policeman, know inside and out.

Start the Police State Without Me

2006-07-05T20:37:00.000-04:00

Harking back to yesterday:

Being in the military, we have of course, the most excellent of friends both in and out of the military, who sent us wonderful emails with great wishes, links, jokes and stories for Independence Day. I delighted in all of them (the emails, and of course, the friends). But being the type of person I am (the type who can't let well-enough alone), I just had to drop in on that festering pit of bile, that barometer of leftism: KosLand. I figured that they could even take something like the 4th of July (since they claim to be such "patriots - just not flag-wavers") and twist it into something hateful. True to form, they indulged me amply. A little too amply, since I was hoping I would have to dig just a little to find anything. But oh no. Immediately the imprecations against the racist, sexist, bigotted, slave-owning, evil white men who wrote that screed of evil, the Declaration of Independence, not to mention the Constitution, came out. Then came stories about what an awful guy Joe Lieberman is. Because he's not doing what the Party tells him to do. Because he actually wants to run for his own office. Talk about Night of the Long Knives. Don't let's anyone follow poor Joe into the piranha tank. And of course they are now using his good sportsmanship (congratulating his opponent's win) as evidence he needs to be dumped, and fast. Yikes. With friends like these, eh? This was followed by the obligatory anti-Bush litanies, and the now-tedious howls of outrage against the Police State we live in.
[sigh....]
I'm still waiting for any Big Press stories of Jackbooted Thugs breaking down doors and carrying Leftist leaders, writers, activists, and (I hesitate to use the word) "thinkers", away to the gulags. All those writs of habeus corpus, sitting in drawers, getting dusty, waiting to be filled in. All those activist lawyers, their ideals buffed to a fine sheen, their rhetoric polished and to hand, their reputations just waiting to be made. The contractors waiting to build the gulags, the guards to staff them, the farmers to grow the food to supply them. Heck, I'm beginning to think they're right: maybe the Right IS depressing the economy - causing all those activists, lawyers, contractors, guards, gulag workers, farmers and all to sit idle, waiting for their chances to protest, stop showering (oh, wait, they've already been doing that...) litigate, build, get hired, grow stuff and whatnot...

Oh well, it's a dirty job, but I guess someone's got to do it. It's just that, after having 3 kids, the old black uniform is a bit "snug" in spots, and there's a spot of... I think that's peanut butter on my left jackboot, and someone's been using my hat as a dolly bed, and.... Oh, heck, you guys'll just have to start the Police State without me - I'll be along presently.

Oh Palestine

2006-07-02T12:05:00.000-04:00

Israel and the Hamas (now in its guise as the Official Government of Palestine) are duking it out again. Arabs beat their chests and howl in rage. And the rest of the world shakes its head and thinks “…nothing new here, move along…” But this time, it feels slightly different. One senses the feeling of a line having been drawn, a line that Hamas is perilously close to crossing over. A line that, once crossed, will be a point of no return.

To be fair, Israel has been remarkably restrained, given that most of the actions taken against them by Hamas constitute recognizable acts of war. For the last 30-some odd years, the US has been at the forefront of the much vaunted peace process, trying to broker peace between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world, urging restraint in all cases, and holding back Israeli ire whenever possible. Obviously, this kind of diplomacy hasn’t worked, and it hasn’t been working for a long time.

In the Middle East, Israel is a gem of prosperity, industry, contentment, and natural wealth (in the form of well-tilled, fertile fields). It is a locus for foreign travelers who seek it out for its religious significance, culture, fashion and nightlife, and even possibly for the barely lingering remains of the exotic reputation Lebanon once held in its glory days. Unfortunately, Israel also forms an excellent focus for Arab hatred, as Arabs look around at themselves living in poverty, squalor and filth in densely packed urban ghettoes. It’s existence has also become a tool Arab governments use to prevent their people from looking too closely at their corrupt and failing policies; Israel, the Other Great Satan, has Stolen the Birthright of the Palestinians, they are Occupying and have Criminally Colonized at the Cost of Arab Blood, Traditional Arab Lands. No atrocity is too brutal to attribute to the Israeli aggressors.

But none of the other Arab countries want the Palestinians either, since Arab memories are long and grudges aren’t easily forgiven. Arab leaders remember well the month of September 1970, also known as Black September. Throughout Jordan, thousands of refugee camps housed thousands upon thousands of Palestinians fleeing the orgy of violence and fighting throughout the area. After a while, militants living in those camps began to set up an internal infrastructure within Jordan, closing off roads, opening checkpoints and charging special “taxes” for passage along these roads. These and other actions represented a challenge to Jordan’s sovereignty as a nation. Jordan’s King Hussein dispatched Internal Security troops to deal with the problem, spawning bitter fighting with the militants. By the time the dust cleared, many thousands of Jordanians, refugees and militants had been killed (numbers on this are still uncertain, but range from 3000 to 5000, to more than 10,000), and the refugees were once again on the move, booted out of Jordan and distributed among the various Arab countries where they were (and still are) generally distrusted (especially after backing Sadaam in the invasion of Kuwait; Arab culture proscribes dealings with unlucky, unwise people, lest their bad luck rub off on you). They became a people without a country, glorified in cause, unwanted in person, and growing steadily angrier at the dichotomy of their position.

When they were got their own land, the first thing they did was elect a terrorist organization to be their government. What clearer message could they send to the rest of the world? The press no longer records the hostilities Israelis face daily from the Palestinians, the lobbing of Molotov cocktails, the rock-throwing. Even the kidnapping and murder of that young settler (may he rest in peace) wouldn’t have made a news blip, if it wasn’t concurrent with the kidnapping of a young Israeli soldier and the Israeli Army’s mobilization and determination to get him back.

I’m still trying to figure out why Israel shouldn’t be able to defend itself from attacks by hostile foreign governments and terrorist organizations whose charters cite the destruction of Israel as their chief aim. Yes, the Mossad gets up to many highly questionable antics. These need to be brought to light and addressed in the courts, legally, on a case-by-case basis, as we address our own suspected crimes. But this doesn’t invalidate Israel’s right to self-defense. And the matter of “non-combatants”? It is very sad that non-combatants get caught up in military actions. The terrorists don’t even recognize the concept of “non-combatants”. I don’t believe that Israel intentionally targets civilians (although when they do hit them, they need slightly more convincing arguments than “We didn’t do it” followed by “Well, it might’ve happened, but it was probably something else instead” or some equally lame response. The proper wording goes something like “We deeply regret that this (bomb/round/whatever) fell among civilians. It was a grave mistake, because we would never knowingly target civilians. We offer our sincerest condolences to their families in their time of loss.”).

In the meantime, if we really support Israel, then it’s time we cut the apron strings and let her walk on her own. If our diplomatic nurse-maiding hasn’t done her any good, let’s see what she does on her own. If nothing else, it’ll be interesting.

The Times To Come

2006-07-01T18:53:00.000-04:00

Having recovered from the previous (somewhat lengthy, I know - still getting the hang of this blog thing) post, I find I am still held fast by the continuing controversy as represented by the ongoing, treasonous reporting of the New York Times (NYT), and the rest of the MSM.

The MSM (our country's self-appointed morality and legality police) has circled wagons against the outrage of the government and the public, asserting the Public Right To Know, claiming the real issue/problem is really an Administration conspiracy to disenfranchise the American public, and brandishing the first amendment as a sort of shield. The MSM and the Left are looking only at the upcoming elections and, if I'm feeling really generous, possibly the ones after that, with their eyes firmly fixed on internal politics and the potential of incoming porkbarrel projects and the satisfaction of Being In Charge again. To them, the idea of a country led by George W. Bush and his administration, peopled by those who elected him is a glowing neon sign of the impending apocalypse, so everything they can do to undermine it is an heroic effort worth any sacrifice (especially the lives of others) to accomplish. I come from good redneck stock, tempered with a stubborn streak of Dutch intelligentsia, and I was brought up between life as a military brat and life in a small NW town with seriously upper-middle class pretensions (a refuge for post-Berkeley wannabe's). Yet even in these rarified atmospheres I don't think I ever heard anything as preposterous as the idea that moral equivocation is great as long as it's the "non-cool" people taking it in the shorts, rather than "us hip folk who know and care so much more".

Even more preposterously, many advocates of the Left’s failed movements (Marxism, Communism or Socialism, anyone?) believe they will, of course, be in charge When The Revolution Comes (they're smarter, they care more, they know what’s best for the rest of us). What they don't realize is that they represent everything theJihadi's stand against. It's likely they would be the first to go, as godless, self-serving (as in serving only themselves as the individual, rather than the tribe or group to which they belong), openly scorning and flouting religion and its practices as 'the opiate of the masses' (wasn't that part of the statement behind the "piss Christ"?), elevating women to a victim/cult status beyond what even the wildest imaginations could have dreamed in the early days of the Feminist Movement (before that became a pejorative term), raising up Hollywood icons as the be-all, say-all, do-all guru's of What's Right (I have to admit Britney Spears is giving me pause to consider several arguments in favour of imposing hijab, though). The only area of common ground they seem to share is a serious anti-Semitism (not a proper term, as Arabs are Semites, too; maybe anti-Jewism?), no doubt in response to the Left's elevation of muslims to Victims of the Moment. Didn't the Left and the rest of our Self-Appointed Intelligentsia used to number among them many prominent Jewish thinkers and activists? Where have they gone? Have they been left out on the stoop with the cats and the milk bottles? Should someone be passing around a collection plate?

This breaks down to so much more than just a simple hurling of insults and slappy-hands (as the lib’s would have us believe). It really is a matter of national security, and the lives of our fellow Americans, as well as those of our allies are at stake because of it. Not that the MSM gives a fig for that: all those soldiers and everyone supporting this war are obviously evil and must be exposed – and after all, they did sign on the dotted line to be willing to die didn’t they? Well, they’re just helping them out a little. All this business of national security is just an Administration cover-up to hide …(fill in the blank with whatever ridiculous accusation you care to name). These soap-opera plots of government conspiracy merely serve to confirm any and every action, statement and request made by the government. The only thing the Left believes from the government are the leaks they receive altogether too frequently. Lest anyone think that Bush is so bad even his own administration is against him, remember that much of the government is still comprised of large numbers of Clinton- and Clinton-era appointees who have no love for the Republican administration.

Conservatives (another misnomer - as most of them are not so much for refusing change as they are for minimizing government involvement in the citizen's daily life, supporting a strong capitalist economy and the like) on the other hand, do often look at the Bigger Picture. They see the US under threat of having many of its basic liberties taken away not by the will of the people, but by judicial fiat (courtesy of the ranks hardcore activist appointed judges). For example we see the PC movement and suspiciously founded and funded “human rights groups” and PAC's mounting deafening and vicious ad hominem attacks to overwhelm any person attempting to exercise his/her rights to free (read: dissenting) speech as guaranteed under the Constitution. More and more frequently we see our citizens raked over the coals for daring to state their opinions either openly (check out any local or campus postings of newspapers or speeches shut down for stating non-PC thoughts) or creatively through artistic license (Check out Dr. Sanity's post on Artist Amir Normandi's Photo Exhibit "Desire No Shackle" which was shut down in Chicago by muslim activists, or Blackfive's on USMC Lance Corporal Joshua Belile on his "Hadji Girl" video). These PC groups and PAC's garner a good deal of money by way of grants and donations (often for misrepresenting their causes to the public; I once donated my $5 allowance as a young girl to our local NOW group after being told it would be used to help further the cause of equal pay for equal work. I proudly wore the button I was given, until I discovered that the organization was using funds like mine -$5 meant something in those days- to support political candidates with some very radical (read: insane) political views and opinions in many cases contrary to the views with which I'd been brought up). They can turn their very formidable legal, media and financial resources to the prosecution of persons they charge with "hate speech". And generally, lacking necessary funds to mount even a token defense against the political machine funding the prosecution, the so-called offender is forced to retract his/her opinion and shout the party line in a Communist-style high-visibility public display, or -if they're lucky enough to win- slide into tarnished obscurity. Chalk up another judicial precedent toward the abolition of the First Ammendment, or the Second, or so on...

Outside of the US, we see a Europe overwhelmed by wave upon wave of muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate and demand that the national laws be changed to accommodate sha'ria, which they assert shall be the only law to which they’re accountable. Europeans are now experiencing negative population growth, unlike their new immigrants, thereby radically changing the entire demographic of Europe. A look through some of the bolder op ed pieces in newspapers throughout Europe shows that only now are people starting to become aware of the implications of this. European politics are being completely overset by this preponderance of muslim immigrants, who use their numbers and the threat of (or outright) violence to intimidate and silence any opposition to their views. Many of Europe’s immigration laws, dating back to the Cold War days, are lax because they were established to facilitate the flight of people seeking asylum and escaping the Communist Bloc countries. That situation no longer exists, and Europe would do well to review and thoroughly overhaul their immigration and asylum laws. And for that matter, so do we. ((Update: Holland has started reviewing and strengthening some of its immigrant policies - thank goodness the barn door is closed now that the horses have gotten out.))

We also see large gangs of young men throughout the muslim world, demonstrating for more violence, traveling throughout muslim areas fighting for this or that terrorist group, insurgency or warlord, spreading their their bile and hatred, and using their knowledge and skills (ie. at weapons and the construction and placement of IED's) to fill the lives of the peacekeepers and even the local population with bloodshed and misery. We know that, despite MSM reports, muslims are the most prolific killers of muslims. And we know that this new asymmetrical war can’t be fought and won simply and quickly on a identifiable battlefront by easily recognizable troops reporting to a known and accountable chain of command. It’s an ugly, dirty, underhanded thing that will go on for a long time. It will be fought along every front of society, and there are no non-combatants. This is an important distinction, because whether you choose to consider yourself one or not, the enemy considers you one, and that’s good enough for them. If they get their way, we will soon be in a position much like that of Israel, only our Democratic Party, lefties, liberals, PC’ers, multi-culti’s, self-appointed intelligentsia, academic elite, MSM (have I left anyone out?) will be eagerly on hand as informers for this new cultural revolution, ready to hand any “revanchist swine” or “backward thinkers” over to the mullahs for appropriate re-education. And oh, what a brave new world we shall have then…

The Latest Big Story

2006-06-27T14:40:00.000-04:00

Understandably, the big story that still has people hopping is the NYT's detailed publication of the US's financial battle plans to track terrorist funds around the world. The Left (which I have decided to start referring to as "The Wrong") insists that the entire furor is merely a pathetic and obvious manufacture by the Administration to discredit them and try to grab an inch or two of moral high ground. Of course. I mean, why should we be upset that their rag of choice just revealed in detail how we track their pet terrorists' money trail? UBL must have a NYT subscription - it no doubt provides him some of the best info available on our tactics and methods. And the fact that the program they've pasted on the first page is entirely legal (despite their every implication of the opposite) is just the "crowning turd in the water pipe" (to quote from Blackadder the IV). Where was the public value in publishing that knowledge? What public right to know (which is, by the way, not listed in the Constitution) trumps the security of a program that tracks those money trails not only for terrorist actions but also for their money laundering operations, which also affects our economy? Sure common sense would have told you that such a program existed. But they were under no obligation to publish it, and more precisely there was overwhelming reason not to. What we have here is an organization that has become obscene, bloated with its own perceived power, its complete lack of accountability, and its feeling of vast moral superiority over the entire nation. In response to Bill Keller's pathetic attempt at self-justification, at not knowing whether those methods were ever even argued and proved legal in a court of law? I have mentioned around the web (sites including but not limited to Captain's Quarters, Blackfive, Dr. Sanity, Michelle Malkin, etc...), that all of these methods, investigations and programs are researched very, very thoroughly both pro and con, by lawyers employed for just those purposes. The cases are argued before a court of law . They can be instituted only if and when they have been proved to be fully and legally justifiable.

In the MSM's neverending attempts to stick it to the Administration (and the American public, whom they obviously hold in great contempt), they have abandoned every shred of journalistic ethics they were ever credited with having. Your writer believes they should be very publicly tried and even more publicly punished. They have gone so far beyond the pale that it calls into question whether or not they still merit the protection of the society they claim to be part of. I think they need to be reviewing book club selections from the prisoner's library inside Sing Sing. And now that they have exposed our tracking methods (and thereby enabled their pet terrorists to change and adapt their money transfer options), they need to be held accountable for every victim of the terrorist actions that occur from here on out, since the funds they've helped protect will be used to pay for the attackers, their materials, their training, and their reconnaissance, not to mention the actual attacks themselves.

And so we return to the Public's Right to Know, as shouted from the rooftops by the MSM whenever confronted with their immoral, illegal and unethical and downright fallacious reporting. They say, "Well, so what if it's secret? The public has a Right To Know what their government is doing in their name/with their tax dollars", or "Well, so what if it isn't true? The public needs to know that that's the kind of thing this administration would do". They crow over the fact that they often report information from the front much faster than does the military, but what they don't mention is that this is because the military is obliged to ensure that the information it reports is both reliable and correct. Time and again we have seen MSM reporters in-country acting hand-in-glove with insurgents and former regime members who give them the exclusive "inside story" (can everyone say "Haditha"? A story which had already been under military investigation for a while). They often report misinformation, rumors and outright lies as well as blatant propaganda, as well as anything they can find which does not portray the US in a favourable light (big surprise there). Not that many (if any of them) are inclined to report favourably on the US efforts. Indeed, two reporters embedded with US forces saw their stories and photos excised as being "too positive" in the US's favour (they and other such reporters are scorned by their colleagues as victims -or willing dupes- of the Stockholm Syndrome).

At what point did we elect the press to decide for us what we need to know? At the beginning of the 20th century, in the heyday of Yellow Journalism, it was understood that each of the umpteen-gazillion newsrags being published was the tool of the party or group publishing it. There was no question of their impartiality - that was discounted completely. Somewhere down the line, we came to be convinced in The Press as an impartial body out to report The Truth. And the press has been playing us, pushing their own agenda, cashing in on that impression of impartiality for years now. Think about Walter Cronkite's "impartial reporting" turning our overwhelming victory at Tet (General Giap was actually preparing all his papers and personnel to surrender), into a crushing defeat. Or Dan Rather's reporting of W's military service. Or the heinous perfidy reported by Newsweek about the desecration of the Korans (and their laughable-if-it-wasn't-so-sleazy-apology). Never mind that 15 people were killed in rioting due to that lie. It's not Newsweek's fault at all, just ask them. The Wrong, and the MSM have elevated moral equivocation and getting their way with what is Right. They insist that the problem lies with Conservatives, who are incapable of seeing the grey areas and nuances inherent in the many issues at hand on the international stage. They refuse to accept any possibility that often there is no grey area - some things are just wrong, and no amount of equivocating or ignoring them will change that.

I guess I am no longer amazed that they don't accept responsibility for the consequences of their irresponsible reporting. Their persistent refusal to look beyond the here and now, indeed beyond their own skins, to see that what's going on is so very much bigger than internal politics and the coming election. What we are dealing with right now is nothing less than upholding and defending basic human rights, our way of life, against a group of people who, using their fundamentalist and self-serving interpretation of their religion, fight to subjugate the world (yes, the world - just read their screeds) to the whims of these self-styled "caliphs". And the multi-culti crowd, who has adopted muslims as their Victim Of The Moment, would have us think that this is because they are just misunderstood, and marginalized by the oppression of the Anglo-White, Western, Judeo-Christian, Crusader System. But let us step aside for a moment and take a look at this. I'll agree that they are misunderstood. But that's more to their benefit than their detriment (*see below). As to marginalized, well, not anywhere within reach of the MSM. The moment someone doesn't offer rapturous praise of islam, you'll find the muslim community, CAIR, any MSM and other hangers-on jumping to their feet screaming "Racism, racism! Discrimination!" And that 'someone' slinks off to the hisses and boos (and often the death threats - don't forget, this is the religion of peace) of the multitudes. I believe it is generally the mark of a failed or failing society that they have to work hard to keep the eyes of their people focused on the past - both on past failures and grievances (they did this and that to us), and to past glories (we deserve to have this and that again just as we used to have - whether that is true or not). Heaven forbid you let people see how awful things are now - with the kidnappings, shootings, torture, disappearances, and looting. No industry, no public works, no civic infrastructure, no actual schools, no hospitals worth speaking of, no safety. I'm still waiting for someone in the press to let the public in on the fact that the AQ and the insurgents are the biggest killers of Muslims right now (Sadaam Hussein holds the current record, but shhh, you can't say that out loud - it might make it look like Dubya had a reason). How many people are aware of the fact that one of the other victims in the blast that killed Zawahiri was his 14 year old wife? Yes, it's sad that his child bride died, but what kind of living hell was she spared? And yes, trading around 12-14 yr old daughters as wives to cement ties is a standard and well-accepted practice among AQ leadership (as well as the Taliban and the fundamentalists). And right now, about the only country in the world whose press has the balls to stand up to the threat of islam against the basic human rights our western society is based on is Denmark. Visit any of a host of excellent websites to see the Mohammed Cartoons, and please, support Denmark by buying Danish whenever possible!! The fact that there are so many observant Muslims in America who live exemplary lives, who follow the prescripts of their religion and the laws of this country, who raise their children to be good citizens makes the argument all the more powerful in favour of not currying favour with special interest groups. These people show that there is no necessary dichotomy between practising and living under islam in the Middle East and doing so in the US, except as enforced by the fundamentalists and terrorists for their own interests.

Enter the US military. We see our guys (and gals, of course) as the liberators and protectors of the Iraqi people, freeing them from the tyranny of the former regime and terrorists at large in Iraq. Yet from all over the world come cries that the US is really there to occupy and colonize Iraq, to steal its oil and line its pockets with oil money (*cough*cough* Kofi*cough**Annan*cough*cough**). Accusations like this used to enrage me, but as I've gotten older I've come to realize they say that because it's the only way they're capable of thinking, because that's what those other countries would do in our position. Heck, it's what the UN is doing pretty much everywhere they've been sent. (Pages of rant could go toward propagating the idea of dissolving the UN "Peacekeeping" Forces - maybe a rant for a later date). But we are not a colonizing country, despite the cries of past-it, also-ran countries whose colonial ambitions now lie in tatters and shreds. In this, as in all of our overseas campaigns, the constant refrain of the American GI is "We just want to get this job done so we can go home." Is this the rally of the colonizer? The oppressor? When I was stationed overseas, we used to supply orphanages and local children with school supplies, blankets, clothes, toys and food. Totally Awesome Mom last night reminded me of the floods of boxes of same sent from the US to Viet'Nam during that "police action". Himself takes great joy in handing out mechanical pencils and leads and drawing pads and teaching kids to draw cartoons and caricatures - kids from Kosovo, Afghanistan, Southeast and Southwest Asia (as well as other places too numerous and odd to mention) are out there cartooning - who knows what tomorrow's cartoon industry is going to look like? Together with the time and affection that GI lavish on the kids, this is one of the great legacies of the American GI. No one would be foolish enough to say that we are perfect; we have all the requisite number of idiots and bastards as the rest of humanity (well, maybe slightly fewer - we are America, after all!), but one of the things that sets us apart is that we really do want to help people become like us (not at the cost of their culture - so calm down Multi-Culti's!). We really don't understand why everyone can't just walk down the street, go to the store, buy a car, attend a decent (possibly non-religious) school, receive good medical treatment at a hospital, send their kids (especially daughters) to school, or any of the other myriad of rights and liberties we enjoy. Without getting shot doing it. Without fear of kidnapping and torture. And knowing that you will wake up tomorrow and it will still be true. So why is it that when a grateful Iraqi person tries to express him/herself to the media about the wonderful things brought to the country by US troops, those images never make it past the cutting room floor? Could it be because those images don't fit in with the dramatic cuts of insurgent "freedom fighters" and "sinister" US forces? Heaven forbid you try to sell ad space on a page with an article talking about how the US did something right. Or maybe that's part of the problem - the word "right" is no longer in their collective vocabulary, except in a pejorative way...

With guns A Blazin'

2006-06-24T19:02:00.000-04:00

I have, as is my habit, been hopping about the internet, checking out my favourite sites and getting the news of the day. Overlaid with other ongoing idiocies (ie. rampant islamism and anti-Americanism), well, I've got rant material for absolutely ages. Now I'll not pretend I'm one of the best out there (obviously not, or I wouldn't enjoy all my faves as much as I do!), although I know I'm probably better than some (or I wouldn't be here), but heck, since it's still America (for another two or so weeks - until the Lefties, NYT crowd and the Multi-Culti's get their way) by God, I shall rant.

That said, one of the things that has me annoyed lately is the gross ignorance the average American has about the islamic world, and about its current state. Now I realize, having been an Arabic linguist for several years, that I am in a slightly better position than the average Joe to appreciate the things that go on in re: islam, but honestly folks - the war's been going on for over 5 years now, and most of you still don't even know what islam really is. There are many good books out there (Bernard Lewis is an excellent author, and his books are very informative) that can give a good overview of islam, and muslims, and the increasing cultural gap between their society and ours. There are also maps, which would do most Americans a world of good to study, since most Americans can barely navigate around our own country, let alone other continents. It's good to know where these battles are being fought because often terrain can inform the purpose of a battle (well, along with a host of other factors, but you get the idea). And another thing is just to understand that plurality of mind is part of the Arab mind-set.

What I mean by this is as follows: The average Arab (and I use Arabs, they being considered the "keepers of the holy of holies", and therefore the seat of the faith) sees no contradiction in believing all of the following at the same time: 9/11 was a Mossad plot, and further that 3000 (or 5000 or more, take the number of your choice) were phoned the night before and told to stay home which they did, that the US did it to themselves as a pretext to creating a justification for attacking Iraq (never mind we attacked in Afghanistan), that Israel tells the US what to do, the US tells Israel what to do, that the Israel routinely carries out medical testing on Palestinians, that Israel is about to topple to the Palestinian/Hammas government, that the US is the only country that can/will save them, that the US is the Great Satan, and the list just goes on. And most stupefyingly, these views are voiced by some of the most rational, decent-seeming and lucid people. People who are often hosting you to a meal, who are sitting next to you at a dinner party or a cafe, and who will hold your hand and breathe on your face (both gestures of affection, respect and trust). And they will offer and accept invitations, receive and exchange gifts with you, introduce you to business associates and family members (often the same people). And they may be the face you see in the middle of an anti-American protest the next time you look.

In the mosques and madrassas, it just gets more complicated. These places are virtual petri dishes for the incubation of extremism and terrorism. The mullahs and imams who lead the men in prayers and deliver sermons generally deliver something far more dangerous and insidious - hatred and bigotry, intolerance, grievance, and militancy. From birth, young muslims are inculcated in the former injustices and grievances suffered by the muslim empire, interspersed with tales of their great glories - with the emphasis always on the past (to distract people from miseries of today). The world is presented as a Zero Sum affair, wherein the successes of others is represented as a lessening of the opportunities for those that remain. The biggest, baddest, most proscribed subject in islam is sex. Indeed, this subject could well be said to be the ruling influence behind all of the rules of the religion not dealing directly with the worship of Allah. For all the sneers directed toward the US as being puritanical and hypocritical with regard to sex, islam is absolutely terrified of it. Where else do you see a religion where the repression of the woman and most specifically of any and every aspect of her sexuality is one of the key concepts? Dr. Sanity (as usual) addresses this issue in one of her many, excellent essays on the subject (http://drsanity.blogspot.com). But here you have a religion of men terrified of the mere idea of woman qua woman. Woman is not allowed to be seen (neither herself, nor the parts of her body - ie. ears, neck, wrists, hands, ankles, mouth, etc.) for fear of exciting lustful thoughts. Woman is not allowed to be alone with a non-family male for fear of exciting libidinous impulses. Woman cannot have any relations with any male outside of the family, lest her actions bring shame on the family honour. Even a violent sexual assault committed upon the woman desecrate the family honour because of her association with said assault. Woman must not go to school or learn, and must not be more intelligent than her husband, lest this cause him embarrassment or shame. She must remain hidden away from prying eyes, doing only what he bids her to do, raising his children as he bids her - in effect submitting to him as his slave, as he claims to submit to Allah. And when her sons are old enough, they are sent to the madrassa to learn to hate, just as their fathers do. And when her daughters reach puberty, they will be given as wives to cement ties among her father's friends and associates.

In the madrassas, boys are taught to hate. These lessons are intermixed with the teachings and lessons of the Qur'an, and they become inseparable. The boys learn that Israel has stolen the land from the Palestinians and defrauded them from their birthright. That the crusaders stole muslim lands and turned them Christian. That the US is either the supporter and leader, or the puppet and lapdog of the Zionist State, and thereby responsible for the enduring shame of the Arab people. The US once occupied the sacred land of the Holy of Holies, the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina. That Western Civilization is trying to steal their god, and their manhood and their culture, with their insidious and evil mix of sex, drugs, alcohol and the plush western lifestyle. That the West is responsible for the fact that they now live in a suckhole, with little or no running water, no public works (ie. sanitation, sewage and the like), no food (especially if you back the wrong warlord), if you barely have a sheet of cardboard over your head, let alone a sheet of corrugated aluminium. They have conspired to hold you down - to suppress the glories that once were islam: the learning, the riches, the glory. Then, as these young men grow older, their communities strive to send them abroad for a quality education (abroad, because a quality education is rarely, if ever, available in a muslim country), which will cause them frustration and bewilderment upon their return, because their country will have no resources or infrastructure in place to employ them upon their return. And all this energy, and frustration, and anger has to go somewhere. And that's where your 9/11 hijackers come in, and your suicide bombers, and your shoe bomber and your other plotters and schemers caught and as yet uncaught. They are easy pickings for the Imams of Malice; open minds, fertile and ready to receive the bile and hatred that will be poured into them.

Mind you, this represents the extremist, fundamentalist form of Islam - the one being practised by the Taliban, the AQ, the wahhabists and the like. But in light of the overwhelming silence we hear from the rest of the muslim world, we may be forced to consider that these voices speak for the majority, and that this is the more accurate form of islam. We need to wake up and start looking around us and paying attention to what the Arab world is doing, and not just within its own boundaries, but in its communities around the world. We need to pay attention to what goes on when the Arab/muslim community gets upset at different issues - which issues are they, and why? And we need to speak out, and speak our minds, and exercise our right to free speech and not be cowed by the threats of pro-muslim lobby groups or anti-American political groups. The terrorists and extremists have already proved their long arms and dedication to the murders and never-ending misery of those who oppose them, and we maintain our ignorance at our own peril.

A Virgin Website

2006-06-24T14:09:00.000-04:00

Greetings all! I am finally turning my hand to creating a web page (yes, any professionals out there will no doubt laugh that this could hold any significance anymore, but it does for me). I am still working out the bugs (in me, not the system). Despite having worked in/with the Military Industrial Complex (sounds so delightfully sinister, doesn't it?) for well over half my life, every position I've ever held has already been computer-ready and well set up long before I ever arrived - all I've ever had to do was learn how to manipulate the system.

That being said, I am welcoming a chance to really assume a place online to exchange views and ideas about current events, both political and sociological (as well as trading the odd views on books and movies, music and recipes, and anything else that may come up). While I tend strongly toward the conservative (ie. minimal government involvement in our personal lives, and so on), I am always willing to entertain views and ideas from all points along the spectrum; it makes for lively debate, or occasionally some wickedly funny entertainment!
Stay tuned for more to come...