The Pessimism of being a liberal

As some readers might know, I've recently been reading a lot of essays by the late Sydney J. Harris. Mr. Harris was an elegant writer and a very intelligent man. Reading his columns is a pleasure.

However, one of the things I've noticed while working my way through several anthologies of his works, is that he often takes a tone of Gloom and Doom when it comes to the future of Mankind. It's a bit off-putting to read an article written in the early 1960s, for instance, in which the writer opines about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the US/USSR Cold War.

One of the dangers of prophecy-assuming that the prophet doesn't really have The Gift- is of being wrong. And I'm certainly glad that Mr. Harris has such an abysmal record when it comes to soothsaying. But still, I have to wonder what leads him to such ends.

I suspect that it's because, being a Liberal (in the best sense of the word) he wished for an Ideal World; one in which things like nuclear weapons don't exist. Fair enough. But they do exist. And he was always reflecting on the danger to everyone, and how many millions of people would die in some unknown future war.

One of the columns I just read was about how the reality of war has changed since 1945 (again, bear in mind the essay was written sometime in the '60s, during the height of the Cold War). In it, he spoke of how, prior to Hiroshima, war was largely limited in area, and that civilians were largely safe.

Of course, to anyone with any knowledge of history, this assertion is almost laughable. Anytime before the 19th century, any civilians caught in a "war zone"- which I'll define as an area in which armies are marching and fighting- were liable to lose their crops, their livestock and their woodlands (armies needed fires for cooking and heat). If it was a "friendly" area, the men would often be taken as soldiers or laborers. In a hostile zone, the men would often be killed, buildings destroyed, and the women would be.... "recreation" for the invading soldiers.

By the way, this also held true in 1945, when the Soviets moved into Germany.

But in the view of Mr. Harris, this is untrue. Okay, we're all entitled to a misguided Utopian view of history. But he also mentions that in "modern"- meaning nuclear-war, millions of innocent civilians will die, and we humans need to adapt our ethical system to prevent that. None of this is new, in an intellectual sense. And none of it is inherently wrong, either. It's merely naive.

What liberals like Harris don't take into account, as many have said before me, is that Mankind can adapt to changed circumstances. Yes, nuclear weapons can kill millions of innocent people. But they have to be delivered somehow. The easiest way to do it is to use missiles. But missiles, whether nuclear armed or not, need to be accurate. And as you increase the accuracy, you also make it easier to destroy a target without nuclear bombs. A cruise missile can take out a factory or government building, so there's no need to drop a giant nuclear bomb on it. Remember, in WWII, when the atom bomb was created, aerial bombing was still very primitive. Claims from the various air forces aside, a bombing raid on Berlin, for instance, was going to be a smashing success if the majority of the bombs hit the City. It was necessary to send 1000 bombers, if you only expected 500 of them to hit the target.

Besides, any rational person knows that there's nothing to be gained by destroying the entire world. A nuclear war would be fairly limited. Nothing like what my Political Science professors called "Spasm War", where the Button is pushed and everybody launches all their nukes at everyone else. Nuclear war can be "won", with the proper exercise of strategy, an idea that the Soviets were very aware of. Nuclear weapons are a terror tool, and at this point, any country-including, of course North Korea-knows that if they were to launch nuclear weapons at another country, the retaliation would be far worse.

And human rights have progressed by a vast measure today. A hundred or more years ago, the "abuses" of Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib would have been ignored, in light of more important issues. Today, they are a major concern. Clearly, we have a better world when these non-existent scandals take center stage.

Well, at least the Western World is better. In many areas of the world, civilisation hasn't progressed too far. But a true liberal must view these areas as better than ours. The Law of Multi-culturalism says so.

Again, I don't hold Mr. Harris up for ridicule. I don't expect him to be able to see 30 years into the future, and know that in 2007 we can destroy individual buildings in the middle of a big city, without damaging any other structure. Nor do I hold him responsible for knowing that we can even use technology to ensure that the building is empty of people before we strike.

But he often spoke of his fear that if we don't get around our traditional ways of acting, mankind would be doomed. And this attitude still seems to prevail in the liberal community of today. Doom-sayers predict that Global Warming- sorry, "Climate Change"- will destroy mankind.

But, even if we assume-without basis, in my opinion- that this is correct, we still must consider that there are ways to prevent this catastrophe. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level. How? They use dikes to keep out the water, just as we do in New Orleans. (Of course, the dikes in Holland are actually maintained, which is one up on the latter). Sure, there might be problems, but they can be overcome, with innovation, technology, and effort.

So if the sea level rises by 10 feet or so, why is it impossible to somehow protect coastal cities like New York or Miami? If the Dutch could do it 300 years ago, I don't see why it's impossible now.

Too many trees being chopped down? There's a simple solution. Plant more. It's being done by lumber companies in the US today. And it's working well.

Wildlife in danger of extinction? There are ways to ban hunting, and also ways to track down poachers. Not to mention the ability to breed them in captivity. The American Buffalo (or Bison, for any pedantic folks out there) is a prime example.

Drought? It's possible to cause rain by seeding clouds. I'm not sure how effective it is, but if it helps some, that's better than nothing.

Ditto for the potential shortage of fresh water. I don't mean to play this down, because it does have the potential to be a crisis. Here in Michigan the levels of the Great Lakes are down, and it's well known that the Western US is always in danger of running out of water, which is why many western states, and even Mexico, want to take water from our Lakes. Which would be disastrous, I suspect. But still....

Isn't there anyway to draw water from the oceans, remove the salt, and use it? I would think so. It might not always be drinkable, but perhaps a system could be devised to use it for irrigation, plumbing, etc. I've been out west in the past, and the water that comes from the water system in desert cities is often undrinkable. In any case, I know that companies and scientists have to be hard at work on this problem. If someone can come up with a fairly cheap and effective way of converting salt-water to potable, fresh-water, they'll make billions of dollars. That's what we call "incentive".

So all these crises-or potential crises, to be more precise- have the potential to be solved by human technology. I see no reason to believe that we won't be able to find answers to virtually any question that arises, if we try hard enough. Maybe not in 2007, but perhaps by 2020. Or beyond.

I guess that's the advantage of being a conservative. I see where we've gotten, how we've mastered our environment, and think that almost anything is possible. No, we probably won't convert the entire earth into a Garden of Eden, but we can live, thrive, and survive, to quote the Blues Brothers.

But for a liberal, the world must be a perfect one, inhabited in strict accordance with liberal dogma. Working towards perfection isn't enough. It must be achieved, and quickly. And the very term "perfection" must be defined in accordance with liberal values. Nothing else is good enough.

But this idea flies in the face of all logic. It's in the striving for perfection that we achieve greatness. And what we've got today, especially in the United States, is greatness.

And everyone except a liberal knows it.

Later.

Quotes to ponder

I just read an old article by Richard Lamm, former governor of Colorado. Overall, worth a read.
The best part, to my mind, is a quote at the beginning, and another at the end. Both relevant to today's society.

Last things first. A quote from one of the saints of the Left, Noam Chomsky-expert at abusing the system while also taking great advantage of it:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

And Mr. Lamm also quotes someone that understands history, and how it works, historian Arnold Toynbee:

"an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."

Both of these quotes are relevant today. And getting moreso.

Later.

Hat tip to Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman for mentioning the article in a post.

Utterly amazing

More proof of insanity. My long-abandoned home town strikes a blow for the complete and utter dumbasses of the world.

Given that the city has lost some 2 million residents in my lifetime- roughly 2/3 of it's peak population, to the point that the population of what used to be the fourth-largest city in the country is now below a million; given that the crime rate is, at best, second-highest in the country; the unemployment rate is high; abandoned houses are everywhere; literacy hovers around fifty percent; yadda yadda yadda, you might think they'd have better things to do.

But you would be assuming that the City is run by adults. Ones with functioning brains.

And sadly, you would be wrong. I hope this gets a lot of national attention, so that people in this country will realise what a bunch of morons the "leaders" of this city are.

Remember: these people, being largely... shall we say "disadvantaged", are running the place. And being democrats, they all supported Jenny-poo Granholm for governor. And I would bet that, if they aren't blaming Bush for the fact that Michigan is in a one-state depression, they're claiming that Jenny-poo inherited a mess, and has only had 4 years to fix it.

Of course, she's done nothing but blame other people and try to find the most idiotic ways to "increase" revenue- by means of additional taxes which a 3 year old can tell will actually drive people and businesses out of the State- but hey, she's a Democrat. And therefore she's good. And Kwami (Detroit mayor) is good. And the entire conyers clan...

No way in hell I'll say that. Even sarcastically. The conyers clan is apparently the most stupid family on the earth. As proven by Congressman A**hole's constant attempts to curry favor with the Islamists among us, by making Islam the de facto official religion of the US.

Don't believe me? Do some googling. He's proposed legislation to make desecrating an Islamic flag a crime, proposed hate speech bills to protect Muslims, and so on. He's the leading dhimmi in the entire Congress, if not the entire US.

And coincidentally, he's the Chair of the House Judicial Committee, and the husband of the idiot that proposed this stupid Act.

Sorry. Got a little off-track there. But the fact that these morons are even allowed to have a driver's license is a crime.

Argh. It's only about a month until I leave this God-forsaken State. Hopefully never to move back. Along with most other people who can, I suspect.

Later.

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

Update: I was glancing at the comments for the Free Press story- most of which use the same words to describe these clowns as I did- and I found a reference to this story.

This is the man who the voters trust to run their city. Despite his constant attempts to defraud the voters. Not sure who's the stupidest- the Council or the Mayor.

Actually I do know. It's the voters.

Grrrr

Well, here's an example of the type of thing I posted about a few weeks ago. Slavery in the US.

In this case, it doesn't involve sex (at least not that we currently know of, but I suspect it might). Nor is it about the "Fourth Wave" of women from Eastern Europe.

But it's still about women who came to the US for what they thought were legitimate jobs. And who turned out to be very wrong about that. They were starved, beaten and otherwise abused. Probably suffered all kinds of mental and psychological torture as well.

Is it hard to believe they'd be raped as well?

According to what I've read- and recall, I'm not by any measure an "expert"- the women were probably also illegal aliens. (The article doesn't say that, but mentioning it would be an argument in favor of border security. Hardly something an AP writer would do). And the normal process for the "owners" would be to constantly remind the women of this fact, while also telling them a few other choice lies, in order to convince them that running away to the police would get them- the victims- in trouble.

If a person knows they're in a strange country illegally, then it's easier to convince them that they'll be arrested. And I would suspect that these women are not well-educated enough to know much about the US.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the Indian couple would occasionally read them articles from the newspapers about the horrible people out there who wanted to do nasty things to illegal immigrants, while skipping the ones about the politicians that want to crawl naked over glass to accept people that break our laws.

So anyhow, we have some people who came to the US themselves in order to make a better life. They certainly succeeded, and in the process took advantage of a couple of other people who also wanted to make a better life.

There's a special place in Hell for people like this.

Ah, but we must remember that they are only "alleged" to have held these women illegally. Read the accusations by the Prosecutor, and the casual responses by the lawyers for the defendants, and tell me which one sounds more honest.

Later.

********************
A brief update: I just watched the video from the local TV station. The people that they interviewed were the store clerk who found one of the women and called 911, and another man who I presume was a neighbor. He, like the accused, is Indian. He said "it's hard to believe an Indian would do this to someone".

That pisses me off even more. Why is it so hard to believe?

I'm not pointing fingers, but I dunno. I'm kinda curious about this neighborhood and the residents now.

British media supporting the War

Yeah. Like anyone actually believes that headline, right?

The British Ministry of Defense just announced that, in light of specific and credible intelligence, they're not allowing Prince Harry to go to Iraq as planned. Some of the "insurgents" there had already stated that they would know when he arrived, and would make his capture or death a priority.

If you read the article, it's clear how the Idiot from the newspaper feels. He's pissed off that not only is Harry not going, but the media played a role in stopping it, since they've apparently been announcing to anyone that cares when and where he would be going, and even what type of vehicle his unit is equipped with, as is suggested by this excerpt:

However, any insurgent group intent on targeting the prince would have plenty of other ways of knowing (including via the MoD's website) that his regiment was the Blues and Royals of the Household Cavalry and that its specific task was to carry out reconnaissance in ageing Scimitar armoured vehicles.

As I read it, the media has been announcing all of this, likely for months, and the jackass writing the article wanted to mention it again, just to be clear.

Further, if you notice, it's only those people who lost sons in Iraq and are opposed to the decision by the MoD that get mentioned in the article. I suspect that there are some folks out there that feel that not risking a member of the Royal Family is a Good Thing, and who also lost family there. But they never get quoted, of course.

One part of my brain says that this is just editing- you ask a bunch of people that lost family members in the War, and pick out only those who feel Harry should be sent. But in reality, I don't think that's the case. More likely, the people at the newspaper know certain people who meet the criteria here- lost a relative in Iraq, think Harry should go, and oppose the War- and thus make sure not to take any chances by interviewing people randomly.

As an aside, I recall reading an example of this technique a year or so ago. Somebody was reading an article in "the newspaper of record" and thought the name of a person quoted as a "man on the street" seemed familiar. He did some digging and found that this person
had been a Man on the Street several times before. Always saying the right things for the articles. Interesting, huh? Never gets mentioned by the newspaper, though.

At any rate, the "journalist" here makes a final dig. He admits that there's a propaganda side to this:

The MoD was also acutely aware that a decision not to let him go could be seen as a propaganda victory for those who promised to track down the prince.

But the brave media, who after all are the primary defenders of Individual Rights and Democracy (and if you don't believe it, ask them) are more than willing to give the terrorists the propaganda victory. In fact, it seems that the media is just too arrogant to believe that they're being played here. As usual. The terrorists know how the whole media game works. They've been using the western media all along. And here's yet another example.

I'm guessing this story doesn't die down for a little while.

Regardless of whether one thinks that a Royal prince should be exposed to the same dangers as others- and honestly, I lean towards thinking he should- the MoD makes an excellent point here. By the very fact of Harry's presence, he would increase the risks to his soldiers and comrades. Remember, we aren't dealing with normal people here, like those Argentinians that opposed the Brits- and young Harry's Uncle Andrew. These "insurgents" are perfectly willing to kill women and children in order to lure American and British soldiers into an ambush. Is there any reason to consider whether they would take any chance to destroy a British vehicle, in order to get this one person? The article has a quote from one of the terrorist leaders (amazing how the press can find them, but our soldiers can't), which suggests to me that they would launch suicide attacks on the bases where he would have been stationed.

So if Harry had gone, there would have been increased attacks on the British forces. These attacks would have caused increased casualties, regardless of whether they got him. Which the media would no doubt have used as an argument for withdrawal: After all, they would point out, the number of British casualties has increased in the last (whatever period of time). So it't time to pull out.

And nowhere would they have mentioned why this increase took place, unless it was in the context of "the evil military sent Harry over there, thus putting the lives of innocent soldiers at increased risk".

Ugh. These journalists make me ill. There's a reason why I almost never read newspapers anymore.

Later.

Why I hate liberals

Another good reason pops up today. People wonder why I say so emphatically that I HATE LIBERALS. Well, here's a good solid explanation.

This kind of thing is seriously deranged.

A follow up

Well after posting this morning, I decided that "When Islamists attack" was just too cool of a name to put out into the world for someone else. So I created another blog with that title. Hopefully it won't get anyone (i.e. Me) into too much trouble, but oh well.

I've got lots of other stuff going on at this point, but I'll try and do something with it. It'll be my place for posting other articles from the Web, my thoughts on Islam, etc.

Hopefully this will be the Idea That Works.

A trip to peaceful New York

[Hat tip to LittleGreenFootballs]

Here's a nice article about our friendly, peaceful Islamic Brethren in New York. Gunfire and small explosions from a compound that doesn't allow outsiders in.

Nothing to see here. Move along now.

Someday maybe I'll find a place like this to live. But I don't like the whole dirty-nasty-raw sewage-thing. So how about a nice 1500 acre property with a nice big house, located somewhere in Montana or Wyoming, with a breath-taking mountain view....?

If anybody has one of these they want to donate to me and the Church of Secular Democracy (this is just the working name, pending the moment when I come up with a better one), drop me a note. If the property comes with a nice, rich, attractive, single woman, even better.
*********

BTW, Gates of Vienna has written a lot about this same group, and their compound in Virginia. And the folks there are just as charming as the ones in New York.

Remember, Islam is the religion of peace. When in doubt, refer back to the previous statement. When Islam attacks (what a great title for a blog!!!) refer back to the previous statement.

Later.

Is something fishy?

I've been spending a lot of time lately watching dvds and occasionally videotape. In the latter category, I started watching (again) "Cosmos", Carl Sagan's PBS miniseries. While I didn't think highly of him as a person, the show is for the most part interesting. When he's not lecturing us about nuclear weapons or other 80's perils, that is.

At any rate, one of the episodes I watched tonight dealt- for one segment- about evolution. It showed a pretty poor artistic progression of how life evolved on Earth (remember, the show came out in 1980, so computer graphics were primitive, to say the least). Along the way, Sagan mentioned the coelacanth. And I had a sudden thought: this is a fish which was supposed to have been extinct for millions of years. And suddenly, it's rediscovered. Great, but that begs the question: is the coelacanth of today any different from the ones in the fossil record? And if so, how different?

This would seem to be an issue-probably not a major one- for the theory of Evolution. If we can compare fossils from 5-10 million years ago to the same creature today, then we can see whether or not it's evolved since then. And if not, then we would seemingly have to ask whether it's because A) the time frame is too short; B) The animal hasn't needed to evolve because it's "perfect" as it is; or C) Whether any evolution that occurred hasn't shown in the fossil record (or the living examples) because it was a "failed" trait.

I'm not sure about it. I suspect there's an explanation for the failure of some animals to evolve-sharks, crocodiles, etc., but I don't know. Nor am I sure how valid these explanations would be.

I'm not completely convinced by Evolution. It seems fairly solid, but I know there are gaps in the theory. I also know that, like global warming, the gaps can't be discussed.

Amazing how it's always the "liberal" side of the fence that declares certain topics off-limits, while the "conservative" people are willing to discuss them.

Anyway, it's just a thought. If the coelacanth hasn't evolved over the last 5 million years, I want to know why. There must be a good explanation, right?

Later.

A musical note (Get it?)

Just fired up the trusty iPod. One of the first songs to pop up is from David Allan Coe. He's long known for doing "the perfect country song" (aka "You never even called me by my name"). And he did. It's just not the one you think.

The REAL perfect country song is called "Revenge", and it's from one of his first albums ("David Allan Coe rides again", I think). It's a country-blues piece, with a man talking to a woman from his past. She's long dead, he spent 20 years in prison for killing her murderer, and he's just been released. And he went straight to visit her gravesite. Wonderful song. Very simple arrangement, but it works terrifically.

One of my all-time favorite songs.

"Revenge was all I wanted
when I killed the man that took your life that day.
I've had my satisfaction.
But the price was more than love should have to pay."

Later.

Illiberal Liberalism

Back a couple months, I posted a quote from the late Sydney J. Harris, a newspaper commentator. I was quite a fan of Mr. Harris, reading him fatihfully as a teenager and on into adulthood, until his death in the mid-80s. I found him perceptive, educated, interesting, and so on.

Mr. Harris was what is often referred to as a "classical liberal". He believed in equality between the races, loving thy neighbor and so on. He was a solid Christian, and espoused "Christian values", though he also maintained that they were not merely "Christian".

None of this is unusual, innovative or even all that interesting.

Shortly after I posted that quote, I got onto one of my little obsessive kicks, where I spent a couple hours looking for more on Harris. I googled him, found him on Wikipedia, and went to Amazon, where I found several anthologies of his writings for sale. Naturally I jumped on them all. And I've been perusing them ever since.

The other day, I came across a column he wrote in the 1960s, a piece entitled "Can we prevent delinquency?" He mentions a boy whom he guesses to be "about 11 years old". He states that the boy, to his knowledge, has done nothing wrong, and behaves appropriately for an 11 year old boy.

Then comes the kicker: "But I am morally certain that he is going to become an active delinquent in a few years. The signs are all there, if one looks closely at his attitudes." And Mr. Harris suggests in the column that boys like this- a "potential pre-delinquent" need special attention from society.

He then goes on to detail his theory- shared by, among others Dr. J.M. Stubblebine, a psychiatrist- that we as a society have to work harder to identify the "pre-delinquents" among us, and work with them to prevent their later misdeeds. The identification would come from "the general physician, family counselors and clergymen", to which one would assume teachers could be added. The label would be applied based upon "traits that most of them share in common."

To an extent, there is something to be said for this. I suspect that there are certain "traits" that can identify potential criminals. But still.... This view completely overshadows anything resembling "Free Will". I suspect that many of the kids, if they have any upbringing at all, or any sense of self-awareness, can overcome their weaknesses.

When I was a a teenager, I did some things that I'm not proud of. Many things that were illegal and immoral. On at least one occasion, I committed something that was, I'm pretty sure, a felony. And I came very close to getting caught. Had I done so, I know I'd have gotten a serious rash of trouble at home, and some kind of juvenile record (though I don't think any time in an institution). Fortunately, nothing came of it. Even so, the things that were done, especially in The Incident, were, I suspect, far more than needed to become a "pre-delinquent", or even to make the leap into delinquency.

First lesson learned: if you are going to commit a crime, do it in the company of a friend whose father is a police officer. The potential for an intervention is much better. Or was back in the 1970s at least. Not sure about today.

However, this lesson became pointless fairly quickly. Because of the second lesson: Don't blindly follow the crowd. This was brought home to me then, though I should have been aware of it earlier. And I suppose on some level, I was. I knew my friends were talking me into things that felt wrong, but I wanted to be cool, and went along. After this Incident, I concluded that A) I would never be cool; and B) If this was what I needed to do to reach that lofty goal, I wasn't interested.

At any rate, I learned my lesson, which was the point made by my friend's father to his fellow officer. He got it swept under the rug, and except for some reminders from my friends over the next few years (I also learned exactly how trustworthy they were), that was the end. I've limited myself to less open displays of criminal activity since then.

None of which is intended to portray myself as some kind of hero: I didn't turn my life around, and escape from the mean streets of Detroit, though I suppose all of that is- technically- true. (Well... if the far limits of Detroit in an all-white, middle class neighborhood are "mean". If not, then I admit to embellishing the phrase "mean streets", while holding the rest as True).

But the issue which Mr. Harris overlooked was the possibility- and not necessarily anything else- that this boy could do the same. Whatever he was doing to earn the title of "pre-delinquent" was probably not much worse than what my friends and I did. I certainly didn't respect or even like my parents at that age. I shoplifted, like most kids. I did other things that, in retrospect, would have sent up big warning signs to adults that were aware of them, and justifiably so. But they weren't aware.

Another example is Gavin de Becker, the author of books such as The Gift of Fear (which I recommend). In this book, he talks some about his childhood. Apparently, he had a stepfather who was physically and emotionally abusive to young Gavin and his mother. (Which I note is worse than what I went through). At one point in "The Gift of Fear", he tells of speaking to some prisoners, and of discussing their relative backgrounds. One of them commented on how similar their lives were as children, and asked why he was a hardened criminal, and de Becker was not.

I would argue that choice probably had something to do with it.

Other factors certainly can play a role, but if the boy Mr. Harris was so concerned with made a decision down the road- a week, a year, five years- then it would have been fairly simple for the boy to turn it around. Not saying he did, as there's no way to be sure, but the potential was there. I've personally read many stories of teenagers who realized at some point that they were on the wrong path, and left it.

And this is the problem that I have with liberals. They seem, even if they're well-intentioned- to ignore Possibilities. Yes, we are a product of our backgrounds, childhood, environment, etc. But a person CAN change if they so desire. Labelling someone as a "pre-delinquent" would almost certainly have a negative outcome. At some point, he would simply shrug his shoulders and think, like Popeye "I yam what I yam", and keep moving along that path. In fact, I believe, as do many other conservatives, that this is the problem with Blacks today. Society, in the form of the government, Jesse Jackson, and "liberals" tell them they've been held down, and that they'll never manage to escape from poverty because they've been victimised by racism.

So why bother trying?

It would have been simple for me to decide that I was a victim of wanting to follow the crowd. And it was certainly true. But trust me, when you are 13, as I was, deciding not to stick around when things start to go the wrong way is tough. Deciding that the friends you've had since you were 3-4 years old are leading you down the wrong path is tough. Deciding that perhaps you need to not hang out with them all the time is tough. But if that's what you know is right, perhaps you can do it. It's always important to try.

Too many people seem to think that we are destined to follow a certain path. If you're black, you're doomed to be held down by The Man, unless society picks you up and carries you. If you're a terrorist, it's because you were forced into it by the Jews, Racism, Islamophobia, and by Bush's Middle East Policy.

As for labelling "Pre-Delinquents", I see that as another step down a very slippery slope. Anybody can look at a child and see the evil in him. And in some cases, it might be justified. But judging an 11 year old as being a threat to society because of his "attitudes" is completely misguided.

It's the ultimate Fascist dream: catch and label trouble-makers before they have a chance to act up. Only we have to be aware of who decides what "attitudes" constitute "pre-delinquency", who decides which kids have those "attitudes", and what actions should be taken to address the "problem". Because in most cases, it would be the same people. And those people are always going to have feeling, emotions, desires and agendas, even if they're unconscious.

Teachers, for instance, might simply want to get Johnny out of their classroom because he's "disruptive". Is that sufficient? What happens if he gets put into some kind of special group at a special school? Will he then learn to be even more disruptive? At that point, it's self-fulfilling.

But hey, it's a wide open field, and it needs to be pursued. And we'll need lots of Federal dollars to study it. So fork over the money, and I'll study the problem, and work with the kids. For at least 20 years.

It's amazing that even a true liberal can sometimes come up with a fascist idea, and not see the contradiction in it. And until they do, I'll always be suspicious.

But I guess being suspicious of others when they are trying to do The Right Thing is simply the hallmark of a conservative mind.

Later.

********

Note: All of the above quotes of Mr. Harris come from the article cited, which is included in the book Leaving the Surface, copyright 1968. Pages 66-68.

There's a shock

Well surprise, surprise. It turns out that my immediate suspicions were correct. The men "from the former Yugoslavia" are in fact Muslim. And they all seem to be saying that it's all about their religion.

Of course, the usual band of idiots are all falling over themselves announcing that it ISN'T about Islam.

I'll go with the guys that were there.

[Hat Tip: LittleGreenFootballs. And no, I didn't read them before I posted today]

I smell a rat!

Just a quick note here. I see this morning that several men were arrested in New Jersey for a plot to sneak onto Fort Dix and shoot soldiers. With automatic rifles, which is what led to their downfall and capture.

Now I just read at stratfor.com (an intelligence site that I can't recommend enough) that the men are from "former Yugoslavia".

I wonder which part of it? My guess would be the same part as the kid in Idaho that shot up the shopping mall.

That would be the Muslim part.

But I'm just sayin', you know?

Later.

Finding a Cause

Note: I suspect that perhaps a reader or two (Hi Jenera) might want to quote or link to this. Feel free. I just want to be sure that I'll get credit for it, of course. After all, if a post here somehow becomes the Answer to all my problems, I want to be sure I get recognized for what I write.


************
I just finished reading (for the second time) one of the most maddening books I've ever encountered. Victor Malarek's "The Natashas: Inside the Global Sex Trade". I first stumbled upon it about 3 years ago, when I saw it in a bookstore. Couldn't figure out what "the Natashas" were from looking at the spine. I pulled it out, flipped it open and was hooked.

It's a book that is sickening. It tells of how almost a million innocent women, a quarter of them from Eastern Europe and Russia, are dragged into prostitution and pornography every year. For instance, according to what he says, in Ukraine, unemployment for women is somewhere around 75%. Given that, is it surprising that a beautiful, intelligent, educated and yet desperate woman would be willing to take a chance on a "too good to be true" job in the West? Some are naive, some are misled into thinking it will only entail non-nude dancing, some are aware that it is prostitution (though not the true conditions), and some are simply kidnapped from their villages. And of course, some are led to believe that they are flying west to marry a rich man and raise a family.

These women are beaten and raped into submission, and then sold to pimps and other lowlifes. Then they're forced to "service" their "clients" for hours and hours on end. No days off, no lunch breaks, no nothing. Just a constant stream of unattractive men making humiliating demands. Often, when the money she brings in (every single dime she earns goes to the pimp, of course) starts to decline, she's sold again. And again. It's disgusting, unbelievable, and yet obviously true. As an American, I find the idea of slavery and violence against women to be appalling. And yet, a large percentage-possibly a majority- of the men that avail themselves of these women are also American.

I remember being incredibly angry as I first read the book (not that it gets any easier the second time). Some of these women sound like the sort that I have desired (unsuccessfully) my entire life. Perhaps my morality is misleading: from the sounds of it, I could get one for a mere $1000. One part of my brain (okay, maybe not my brain) wants a stunning 21 year old woman who would cater to my every whim. But my God, not if I have to beat her up to keep her. If I had a woman like some of these, I would want to look in her eyes and see respect, friendship, and humor. Perhaps even, during certain times, love and desire. No way on God's green earth would I want to look in her eyes during (forced) sex and see fear and loathing. The very idea is sickening.

Since I started rereading it over the weekend, I've been thinking. If ever there was a Cause that I want to fight for, it's ending the trafficking of women and girls for sex. It's hard for me to understand why I feel so strongly, but I do.

And there's the rub. I'm a middle-aged, unmarried American male. Frankly, people like me are more likely to be looking for a way to get involved in this from the other side of the fence. So I suspect that in this case, demography works against me. Why would a person that knows the real situation believe somebody like me really, truly, feels this strongly? It would sound suspicious, I think. Hell, I'm contemplating the idea of teaching English in Eastern Europe, and I understand schools there are suspicious of single men of my age. Apparently many want to get over there and live a life of hedonistic pleasure with the local women, work obligations be damned.

So what to do? One part of my brain says to just contact groups that work against Trafficking, and tell them "I want to help. To give of myself, not merely of my money." But that's the other part of the problem. The groups that I have found fall into 3 broad categories: Women's Groups, Human Rights Groups, and Church Groups.

The first of these doesn't sound appealing. I suspect some of these are comprised of women whose opinions and world-views clash strongly with mine. I don't want to be surrounded by hairy-legged women of the sort that, after the Tsunami in SE Asia a couple years ago, were collecting and sending birth-control supplies, nursing bras and such things to people with no food or clean water. And if anybody there ever suggested that Islam is anything other than an abomination against women.... well, I suspect I'd be fired within 5 minutes.

Ironically, I might be more of a feminist than some of these harpies.

As to the human rights groups, I'm sure the people working there feel strongly about what they are doing. And I'm enough of a realist to know that no group or country is perfect. But I think that these groups spend too much time worrying about the death penalty in the US, or how prisoners are treated at Gitmo. Again, I'd last only a few minutes there. My concern-my passion- at least at the present time, is trafficking and slavery. If a terrorist has to use a communal bathroom while in prison, tough. So I would want to focus my energy on just the one issue, and these groups don't.

Finally, the Church groups. Some seem to be focused on just the trafficking issue, which is great. The only problem is, I'm not a particularly religious man. I was raised Catholic, but I don't practice it, and I'm not even a strong believer in "Christianity". Thus, a group which requires (as one does that I found) a "statement of faith" from applicants is not a terribly good match for a "Jesus wasn't a Christian" kind of guy.

So I appear to be left out in the cold. There just don't seem to be any groups that work actively for human rights- REAL human rights issues, are "conservative", and also secular. I tend towards thinking I should just start one, but I have no experience and no knowledge of how to go about it.

And again we come back to the underlying theme: would people I meet take me seriously on this issue? Even if I was able to get to say, Serbia (apparently, thanks to the UN mission in Kosovo, one of the worst places on earth for trafficking), and even if I was somehow able to "rescue" some of the victims, what would they think? The last person in the world they would trust would be a man, right?

Ugh. It's a hard feeling when you find something that you feel strongly about- an issue that makes you simply think "this is it. This is my calling to make the world a better place", but you can't find any practical way to do it.

Of course, John R. Powers suggested in one of his books that the true meaning of the inscription INRI on the head of the Cross was "Below hangs an impractical man". Perhaps, having found something I truly believe in, I'm finally looking at the world through a "practical" eye.

Later.

A hypothetical speech

I'm going to try something a wee bit different here. Today, I'm going to feature a "speech" by President Bush, in which he makes an effort- finally- to explain things to the American people, which is unfortunately, a novel act for him. Things like the Constitution, and how it actually works to govern the Nation, as well as certain actions and attitudes that he has, or at least should have, in my opinion. And that is all this is. My opinion of what Bush should say. All the ideas are mine, based upon my observations and readings. And my readings have convinced me also, by the way, that this is copyrighted. If anyone should wish to reprint this, please ask for permission.

So let's have a shot at it, shall we?

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

My fellow Americans,

I come to you today in order to clarify several issues regarding our great country. There seem to be actions afoot to undermine our Constitution and to undo the work of our Founding Fathers. I have been remiss in explaining these things, and this has allowed others, both within the Government and outside of it, to make untrue statements and to put forth ideas which violate our laws and our traditions. Tonight, I'll be announcing some clarifications, and some new policies of my administration.

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

The first issue which we will address is the role of Islam in America. Let me begin by stating the obvious: Muslims have every right to their beliefs, and the right to free exercise of their religion, in whatever way they see fit.

However, there are those Muslims who exceed their First Amendment rights. Some Islamic teachers, and persons that adhere to the Faith, have advocated the institution of Sharia, or Islamic Law, in this country. This is unacceptable. Islamic Law has many ideas which are hostile to human rights as we in the United States see them. Furthermore Sharia, when instituted, places Islam in a position of authority, as it is all-inclusive. By this, I mean that Sharia encompasses civil, religious, and criminal law. When a country is ruled by Sharia, it explicitly places Islam as the official religion- indeed, it specifically states that non-Muslims are second-rate citizens, and limits their right to free exercise of their religion. Sharia is incompatible with the US Constitution. There is no other way to state it. I encourage all Americans to carefully read the Koran and other Islamic writings, in order to judge whether this is a belief system which is relevant to the lives of the American people, and is one which should be allowed a dominant position in our Country.

I am therefore announcing a change in the policy of my administration. A policy which is more in accordance with the Constitution and with basic American freedoms. From this point on, if a Muslim makes statements suggesting that the Constitution should be cast aside- even if they encourage doing so by means of a popular vote, they will be punished accordingly. By this, I mean the following: If the speaker is a foreign national, he will be arrested and immediately deported. His visa will be revoked, and he will not be allowed back into the United States under any circumstances. Foreign interference in the internal affairs of this country cannot be tolerated, and will not be tolerated. It is unconscionable for a citizen of a foreign country to come into this country and take advantage of our Constitution in order to advocate it's overthrow.

In the event that the speaker is a citizen- either American born or naturalized- then he or she will be considered to have committed treason, and will be prosecuted in accordance with the US Constitution, which requires two witnesses to the overt act, or a confession in court. I will have the Attorney General, in consultation with Congress and the Supreme Court, research the matter, in order to find if it is sufficient to have videotaped evidence of such a statement. The purpose of this decision, which is not taken lightly, is not to curtail freedom of speech, but rather to enforce the rulings previously made, which make exceptions to the First Amendment when the speaker is advocating overthrow of the US Government.

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

There are several groups within the US which have taken upon themselves the responsibility of monitoring "hate speech" against Muslims. In the first place, by any objective measure, this is not a serious problem. Americans are tolerant of other creeds, and will not overtly say things to offend other Americans. However, there is no right of non-offense. By this, I mean that there must be a balance between free speech and freedom from harassment. It is not a crime to criticise any religion. However, Muslims believe that insulting the prophet Mohammad is a sin. While they have the right to such beliefs, it is one which is in direct opposition to our First Amendment right to free speech. In this circumstance, the Constitution must be superior. Therefore, if any person, religious group or religious advocacy group attempts to harass, bully or intimidate another person or institution into silence, by claiming that their exercise of free speech is "harassment" or a "hate crime", the former will be considered to be violating the first amendment rights of the latter.

Of course, this in not an attempt to silence discussion of any issue. Everyone has the right to speak openly about any topic. However, if an American makes a statement which is critical of Islam, then no person, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu or atheist, has the right to demand he be silenced. Open discussion of all topics is to be encouraged. However, attempting to silence another person, on the grounds that their speech is "offensive" to you or your religion cannot be tolerated in an open society.

While the actual term "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution, the basic premise is valid. No institution which is part of government at any level should favor one religion over another. In recent years, there have been multiple attacks on Christian beliefs and values. In our schools especially, Christian students are not being permitted to pray or exercise their personal beliefs. On the other hand, Islamic students are not subject to the same restrictions. In many cases, under the guise of "multiculturalism" non-Muslim students are being required to study Islam, and encouraged to behave in accordance with Islamic beliefs during the period of study. This is unacceptable. Doing so gives Islam a preferred status, which is a violation of the First Amendment. We cannot give any religion this kind of superior status. I therefore encourage you, the American People, to enforce this "separation" on behalf of all of us. I encourage local school teachers, administrators, parents, and students to make an effort to grant all religions the same status. Either all are permitted free exercise in our schools, or none.

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

Now I would like to address another issue. Recently, members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House and the House Majority Leader have taken trips to the Middle East. It is well known that members of Congress are in opposition to many of my policies regarding Iraq and other countries. This is a sign of a vibrant democracy. However, there is a grey area here. In 1799, Congress passed the Logan Act, forbidding anybody from conducting foreign policy without the permission of the US government.

It is important to note here that, under the Constitution, the President is given the authority to conduct foreign policy. This is both a political matter and a matter of convenience. The Country should speak with one voice, and the voice should be that of the president. It's also simply more expedient. One man, with advice from others can make decisions and implement them more effectively. Furthermore, the president, being the one person who represents the entire country, is better suited to make decisions that affect everyone, while ignoring strictly political concerns.

President Roosevelt, for instance, committed United States forces to combat operations against Nazi Germany without the approval of Congress. He did so because he saw a danger to the Country, and understood that the Country was still divided on the issue of war. Many people, both within Congress and within the Country as a whole, criticised him. History however has shown that his actions were correct and necessary.

Speaker Pelosi and the other members of Congress- both Republican and Democrat- visited Syria and spoke to Mr. Assad, the President of Syria, despite my long-standing policy stating that the United States will not engage the government of Syria. Remember that whatever one thinks of my policy, it is the official policy of the United States. Going on a "fact-finding" mission to Syria is permissible, but any member of Congress, especially one as high ranking as the Speaker of the House, must be extremely careful not to give a foreign leader the impression that anything being said is actual US policy. I cannot stress this enough.

After their visit to the Middle East, I was concerned to see comments in the press there about a "shadow presidency", or a "Democratic party policy". This would seem to suggest that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid exceeded the bounds of what is permissible. I was even more concerned to see Mr. Reid suggest that a visit to Iran would perhaps be appropriate. This is completely false, and I was happy to hear that the Speaker's office denied any interest in making such a trip.

I would like to state right now that if any member of Congress goes to Iran for discussions with the Iranian government, without my approval, they will be prosecuted under the Logan Act upon their return. The government of Iran has, merely within the last few months, kidnapped British service members from Iraqi waters, supplied sniper rifles to terrorists in Iraq for use against our military, threatened war with the US and Israel, and has made strides towards nuclear weapons. These are, with the exception of the last, acts of hostility to the US, in accordance with the long-standing policies of Iran. I will not tolerate discussions with a country which is killing members of our military, except as required by the foreign policy I have laid out. Any such actions could also be considered giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy, which would bring up the possibility of treason charges.

Such actions are intolerable when we are in a fight against an enemy who wishes to destroy our country and kill massive numbers of innocent people in the streets of American cities.

So I must warn the Speaker and others: You are treading in a grey area. At this point, your actions have not crossed the line, but if you continue, I fear that they will. Dialogue with terrorist nations is a threat to both the safety of our country and to the Constitution which I have sworn to "preserve, protect and defend", and I will act accordingly.

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

Now, I would like to turn to another war-related matter. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with an open discussion of any topic. I welcome dialogue with members of Congress. However, I think that it's time for Congress to recognise a few things. First off, the Constitution gives the president-that would be me- the title of "Commander in Chief". After the attack of September 11, I asked for permission to engage terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda wherever our forces find them. I was also given permission to invade Iraq, if I deemed it necessary. I did make that decision. This vote was, in effect, a declaration of war.

Congress has the right to debate the conduct of the War, and to criticise my actions. However, they recently voted on a "non-binding resolution" calling for a withdrawal by a certain date, arbitrarily chosen by them. This is, to be blunt, ridiculous. I warned in the beginning that this would be a long war, and it is unfortunate that people have tired of it, and some have lost the will to fight. But this is precisely what our enemies expected. They knew they could not defeat our military, but they gambled that they could outlast us. Now members of Congress are playing directly into their hands. Not only that, but they have chosen to do so in a manner that is almost laughable. A non-binding resolution is not worth the paper it's printed on. Let's look at it more closely. "Non-binding" means that the resolution has no real significance. It's not a law, and I'm not required to pay any heed to it. And I will not do so. Both Congress and I have more important things to do. As for a "resolution", I would point out that this is not the same as a law. It cannot be enforced upon the president, or anyone else. It's merely a statement from Congress as a whole that they feel a certain way. I thank them for their interest, but this is the last time I will pay any attention to any resolution of this type.

If Congress disagrees with me, they are welcome to either cut off funding for the War, in accordance with the powers granted to them, or they can pass a law mandating a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq by a certain date. Of course, the second of these options would, in my opinion, be an attempt to interfere with my duties as Commander in Chief, and I would immediately refer any such bill to the Supreme Court.

Knowing what I have just explained to you, Congress has been engaged in posturing against the War. The War in Iraq has been, as I explained above, legally carried out by me in accordance with a resolution by the Senate granting their approval. To then come out and demand that I withdraw our forces from an ongoing war by a certain date is to work against the policies of the United States, and to give hope to our enemies. Again, as I stated, these enemies have been waiting for this to happen. Once our troops are withdrawn, unless they come home after a decisive victory, it is a military and a political defeat for the United States. The consequences would be devastating for the Middle East and for the United States. I will not allow this to happen during my presidency. I will state uncategorically that our forces will not flee from Iraq. We will stay there until we achieve victory. If my successor wishes to change that policy, he or she is welcome to do so. I will not waver in my resolve to defeat terrorism and bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq.

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

Finally, I would like to turn to a domestic political matter. Recently, several US Attorneys were fired. This has turned into a political firestorm. And it is a complete waste of time and energy. The US attorneys are part of the Executive Branch, which is headed by the president. In school, we were all taught about things like "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". In simple terms, this means that it is the job of the president to run the US government as a whole. Congress has the responsibility of making laws. And the laws of the Country state that the Attorneys are subordinate to the Attorney General, who is in turn accountable to Me, the President. These positions are appointed, and serve at my pleasure. This means that I, as the President, can hire and fire US attorneys at any time, for any reason. Congress has no jurisdiction over them, or over my handling of them, as long as their basic rights as citizens are not infringed upon.

In this specific instance, the rights of these individuals were not infringed. They were fired , and that is that. There's no reason for the Congress to interfere, and yet they are doing so. These men and women were not deprived of Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. They lost a job, like others before them.

This matter is now closed, except for one final point I will make. In 1993, my predecessor, Mr. Clinton, took office and chose to fire every single US Attorney in the country. All of them, without exception. While many presidents had fired attorneys upon taking office, for many reasons, including the desire to give their position to supporters, none had ever fired all of them. Did Congress investigate Mr. Clinton? They did not. In the legal profession, this is called a "precedent". In effect, he did it because he had the Constitutional right to do so. As I have the Constitutional right to fire 8 or 9 of them, any time I want.

This is the last time I will speak about the firings of the US attorneys. If Congress wishes to usurp the duties of the Presidency, they need to go about it another way. And I will fight them until my term in office ends in 2009.

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

I thank you for your time and attention. I hope that this speech opens up discussion of the topics I've covered, and at the same time clarifies my stance on these issues. I will not allow anyone to undermine my office, nor will I allow anyone to undermine the rights enjoyed by the American people for over 200 years. I wish everyone the best, and will conclude with these words: God Bless America. Thank you and goodnight.

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

Whew. Tiring, no? Glad to have gotten this out of the way, since it's been consuming my mind for a few days now. If you've stuck with me this long, I would appreciate any feedback you could provide. Thanks.

A Big Day

Happy anniversary! Today makes 232 years since "the shot heard 'round the world". A day when the American people finally stood up to fight against a repressive government.

Here's a prayer that people remember this fight. Remember that it wasn't easy- it cost blood and treasure, and took another six years of fighting, but it ended in a victory for Liberty. The leaders of the time were incredible men, who knew the risks they ran, but took them anyway. They risked death and financial ruin; but stood up for what was Right rather than what was Easy. Hopefully we can remember the courage- both physical and moral- that they showed.

To celebrate this occasion, I'll throw out a few quotes from a favorite book on the War, The American Heritage Book of The Revolution, by Bruce Lancaster and J.H. Plumb.

(Another favorite that I discovered a couple years ago is Washington's Crossing by D.H. Fischer. Can't recommend it highly enough).

Onward...

"Day was just breaking, clear and unseasonably warm, with premature appleblossoms shimmering in roadside orchards, as [Royal Marine Major John] Pitcairn and his men wound down the curving hill that leads past Munroe's Tavern into Lexington. They could hardly have been surprised to see two companies (the Minute and the Alarm) in battle order on the near end of the Green, nor the slanting shadows of many men moving through nearby woods and fields.... "(p. 95)

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

"Over in Concord, men waited through the dark hours, knowing only that a British column was headed north out of Boston, with their own town its probable objective.....

...Concord might have been lacking in military dash, but it had that cold courage which enables men to march out into the unknown, to pick up coolly whatever cards Fate has thrown face down." (p. 96)

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

"...But a single awesome thought must have occurred to every militiaman-'We've fired on the King's troops!'-a far more serious matter than making inflammatory speeches , writing seditious letters, or dumping tea at Griffin's Wharf." (p. 98)

***********

"...From path and road and field the militia closed in on the column, firing from behind stone walls, from behind houses and woodpiles and sheds. Men ran out of ammunition and went home. Men were killed as the light infantry swept the flanks of the attackers. Men were frightened by bullets that, in the words of one participant, 'whistled well,' and gave up the fight. But always more men and more companies were arriving, so that the British column marched through 'a veritable furnass of musquetry.' A stand was attempted, but [British commander Colonel Francis] Smith was wounded and Pitcairn lost his horse and pistols, and the retreat became a rout, with redcoated veterans of unquestioned courage and discipline throwing away arms and equipment as they ran...." (p.99)

***********

"...What mattered was that a call had been sent out, and men by the thousands, from all walks of life, had answered it. That answering marked not only a day on a calendar but a turning point in the life of a whole continent. An old order died on the nineteenth of April, 1775, simply because so many ordinary citizens believed so deeply in what underlay that call." (p. 100)

***********
"... An immense, glowing horseshoe of scattered lights was closing in an arc about Charlestown and Boston, an arc thickened by the fires of companies from the central and western parts of the Province, still arriving in response to that call.

Those fires, flaring and ebbing and flaring, burned on through the changing seasons of 1775 and 1776. They saw the British fleet carry away the troops who had drawn triggers at the little bridge near Concord. Then they sank into the silver gray of their ashes, only to spring up again, not merely the fires of a Provincial army, but of an American army- on Long Island, in the Jerseys, below Quebec, in Pennsylvania, down in the Carolinas and Georgia, and, at last, before Cornwallis' lines between the York and the James rivers in Virginia."(p.100)

**********

I guess that's enough for now. Hard to make any sort of editorial comments on this sort of thing, except to hope that we- the descendants and successors of these men- will live up to the glorious standards of courage and integrity that they set.

Later.

Another scary thought

[Thanks and a Tip to Callimachus (link below) for broadening my horizons a bit on this one.]

Speaking again of the events at Va. Tech., I just found a thought that has been percolating in the back of my mind all along. According to the information we now have, it appears that Cho first shot a woman and an RA at a dorm. Then, he possibly returned to his room. Now here's the question. Did nobody see him at the dorm? The thought is that he went and shot the woman, and the RA came to investigate and died for his (her?) curiosity. Then what? He apparently just walked out of the building, and went home. (I'm assuming that he lived in a different dorm, as I've heard nothing either way)

This bothers me. Given that he had weapons and other people had none, there's probably not much people could have done. But couldn't somebody have peeked out a window or a door and caught a glimpse? It's been a long time since I've been in a campus dorm, but I'm having a hard time with the idea that nobody was around at 0730 or whenever it was. Nobody in the hall or anywhere?

It's just odd to me. Somebody should have looked out in the hallway at some point. I might not have, since I know a gunshot when I hear it, but I suspect many of the students would just wonder what the loud noise was- especially if the shots woke them up. When the police responded, nobody was able to say "I saw an Asian guy walking down the hall right after I heard the shots"?

Not drawing any conclusions, but it just doesn't sit right. My ear is twitching a bit on this one, and I'm not sure why.

Probably just good old fashioned paranoia again.

Later.

Some thoughts on the obvious

Well, it's been a couple days, so I suppose it's time for me to comment on the affair at Virginia Tech. So much has been said already that it's hard to have an original thought. Also hard to make note of where an idea came from. I'll try to acknowledge where I learned about something, but as a default, one can always assume Gates of Vienna or Ace.

First off, it's clear that the shooter had serious issues. Most people around him thought he was very very strange... several people have now gone on record claiming that they viewed him as "most likely to go on a killing spree", or even flashed to his name when they first heard there had been a shooting at the school. Here's a tip, one that more people should remember: If your subconscious warns you about a person or situation, then there's a good chance you should be worried. If you haven't already, I would suggest reading this book.

That being said, I doubt that calling the police and saying "I think this guy is creepy and will go nuts someday" is overly valid. What can the police do? What should they do? What do we, as the innocent citizens, want them to do?

Then there's the question of notifying the students. Many claim that the school fell down, and that they weren't warned in a timely fashion. I dunno. The administration probably could have done more, but I'm not sure exactly what or how. It needs to be looked at, in the wide world of things. Emails saying "don't go out" don't seem to have helped much.

One of the bigger and uglier questions regards gun control on campuses. It almost sickened me to learn that the topic was put forth in the Virginia legislature a year before, and was shot down almost immediately. The response was immediate:

At the time, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said he was happy to hear of the bill's defeat, according to the Roanoke Times.

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus," the Virginia Tech spokesman said.

As somebody said, it might have allowed them to "feel safe", but it seems to have missed out on the actual safety of the people. Reminds me of something I read after September 11, where an Israeli Intelligence official was asked by Congress for his take on airport security in the US. His response was something to the effect of "it's good at what it does... which is give people the illusion that they are safe."

Then there's the story of the instructor who died to save his students. We can never state his name, Liviu Librescu, enough. RIP to a brave and true man. This story has been sticking in my craw since I first read it. To my mind, the idea of diving out a window while an old man stays behind to protect me, is disgusting, despicable, and a few other choice terms. But most of the people I've asked think that it's a product of our culture. The young men in his room have never had somebody demonstrate courage or integrity to them, growing up in the me-centered culture of the US today. This being the case, how could they be expected to do the right thing? As my brother just put it to me, they were in a panic situation and somebody- an authority figure- told them to run. So they ran. True enough, but still...

And today we have this story. So mentioning race is a Bad Thing. Nice to know the media is in favor of censoring information, no? While I suppose it is, strictly speaking, not "germane" as they say, the term "Asian" is a descriptive one. Otherwise, people might assume the killer- or should I say butcher- was, for instance Black. Or Arabic, or whatever. To me, the issue here is simply that, as I said, the term Asian merely describes him, and also provides data that the public has a right to know. But the journalists don't want to tell us. Scary stuff from those that are, in their own minds, the protectors of our freedoms. Ack.

Finally, I have a thought from the "I'm sooo gonna burn in hell for this thought" file. This tragedy having occurred at Virginia Tech, I thought at some point "During all of this, where was Marcus Vick?"

That, folks is a "joke". Admittedly a tasteless one, but there it is. I am not in any way implying that Vick was involved. I'm sure he was not. But given his history, I hope I can be forgiven. If not, then I guess life's really a drag.

My thoughts are with the victims of this tragedy, but probably more with their families. Dymphna from GoV posted a response to a comment I made that describes it perfectly. Scroll down to the comments and read it. I'd post it here directly, but I'm writing on the fly, and won't do so without her permission. Perhaps I'll drop her a note and ask. Meanwhile, wander on down and find the comment. It's worth the effort.

Later.

Stupidity as a teaching point

I won't bother linking to anyone here, since the story is so all-pervasive, but I was thinking this morning about the whole Imus "controversy". What a crock of fertilizer.

I agree that what he said was completely wrong. As somebody put it to me, "he lived by the sword and he died by the sword". Fair enough. A shock jock needs to keep shocking his audience. In doing so, he crosses the line occasionally. When he does, he should pay the price-within his right to exercise free speech. Calling the Rutgers players "nappy-headed hos" or whatever he said was completely stupid. Was it criminal? Of course not. Was it something for which he should have been fired? Not in my opinion. And unlike many, I've been in those shoes. I was fired from a job for saying something that, in retrospect, I didn't mean and shouldn't have said. My "offense" wasn't as tasteless as his, but the loss of my job was just as real. I still feel that getting rid of me was wrong, when I should have been merely told not to do it again- no harm, no foul. But that's not the way it played out. Life really sucks sometimes.

At any rate, he was fired. As many have argued, not because of what he said, but because the issue wouldn't go away. Mr. Imus of course bears much of the blame for that, but no matter. He should have merely admitted his error- preferably right after he said it- stated that he would make a point of watching his tongue, issued an apology to the Team, and moved along. If his employer wanted to punish him with a suspension, then take it like a man, and be done with it.

I also would point out here that I think Rutgers has made too much of it. Nobody was hurt, and I've personally been called worse things than that. Big deal. Instead, they played the victim card, getting to appear on Oprah, and who-knows-where-else, presumably chattering on about the "cost" to them. Which, realistically, is nil. But hey, it's nice P.R, right?

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

When I was a little kid, roughly 8 years old or so, my family (less my brother) went to downtown Detroit (people still did that back in the early 70s!), to one of the riverfront ethnic festivals, which at the time were a big draw down there. The gang split up, my mom taking my sisters off to do their thing, while I went alone with my dad. We wandered around for a while. There was a big area full of picnic tables, where people could eat the food from the vendors. At one of the tables, all alone, sat a man. Face down on the table. With an empty beer cup next to his head.
My dad shook his head, and muttered something under his breath. Then he said something that has stayed with me forever. He said "see that guy over there? Do you know what's wrong with him?" "Yeah" I said. "He's drunk". My dad replied with one of the best lessons he ever taught me: "That's right. He looks pretty stupid, doesn't he.... Remember that."

Think about that for a moment. My dad pointed out where another man had done something that embarrassed himself, made the people around him uncomfortable, likely damaged his family, etc. And he held up that man's error as a teaching point. And it worked. Brilliantly. Even now, some 35-40 years later I still remember the whole discussion. Shame as a teaching point. Amazing.

Now imagine if he had merely lectured me one day on the evils of alcohol. I doubt very much that it would have worked anywhere near as well. I can't say for sure, but I suspect as much. I know a lot of people who got the alternate version, and it didn't sink in as well as that 1 minute conversation Dad and I had.

(Only later would I find out just how much my father hated alcoholism, and why. Suffice it to say he has some idea of what alcohol abuse can do to people. And so do I)

So here's my thought. Rather than lecture people about how wrong Imus was, lecturing people about "hate speech", "racism" and all that blather, and rather than making the Rutgers team out to be victims of-whatever they're victims of-let's make it a teaching point.

Teachers and parents should at least point at Mr. Imus and have the courage to say "He sounds pretty stupid, doesn't he? Remember that."

Later.

What to do?

(Hat tip to Gates of Vienna for this story. This post is a bit of a fleshing out of a comment I made there this morning.)

It seems that in an obscure city in England, there's a crisis brewing. An old, long-disused Methodist church is about to be turned into a mosque. And there are some people that view it as a step in Britain's long surrender to Islam. Others see it as being an indication of how far Christianity has fallen, as the article GoV links to discusses the falling attendance at religious services there. All worthy topics for discussion.

However, it appears that some folks are worried about the social implications. Is it a good idea to turn an old church into a mosque?

Why not?

Here's my comment from their page:

"I'm of 2 minds on this story. (I won't address any of the Great Debates on religion from the comments). On the one hand, Mr. Arshad does seem like one of the mythical "Moderate Muslims" of which we've all heard. But on the other hand...

From what I've read here, it seems that there is a legitimate need for a mosque in the area, and those that oppose it are merely anti-Muslim. Of course, fear of Islam is legitimate- I don't know that I would want a mosque going up in my neighborhood either.

But let's face it, they're making an issue of a building that has not been a "church" in years, granting that it's still sanctified.

So you have moderate Muslims wanting to have a mosque for their community. Doesn't sound unreasonable, on paper. If you refuse to allow it, fight it, or protest it, then doesn't that risk sending the message that Muslims truly are second-class citizens? I doubt the locals would protest if a CofE congregation tried to take over the building.

But still, there's the legitimate fear: is Mr. Arshad fronting for a different group, one that is more extreme? Even if not, isn't there a chance that his little mosque will be usurped by the folks that control the larger mosques in places like London?

So what should be done? On the one hand, if you fight them, you risk turning moderates against you. On the other hand, you also risk allowing the terrorists a base in your town.

Hard call, but having given it some thought this morning, I think the chance has to be taken. Allow it, if for no other reason than the likelihood the Muslims will be moving in anyway. When they do come, do you want them to have a grudge, or do you want them to feel like part of the community?

Besides, worst case scenario is they'll go someplace else to blow things up. Don't think they'd attack their own town, would they?

Wow. Almost feel like I should be breaking out into a chorus of "Kumbaya". But I'll refrain."

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

I've given it a wee bit more thought, and I still think I hit the central point pretty well. One of the problems that the British have is that the Muslim community seems to think that they are second-class citizens (or at least claims they think so). This alleged grievance is used to press the government for more concessions to them. For instance, according to Fjordman (posting this article at Gates of Vienna)

"In August 2006, following the unveiling of a plot to blow up several airliners between Britain and the USA, Muslim leaders summoned to talks with the Government on tackling extremism made a series of demands, which included the introduction of sharia law for family matters. Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, said: ‘We told her [the minister] if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.’"


So, as he points out in the article, "moderate Muslims" are demanding that the Government give them religious freedoms not granted to other groups (including the Church of England, which is the Official Religion there), in order to prove that Muslims are being treated equally.

"Give me more money for the same work as the guy working next to me, or I'll accuse you of not paying me equally." Doesn't really work, does it?

So there are legitimate fears of Islam- God knows I have some. But what do you do? They do have a right to exercise their religion. And you have no proof of any terrorist leanings among the folks that want to build the mosque. So you can't really deny them or even protest their plans, can you?

I still think that the best approach here is to sit back and let them build their mosque. Somebody mentioned the concern over a cemetery, if there is one there. Fair enough. If the local Moslems are as moderate as they seem to be, then it shouldn't be difficult to work something out. If they refuse to work towards a fair solution, then that shows a potential problem.

In the end, I don't think anyone can stop the mosque from being built. The Town Council has approved it, and from what I read, there isn't enough "religious feeling" around town to inspire much more than petty vandalism.

In the end, it all comes down to taking a chance. Back in the '80s, I recall reading an editorial by Richard Nixon. The topic was an offer by the Soviet Union for some type of easing of tensions. (I wish I could recall more details, but it's been well over 20 years. Sorry). In the end, Mr. Nixon said that yes, there was a chance that it wasn't a sincere offer. But in the end, if it helped ease US/Soviet relations, it was worth the risk.

No guts no glory. I think that Mr. Arshad seems sincere. If he wants a mosque, then he has the right to build one. If it turns out to be a base for Islamic Fundamentalism, then so be it. Won't be the first, and I doubt it would be the last. But if he's sincere, and if "his" mosque is actually a moderate one....

Then who knows. Perhaps it's the first step towards Peace in Our Time.

Later.

The Gambler

I just came across this article, as I skimmed thru the sports pages of the hometown papers today. A football player at the University of Toledo has been arrested and charged with bribery.

I won't say much about the "alleged" charges. Not my concern. But it brought something to mind. One of my favorites books is First Down and a Billion: The funny business of Pro Football, by the late Gene Klein. Mr. Klein talked about many things, but focused on the years when he owned the San Diego Chargers. (If you're a football fan, this ranges from the AFL days up through the "Air Coryell" years, until he sold the team in 1984).

Mr. Klein talked about a lot of controversial things that happened during his time in the League, including the big strike in the early '80s (sorry, don't have the exact year handy), which played a role in his decision to sell the Team. During the strike, for instance, he encouraged the owners to hold out for mandatory drug testing in the agreement. Didn't work, even though he claims most of the players had no problem with it- which is ironic if you follow the current NFL crime-blotter.

At any rate, Mr. Klein also favored another controversial measure. Legalization of gambling. Now let me stress that, as I recall, he was speaking of gambling on professional football, not NCAA, which is where these allegations I started with occurred. Allegedly.

There were several points that Klein made to support this idea: First off, if you look at any major newspaper in the US during football season (and most other sports seasons, of course) you will find the "injury report". What purpose does it serve? Why, to let people know who is or isn't playing. And this info is mostly important to whom- The casual fan? No. The gambler.

Further, if we as a society are so against gambling on professional sports, then why do the same newspapers (and web sites) print the "lines" on games? And here we are talking about both college and pro sports. I'm a reasonable sports fan, but I don't care if the Raiders are 2 point underdogs to the Broncos, or 3 points. Hell, I don't even know what it means.

And let's not get started on the brackets for the NCAA Basketball Tournament. I know people that are doing 10 different "pools" every year. And technically, most states ban such gambling. But it's too widespread to enforce.

Finally, the anti-gamblers mention the likelihood of point-shaving: the kind of thing that allegedly went on at Toledo. Well, it would seem to me that making it illegal didn't work so well there, did it? Mr. Klein makes a persuasive argument for it, on this basis. It's almost impossible to tell whether an on-field blunder really was intentional or not. A player doesn't have to make a horribly bad play- one that makes people wonder "What the heck was he thinking", in order to affect the outcome of the game. All it takes is a slight misplay- a missed block by an offensive lineman during a late drive, a botched snap on a punt- and the outcome of the game is changed. Or a horrible pass by a quarterback that is intercepted and returned for a score.

Come on football fans: tell me that during Superbowl XXX, you didn't wonder how O'Donnell managed to throw an interception when none of his players was even near the ball. Or how about Norwood missing a field goal in the final minute of XXV?

Let's be clear: I'm not suggesting that these two players deliberately "threw" the game, or that they did something to affect the point spread. I'm just saying that if they did, nobody would be able to prove it.

As Klein put it, whatever players would be doing to affect the outcome of games, they're already doing.

So maybe it's time to open up the debate on gambling. Don't criminalise something we all know is being done openly. And don't put people in a position where they're going to cheat in order to affect the gambling. And hell, let's see how much tax revenue we can get out of it.

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

A thought just occurred to me. Some might find this post contradictory, given the scorn I heap on that jackass Pete Rose for gambling. But note that he was in a position to affect the outcome of the games he was betting on. If he wants to place a bet on the Cincinnati Reds this season, then I have no problem with it (assuming it's legal where he is). However, for a player, coach, trainer, scorekeeper, referee, etc. to do so ought to be a major offense under league guidelines, and probably a criminal offense as well. Any of those people can affect the outcome, so they shouldn't be allowed even a whiff of gambling. For the guy on the street, who cares?

Later.

I'm just sayin'

Just stumbled across this bit today on Yahoo, via Encyclopedia Brittanica.


"1930: Constantinople renamed Istanbul
Built as Byzantium about 657 BC, then renamed Constantinople in the 4th century AD after Constantine the Great made the city his capital, the Turkish city of Istanbul officially received its present name on this day in 1930."

I wonder why they refer to it as "the Turkish city", and never make a mention of how that came to be. They mention the founding, they mention Constantine, but they neglect to point out that it was CAPTURED by the Turks. In fact, by calling it "the Turkish city", they actually imply the opposite: that the Greeks and/or Romans had taken it from the Turks.

Which is of course absurd.

But to point out that it was not originally a "Turkish city" would have been an explicit admission that the (Muslim) Turks- who are not even indiginous to Turkey, but to central Asia (off the top of my head, I would guess someplace around Turkmenistan)- captured it from somebody else. Like the (Christian) Europeans. And we can't do that, can we?

Of course, since most Americans that have an inkling of geography know whereabouts Turkey is found, it works even better. Turkey borders Iraq, therefore the Europeans must have conquered the City from the poor Turkish natives, right? Christianity and Imperialism and all that.

But of course, those of us that actually know a bit more know this little factoid: BYZANTIUM/CONSTANTINOPLE/ISTANBUL IS ACTUALLY IN EUROPE. Geographically and culturally, it is (or was before the Turks beseiged and captured it, with all the attendant bloodshed) a Greek and European city.

Of course, we can't say that can we? That would be horribly un-PC. It might even make the really ignorant among us ask if how we can possibly blame Bush for something that happened shortly before Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue.

Hmmmmmm. Built in Europe in about 657 B.C., captured by the Asian (and Muslim) invaders almost two millenia later.

Yup, it's a Turkish city alright.

Later.

Love sports, Hate athletes

Been an interesting week for any sports fans. No, I'm not talking about the NCAA Tournament- I frankly don't care about basketball. Unless of course my team is playing for the championship. Then I'll watch it and root for them.

No, the issue here is the fact that athletes-especially professional ones- are getting increasingly stupid. Maybe it's just the timing, but in the last few days you can't look at a newspaper or a sports website without seeing additional proof that these jokers are morons.

First there is the story of some pro basketball player. I could look him up and find his name, but frankly he's not worth the effort. Apparently, while riding the bench during a game a few days ago, the TV camera came on him. His response was to look into the camera and say "kids, do drugs."

What????

I'm sure the team that pays his salary and the NBA office went nuts. And they should. I'm sure it was all a joke- cuz doesn't it just make you laugh like a hyena? Maybe someone ought to tell this idiot a few knock-knock jokes. They'd be a helluva lot funnier than that one. I'm hoping that he'll be suspended for a few games, and perhaps a nice fine. Maybe then he'll have time to read a flippin' joke book.

Then we have the Chicago Bear player, that got busted by the local police for something. Well, they raided his house for something, and found lots of illegal guns. And a "bodyguard" who was carrying drugs. But not to worry- the bodyguard got whacked in a nightclub argument a couple nights later.

Guess who was at the club with him?

Oh, and our athletic role model was already on probation for - you guessed it-illegal possession of a firearm. But he doesn't deserve to be in jail, and in fact the mean awful prosecutor is picking on poor little old him.

Next, we have the grandfather of stupid-ass arrogant athletes, none other than pete rose himself. Remember when he was banned for life from Major League Baseball? And he denied betting on baseball, and said he'd be back after a year? Didn't go so well, did it numb-nuts? In his first autobiography (ghost-written of course. I don't know how he can even spell his own name), he continued to deny the allegation.

In his next autobiography, he admitted that he did it, but only occasionally. Now, he just admitted he did it almost every day. But in his arrogant, stupid, self-righteous world, this is a virtue. Why? Because he was betting on his own team. He was just so darn confident in the talents of his players, and his own managing, that he bet on them as a sign of faith.

Well hot damn! Let's repeal the ban now. If only we had known he was doing it not because he's a slimeball, but because he's a great man and a great leader!

Presumably he "thinks" that people will forgive him because his intentions were noble. Realistically, I don't think he has any clue that most people don't give a flying flip about him anymore.

And finally, our prize exhibit. The infamous "Pacman" Jones, star of the Tennessee Titans. At least for the moment. The team apparently wants him gone, because... well, because he's a loaded gun, a dumbass, and a troublemaker. He's the genius who went- excuse me, "allegedly" went- into a strip club in Vegas. While he was "allegedly" there, he "allegedly" threw some $80,000 into the air for the dancers. When one girl got greedy and reached for some of the money, he "allegedly" slammed her face into the stage. Then one of his companions "allegedly" threatened a bouncer. After they were outside, this companion "allegedly" shot a couple people.
No wait, that's a fact.

Then our hero was in a nightclub back in Tennessee, and got into an argument with some guy. The guy pulled a knife on him. Surprisingly, this time he appears to be innocent of any wrong-doing, though I suspect he was talking 16 kinds of smack to the guy.

Mind you, this is all within the last month or so. A slow month for Mr. jones, no? On the other hand, between these two incidents, he also revealed that he'd been arrested twice on felony charges in the past 12 months- a little fact that he neglected to tell the Team or the League, despite being required to do so.

Oh, and last season, if memory serves, he was suspended for spitting in the face of an opponent during a game. Before that, there were..... oh hell, who knows how many other incidents. I believe the total number is up around 12. Not bad for a couple years work, no?

It's at the point where rumor says some people within the Team just want to get rid of him. Unfortunately, they can't dump him for off-field incidents, and he's too talented for anyone to believe any other potential reason. From what I've read, even the Players Association is shaking their collective head and wondering why the prosecutors in this country can't convict somebody like him for anything. The good news is, the majority of the players in the NFL seem to be tired of these jackasses, and apparently are pushing for a real, honest-to-God policy regarding off-field conduct.

I wonder how that idea works for the players that were smuggling cough syrup from California into Texas?

Later.

New blogger

Am I the only person that thinks this new setup Blogger has was designed by retarded 7 year old illiterate lizards from Mars? I can't seem to set it up to NOT allow people to edit the page on their own.

God I hate it when companies change things without testing it properly...

Later.

Passive non-resistance

Last Friday, I stopped off to pick up some Chinese food. While I waited, I was kinda watching the TV they have in there. It was tuned to some entertainment news-magazine show- Entertainment Weekly, or some such drivel.

Anyhow, the story they had on was about this girl who went to a slumber party with her friends. At some point, a couple of the girls started slapping her. Eventually, they worked their way up to hair-pulling, and I think even kicking. Fortunately, she was not hurt, and the story said that the girls were arrested and charged with whatever the prosecutor could think up.

But listening to it, the whole story was unbelievable. Not that these "friends" would do such a thing- it's been said that teenage girls are the most vicious animals on the planet- but that the victim never did anything about it. She never fought back, never yelled, and apparently didn't even try to leave the room. The other girls there never made any effort to intervene, either. This went on for seven-that's 7, as in one more than 6- hours. Then, this being the 21st century, the video was posted on MySpace.

As I recall, during the video, the tormentors were slapping her and asking her why she wouldn't fight back. To me-speaking as someone who went through a lot of this as a kid myself- this points very strongly toward it being a form of teasing. Somehow, the victim had already been pegged as a non-fighter: someone who would simply sit there and be a victim.

Clearly, they were right. I wonder what her parents are like...

The story ended with a statement that the show's "experts" agreed that it was a good thing that the victim didn't try to resist, or the beating might have been worse.

Who are these frigging experts, and where the )*^)(^%&* did they get their credentials from? Because hey, this whole non-resisting thing worked out so friggin well for her, didn't it?

Okay, I agree: it's possible that the tormentors might have gotten worked up and beaten her more seriously. Punches rather than open hand slaps, etc. But the video clips that they showed
included one part where she got up from the bed and was shoved across the room by one girl. At that point, the other girl grabbed her by her hair, and threw her down on the bed. That's pretty rough, and I have to assume that this move, and some of the other slaps that were shown, left bruises and scratches.

Here's the way I see it. First off, she should have simply asked them to stop. Maybe they would have, maybe she tried that and it didn't work. I don't know. Then she should have tried to leave the room, and find the "adult". (I believe they said she didn't do this, assuming the door was locked, which would seem to suggest that we can cross her off the list of future Nobel laureates). If it was locked, and she couldn't get out, scream like a maniac (again, this assumes an adult was within earshot.) If nothing else, once she started yelling, the other girls might have intervened, from fear that the party would be broken up. Next, she should have tried to get a phone and call someone-her parents, the police, her friend's parents, anyone.

Then, if none of that worked, she should have made some attempt to fight back. As I said, it's possible that she might have been hurt, but I doubt it. I think there would be several possible outcomes. First off, she clocks one of these girls hard enough to make her stop and think "this isn't worth it. I guess that she will fight back." Or, she raises enough of a ruckus to alert the "responsible adult" (or as we called them back in the 70's, "parent") that was presumably in the house. Or, the other girls present would decide that this is all getting out of hand, and intervene.

I just don't see that sitting there letting someone beat on you is the best choice. Or perhaps she was waiting to be rescued by Spiderman, Batman, the Dukes of Hazzard, Dora the Explorer or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen....?

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that a teenager would make what I think is the wrong choice, but I can't help but think that this girl was poorly served by a lot of adults, especially her parents. And I can't help but think that other teenagers are being poorly served by the television show I saw, and the experts they featured.

But what do I know? I'm not an expert.

Later.