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.

A quick addition

Came upon this quote just now, from the late Sydney J. Harris. It's relevant to yesterday's post:

The commonest fallacy among women is that simply having children makes them a mother - which is as absurd as believing that having a piano makes one a musician.

Hooray for Feminism

Anyone that's been following the news over the past week or so has heard of the meltdown of Britney Spears. It's been fodder for gossip hounds, the mainstream media loves it, and I suspect comedians have been feeding off it all along. Very funny. A young woman falls apart (no doubt due in part to drugs and/or alcohol), and we all have a good laugh.

In the end, it's a tragedy. Some people are claiming that she tried twice in one night to kill herself. Boy, my sides hurt from laughing at that one. Those close to her say she is- at best- a poor mother, possibly even completely unfit. Geez, I can't breathe for laughing.

What's wrong with this story? Look, she is an enormously lucky young woman. I'm not a fan of hers, and I frankly wouldn't recognise any of her music if I heard it- which is doubtful since I don't listen to commercial radio, and certainly not Top 40. But nevertheless, to make it as big as she did is winning the lottery in a big way. So hey, God bless her for that.

But somewhere, it all went tragically wrong.

First off, she rose to the top of her chosen profession when she was barely old enough to vote. By the time she hit legal drinking age, she was worth, I gather, somewhere in the neighborhood of $75 million (or more). That's almost inconceivable. To have the money to do anything you want, and know you'll never ever have to work or struggle again, when you're likely, from a statistical standpoint, to live another 50+ years is just something most people could never imagine. Nor I suspect could most people deal with it.

And the entertainment business chews people up. We all know it. They're obsessed with youth, of course, and beauty. Ms. Spears had both-even if some of her looks came from plastic surgery, which is certainly possible. So given the enormous success of her most recent CD, which I guess is at least several years old, she had won the jackpot. It's all downhill from here, baby.

I wonder if she knew that. From what I've seen and heard, she's hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I can't believe she didn't realize-at least on some level- that it was all gonna be downhill. If you sell 7 or 8 million records (sorry, cds) by age 20, odds are that even if you last in the music business for another 20 years, you'll never do it again. Hell, you might not even sell that many total for the rest of your career.

Talk about instant gratification. You can afford anything before you can legally buy half the fun stuff, and have free time since you apparently only need to work a few months out of the year. Surprisingly, she apparently started going out to clubs and drinking. Probably doing a few other mind-altering things as well, I suspect.

Again, why not? You go out, people freak out at the sight of you, fawn over you and tell you how incredible you are. You're on top of the proverbial world. As far as anyone can tell. But when you're home, and all alone... perhaps you wonder if it's all true. And you wish you had someone near you that could talk to you, and listen to you.

Of course, none of what I'm saying is new. It's been done to death, in fact. But it's still true, and in this case might even bear remembering.

When a person is 21 and frankly still immature, in a position where true friends are pretty unlikely, then it's up to one's family to keep one grounded. And personally, I doubt her family was a lot of good at this. They might try, but probably not hard enough. And my understanding is that the normal ones in her family-her dad and brother- were back home in Dixie, while the Spears women are all in Los Angeles.

So here you are. You're barely into your 20s, you're an attractive young woman (talented also, we'll assume for the sake of argument), rich, and successful. You've got it all, and you got it when you're young enough to enjoy it. You can do it all, and have it all, just like the media tells you women can do. I'm woman, hear me roar and all that. Or, perhaps girls just wanna have fun. Maybe both. Why not? It's your right as a woman.

So you start to realize that there's only one thing you don't have to be complete. A child. If one is of the old-fashioned ilk, there's also the matter of a loving relationship with a great man, so you can have the perfect life. Yup, you go out and look glamorous, get adored by all your fans, and then go home to your doting husband and your perfect kids. You're ready for it, right? Of course right. You don't need to work on your career like most young women, you've met a hot(!) guy, and you're only 22. Still ahead of the curve, aren't we?

So you get married, and promptly get pregnant. Wonderful! You've got the perfect guy, why wait more than a few months to start a family. Kids are great, you know you'll be a great mother, cuz hubby and your fans all say so.

Congratulations! You're now on your way to becoming a feminist icon, right?

But a funny thing happens. Your new baby cries all the time. He demands all your attention. You realise that your instincts only take you so far, and then there are things you don't know. And you didn't bother to learn them, because you're rich and fabulous. Hell, you already hired a nanny before the baby was born, so you could still have your career. Nothing wrong there, either.

Then you realise that you don't have the time to go to the movies when you want. Or go clubbing with your friends. Even the big publicity machine can develop problems if baby is sick. And people are now watching how you hold your baby, how much time you spend holding your baby, how your baby acts when you hold it, and so on. The slightest mistake gets you under even more scrutiny than you're used to.

And then you realise your husband is a loser. Sure, you knew he didn't have a career, but it doesn't matter. You have more money than you need. Unless he keeps spending at his current pace. And of course, you have a hard time getting out if he's always out with his boys (or girls, as the case may be). And sometimes you go out together. And you let your hair down, cuz hey- you're young and fabulous.

And people criticise you for being out at the bar getting drunk when you have a baby at home.

And gradually, it begins to spin out of control. You have another baby, in a surprisingly short time. And now your concerns double. Now if one kid doesn't need something, the other does. And your husband is busy trying to get his career going, using more of your money. And all people are doing is laughing at him, and laughing at you for supporting him. So he tries even harder to prove he's his own man, and that he can succeed. And he talks himself up, and people laugh. So he has to try harder yet. And he goes to clubs to get "seen", and try to promote himself. And you sit at home, bored, frustrated, and tired of dealing with kids.

Now what?

Well, you decide to dump your hubby. And he starts trying to get millions of dollars out of you, since he's a flop, reduced to making fun of himself for money. And you're trying to kick-start your own career, so you can get back on top where you belong. Only that isn't going so well either. The record label thinks the new stuff you're doing is crap. People are now laughing at you. It's looking like it's all over. Congrats, and welcome to the Real World. You're 24 and washed up.

So it's back out to the clubs, hanging with the other Beautiful People. But a lot of them won't be seen with you, since you're now a second-rate celebrity. And the ones that will go out with you are pretty trashy. So you're going down....

And now the instant gratification gene kicks back in. Hell, you wanted to be rich and famous, and that only took a few years. You wanted to "have it all", and you did it within a couple more years. When you look in the mirror and realise you aren't the pert-breasted, flat-bellied nymph anymore, call for some liposuction. Now, you want to be a sex symbol again, so you go out dressed like a slut.

And people laugh. They shouldn't be laughing, you're fabulous. You're Britney.

More laughter.

So you're lacking friends, your career is looking like it's over, and your kids are driving you nuts. But you still have other outlets. Like sex. Sex is good. You like sex. It's fun, and it sometimes even proves that someone "loves" you, right? Isn't that what sex is about? Except when it's about your old friend, instant gratification. It feels good, so what the hell. After all- that's another piece of being a modern, 21st century woman. Enjoying sex, with either men or women. Or both. Or a toy. Or your hands, or anything else that comes to mind.

And you hook up with other guys that are losers. And when it doesn't last- and why should it, you're a mess and they're using you to be "seen", they show their true colors by telling everyone what a slut you are. But hey, that's "Slut" in the good sense, right?

And in the end, you become a slutty looking overweight woman in her mid-20s. You look and sound like the trailer trash everyone accuses you of being. (They never said that when you were at the top of the music charts, did they?) You have two babies, and you've figured out what millions of people across the country know, even though they've never met you: You weren't ready to be a parent. Nor were you really ready to settle down and be married.

And you hit the bottom. Your career? Finished. Your personal life? A shambles. And you have to face the 50 or so years of the rest of your life. Starting today. Because now people in the entertainment business are starting to ignore you, or even to smack you down in the media. And you remember what they say about kicking someone when they're down. Well you're down, and don't look like you'll be getting up anytime soon.

So have a drink or ten. Spend more time away from your kids. Get drunk, puke in your vehicle, fall asleep in clubs, wear clothes that are too slutty for a childless, hard-bodied nymph, and hang out with racist, drugged out sluts that are famous for far less than you. Sure, it looks bad, but what do you have to lose?

Your children, your pride, and what's left of your reputation. And you try rehab and it just sounds too tough. Besides, it takes a whole month. That's too long for you. By then, you'll need to be back with your family, on the road to your comeback.

And eventually, you wind up outside your estranged husband's house, looking to everyone there- and through the magic of the internet, the whole world; like a crazy, drunken loser of a woman. The same people that called your husband a loser and a poor parent are talking about how lucky the kids are to have him, and rooting for him to take you to court and get custody.

Congratulations. You're a feminist icon for the 21st century. It's great when celebrity, the "instant gratification" generation, youth, and the feminist desire to "have it all" meet, isn't it? Right in the middle of the intersection? It's just like one big happy media bloodbath.

Good luck kid. You need it.

Later.

The lowest form of life

(NOTES: Despite my efforts to watch my language when blogging, I do have a bit of a potty-mouth. In this entry, it kinda comes out. No apologies- I want to be sure that my feelings are clear to any reader. Just be warned there's a little bit more raw language than usual.

For a terrific discussion of the whole issue, read this book. Especially the chapter called "Proud Legions". Early on in my military career, my commander gave me a copy of the chapter, which I kept for several years, until my young lieutenant lost it: I thought about a court-martial for him, but held off. Then I used this internet thing to figure out where it came from, and get hold of it again. At any rate, things aren't as bad in the Army as they were in 1950, but it's still interesting to understand that soldiers have to struggle with these issues, and still follow orders)

I make no secret of despising liberals. I think that the whole leftist ideology of peace, love, drugs, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, France, Cindy Sheehan, drum circles, gun control, and festivals of Kumbayah singing is a load of crap, and while I support Free Speech, I wish they would all just shut the hell up and have the decency to die a slow painful death in the gutter.

But there are worse things in this world. And clicking the link in the title will take you to an article about one of them.

I despise those "people" who join the Military in peacetime, and then run away screaming about their "principles" when the shooting starts. Guess what? Armies are intended for fighting. I know this is a shock to some, but there it is. And armies also depend on people taking orders from their commanders and leaders. And here's the real shocker: Sometimes, those orders involve doing something that might get the soldier hurt. But it's all necessary.

In a democratic country, one like, oh I don't know, the US, the military is subordinate to the Civil Authority. This means that the civilians make decisions about where to send the military and why, and the military goes, with what is sometimes known as "cheerful obedience to orders". The civilians, and even the high-ranking military officers don't necessarily have to explain why something must be done, though it's not a bad idea to do so.

But the whole premise is that the military goes, regardless of their personal feelings. Remember Tennyson?
"Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,"

Pretty well sums it up, if one is truly a PROFESSIONAL Soldier. Which this asshat was.

But no, he decided that he didn't like the particular war that was on the horizon. Therefore, he decided he had The Right to say no. Wrong, dumbshit. Wars are generally not popular, especially with the men that have to fight them. You go there either because you feel it's necessary to fight it, or because you were told to go. There's no "option C".

Something is wrong when a "soldier" tells his superiors (I would say "commanders" but they are clearly superior to this piece of crap) I refuse to go here, but I'll go there instead. WTF?????????? Okay, troops, let's take a vote: All those to go to Iraq and live in a tent in the desert with Iranian agents wandering around trying to blow you up, fall in over here. All those wanting to go to Kabul, live in a tent and do whatever, go here. Oh, and all those who want to sit on their asses reading The NY Times in a warm room with unlimited coffee, long lunch breaks, and bars with hot young women, over there.

Gee Willikers Joe, which line should we get into?

But this dildo went even farther. He was "encouraging soldiers 'to throw down their weapons' to resist an authoritarian government at home". WTF???? You want authoritarian governments? How about Iraq under Saddam? How about Iran? How about any number of other countries? Doesn't this Miniature Einstein realize that a REAL "authoritarian government" would have had his lazy ass thrown in a wood chipper even before he had the chance to go public? Suppose that North Korean officers are allowed to talk that way to their troops, or do you think that the political officers would dispose of them in mid-sentence? Go ahead and ponder that great mystery. I can wait.

Look, questions about what you are doing in a certain war are normal. I was in the Army Reserve for Gulf War I. My unit was never called up, but we were on alert. Did I want to go somewhere and fight? No. But I was prepared to do so, IF I WAS ORDERED TO GO.

A year after that War, my best friend and Army buddy went to Kuwait to teach English. I remember getting a letter from him, describing the Kuwaitis, and how they view foreigners. Basically, the natives are lazy, self-absorbed, and look down on everyone else-especially Asians. (Note: for what it's worth, I've talked to other Middle Easterners, and none of them can stand the Kuwaitis either. They feel about the same as I do. So if you want to call me racist, bug off). In any case, I recall the stories of how the Kuwaitis were offended at their servants running off after Iraq invaded, forcing them to cook their own meals. He told me of the treatment of their Asian employees (kidnap and rape the females, work the men to death in the desert, and then hire more to replace them all). And for a week or so, I was truly troubled. I remember thinking that if these were the people that we went to war for- if defending these slimeballs constituted "making the world safe for democracy", then there was something seriously wrong. And I thought about resigning my Commission after 8 years of service, as a way out of the dilemma.

And then I had a revelation. I thought "you know what? I signed up for the Army, knowing that there were sometimes wars. And I knew that they weren't always a clear case of good versus evil. And I've been drawing a paycheck for a long time. It's not my place to get snippy when The Call comes".

End of dilemma. As another buddy put it when I told him about Mike's letter "You took the King's shilling". It was that simple. I knew that things weren't all rainbows and sunshine, and I dealt with it.


A few years later, after going inactive for a while, I went back into the Reserves for a short stint. Didn't last long, for personal reasons as well as a professional one. It was during the Clinton Impeachment, and I got tagged to give an informal briefing to the NCOs, reminding them that the UCMJ forbids "contempt for public officials". In other words, thou shalt not publicly criticize the president and his fellow politicians. It's actually a bit more complicated, but that's the basic gist. And as I stood up there, it occurred to me that calling Clinton a "lying, corrupt, piece of crap, treasonous rapist" and also debating whether his actions vis a vis China put him in the category of "all enemies, foreign and domestic" (note to the non-initiated: that line is from the oath one takes when joining the military) might (possibly) fall into the category of "contempt". And I realized that I was guilty of thinking that, and sometimes saying it to people (but not when I was in uniform or any official capacity- that's the more complicated bit). So I had to either stop it, or I had to follow my principles and get out of the Army. I chose the latter. Again, not solely for that reason, but it played a part.

But had I been ordered into one of Clinton's illegal wars, would I have said no and told soldiers to desert? Never. The thought would have been literally inconceivable. It still is.

So I have no use for this dildo-whom-I-refuse-to-name and his arguments. He's a piece of crap for refusing to go, and he's a traitor for suggesting that the troops should desert. After all, if that doesn't constitute "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", then I'm damned if I know what does.

So he's up in front of a court-martial. Good publicity, no? I bet he winds up with a book deal, and if he doesn't actually go to prison, he'll be off on the Cindy Sheehan Tour. Who knows, maybe she'll adopt him to replace her "baby".

Or the Army can try my solution. Hang the bastard from the highest yardarm. I'm sure the Navy would be willing to loan them one. No firing squad, though. That's a Soldier's Death. And this crap-bag doesn't deserve that.

Later.

The reason why

For anyone that wonders how I can say "I hate liberals", here's a post that explains why we Right Wing Nutjobs feel that way. Read and enjoy.

Later.

Race Relations

A couple weeks ago, I watched (again) Remember the Titans. Good movie, as far as the football goes. But the rest of the movie, not so much. And since it was around MLK Day, and now with the whole 2 Black coaches in the Super Bowl thing, a thought has been growing.

Racism is alive and well.

We all know that- the media tells us all the time. However, I mean cultural racism. And it clearly goes the other way. I won't even bother talking about how Black "music" like rap has become mainstream. It's a bit more subtle.

"Remember the Titans" tells the story of a Virginia High School football team in the early 1970s. A really, really good football team. One that won the State Title, in a dominating season. In the movie, the school is forced to hire a Black coach, and take away the job from a talented, successful White coach. The formerly all-White team is also forced to accept large numbers of Black players, and the movie focuses on the struggle to integrate, while dealing with racist fans, schoolmates, citizens, coaches, players, and officials. But they band together, and show all the nay-sayers that blacks and whites can live together in peace and harmony, lions and lambs lying down together, love and marriage, etc.

Oops. Not love and marriage. But there's a reason I threw that in. We'll get to that later.

In any case, if the movie had focussed on the football, it would be better, IMHO. But it didn't. Oh well. But Gregory Allen Howard, the screen writer, wanted to make the movie more. He wanted to have a conflict in the movie (as always). And being Black, he wanted to make a movie about racism.

Again, I suppose I should throw in a disclaimer here. We are talking about Alexandria Virginia in the early 1970s. I'm sure racism existed there. And I don't intend to belittle that fact per se. The point I want to make is that within the context of the T.C. Williams Titans, racism was a (relatively) minor issue.

Okay, so off we go.

The team was thrown together as a result of the busing decision by the Supreme Court. Many people were upset by this decision, including most of the people in Detroit, where I grew up. I remember hearing the complaints, and reading about it. So while there was surely racism involved in the whole issue, part of the problem was that people were, for the most part, opposed to busing. The City went from 3 high schools to 1, T.C. Williams. And yes, suddenly the players from the other schools were forced into a competition with their former rivals, now teammates.

But the movie shows the players fighting each other, and having a lot of racial tension. But the tensions weren't as bad as they are shown. As I mentioned, the writer wanted to have a conflict, so he threw in racial tension as a theme. However, the problem wasn't all that bad, so he made it up. He created fictional players, and made them (the White ones at least) overtly racist. Ditto for the officials in a playoff game. After all, the harder the struggle, the greater the glory, right? And if your team has to defeat crooked officials and players that want Black teammates hurt,
well that shows character, no? And if all the other teams are racist, white only (how come most of the other schools have no black players? Where were they all?), then that makes it even a bit sweeter when they get stomped by our little rainbow of color.

Just to make it more of a rainbow, one of the key players, quarterback Ronnie Bass is shown in the movie kissing a teammate and suggesting they take a shower.

Bass and all his teammates deny that ever happened. I think we'll go with the people that were there, right?

In the movie, the team struggles in the first few games. But then, some of the players call a meeting, and we have the big bonding scene. Lots of talk about "people trying to keep us apart", which has a vaguely romantic tragedy air about it (Hint: this is where the "love and marriage" theme comes in). But no, they won't allow family and friends to come between them and spoil what they have together.

Ah, young love. Perhaps we should have called the movie "Remember the Montagues and the Capulets". But I guess it doesn't have the same ring to it.

Of course, they immediately bond, singing a couple spirituals together in the gym. And no, it isn't "Kumbayah". I guess that would be a bit too obvious. But they start doing their warm-ups before the game in a new manner. A very "Black" fashion. Isn't it cute, all the rednecks doing a type of African dance routine? Of course, I remember seeing the movie for the first time and wondering how this was helping them get their muscles loose for a game of football. But it worked, right?

No. The little warm-up routine was invented by the screenwriter. But hey, it shows the Whites opening up to the Blacks, right? And isn't that what we need to do to end racism? Of course, there's never any hostility from any Blacks in the movie, other than a comment by a fan about how the Whites won't sit with them in the stands. No, in this movie all the Blacks want is dignity and to be treated fairly. Which is fine, and the root of the whole Civil Rights movement. But to be fair, I would suspect that there were Blacks around there that were hostile to the Whites. Showing them as learning their lesson would have been a powerful point. But no. Black=Good, White=Bad.

Of course, the characters that are most overtly racist are fake. If you don't have enough racists to make a "true" race movie, then make some up. Adds drama, you know. Besides, if you try and make a real person into something they aren't, it harms your point. In the movie, Bertier, one of the real stars of the Team, has a cheerleader girlfriend that won't accept his friendship with Big Julius, a Black teammate. In real life, Nancy Musser, Bertier's cheerleader girlfriend, was not racist. But hey- it gives us a dramatic reconciliation scene before the Championship game.

Okay, enough of the Titans for now. If you want more, look here. On to larger issues.

What Gregory Howard did was normal. When you want to show racism between Whites and Blacks, it always has to be only the Whites that have a problem. In the real world, Blacks are racist too- not all of them, of course, but I would wager that there are about as many racist Blacks as there are racist Whites, at least proportionally.

In the media, how does the racism get resolved? By the Whites learning their lesson, and accepting the Blacks as their equals. And to show their acceptance, they have to embrace Black culture. The White kid has to listen to rap music, learn to dance in the ghetto style, etc. and accept the Black into his world, while admitting that he has grown out of his inherent racism.

But it almost never goes the other way. When was the last time you saw a movie where the Black kid learned to love and accept his fellow man by listening to Celine Dion? Even if it were to happen (hah!), the underlying theme would be that he opens his mind to it, but still embraces "His" culture, without giving it up. He learns to move in both worlds-White and Black- while the White kid just learns that he can't understand where his Black brother is coming from.

And that's an injustice to everyone.

So go see "Remember the Titans". But just realize that most of the conflicts in the movie are artificial. Even the games weren't as close as the movie pretends- they only gave up 45 points the whole season (13 games including the playoffs), 30 of them in 2 games. That's why the '71 Titans are apparently still a legend around town. But even with all the fiction in their "true story", the movie is still pretty cool.

Later.

How not to win a war

The brilliance continues. Now the dhimmicrats in the senate are saying that they might pass legislation requiring Bush to get their approval before he can send more troops to Iraq.

I think they need to do some reading first. As I recall, Bush is the Commander in Chief. This means that he, how shall I put this, commands the military. If he wants to send more troops to Iraq, I don't think these morons have any constitutional basis to demand he gets their permission first. They have the right to refuse funding for the troops, which I suppose they could do. (I wish they would, so that the people could see where their priorities lie). Otherwise, I think it comes down to "advise and consent".

Then, I would suggest they read some history. There's a story that, during the Constitutional Convention, someone suggested that the US Army be limited in size to a certain number. George Washington, the story goes, rose and stated that he would support the idea, provided that they also put it in the Constitution that any country with which we went to war should be similarly limited.


Thus endeth debate on that topic. This is what happens when idiots are confronted with integrity and competence, by people that actually have a grasp of reality.

God, I despair of these morons. Is it required for a person to be completely brain-dead before they can become a democrat, or does it just seem that way?

Sigh.

Ah well, after that, it appears they'll have hearings (in public, I would wager), about how he's conducted the War. Because there's nothing better for troop morale than to have politicians talk about how screwed up the commanders are. But I bet the terrorists will love it. Along with all the other people that want to see the US humiliated and beaten.

As my father often said, "Stupidity reigns supreme".

Later.

Sic Semper Tyrannus

Oh, Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy....

Ding dong, the witch is dead, the witch is dead, the witch is dead...

When I went to bed last night, I had a feeling that the world would be a better place when I awoke today. And so it is. Saddam Hussein is gone, executed by the people he had so long terrorised. Wonderful.

Obviously, it won't end the war in Iraq. Nobody expects it to. But it eliminates one aspect of it, and pretty much ends the fear there of him returning to power. And it pisses off the Ramsey Clarks of the world, which is a bonus.

But trust the media in the West to find a way to spin it in a negative way. The AP story linked to in the title manages it well. Here's a little clip of the article, detailing the reactions among US troops there:

"U.S. troops cheered as news of Saddam's execution appeared on television at the mess hall at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in eastern Baghdad. But some soldiers expressed doubt that Saddam's death would be a significant turning point for Iraq.

"First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were none, it was that we had to find Saddam. We did that, but then it was that we had to put him on trial," said Spc. Thomas Sheck, 25, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "So now, what will be the next story they tell us to keep us over here?"

Wonderful. A brief one sentence mention that troops cheered, and then the rest is a mention that undermines it all. As I mentioned above, nobody thinks it'll be the end of the war. So they reiterate that belief, and then follow with a quote from a disgruntled soldier (the only one mentioned in the article). Hmmm. I wonder if they just couldn't find a soldier "in country" that thought the death of the former dictator would be a Good Thing. Bet they're hard to find there, huh?

I also thought of another point. This guy, Thomas Sheck, is being played. It's fine to have doubts about what you are doing. After Gulf War I, a war for which I was sorta almost involved, (I was in the Reserves, but my unit never got called up because the War ended so fast), a friend of mine went to Kuwait to teach English there. The stories he told me about the Kuwaitis made me wonder why we spent any blood or effort to free them. Even by Middle Eastern standards, the Kuwaitis are rotten people. And I remember thinking that if this was what we went to war for, then I wanted no part of it. However, I thought more about it, and realised that I had signed up for the Army, and had been paid to do a job. Picking and choosing what you will fight for, when you're a professional soldier isn't a valid choice. So I swallowed my doubts, and went on. As another friend put it at the time, when I had explained my doubts and then the choice I made, "You took the King's shilling." Bingo. End of moral conflict.

Okay, so this joker has his doubts. Soldiers do that. And they express them to people, usually those with whom they have a sense of rapport: Normally, you don't tell someone how you feel if you believe that they will disagree. Human nature wants reinforcement. Also, the military tends to frown upon soldiers that criticise their leaders and the national defence policy. However, young Thomas here told the press how he felt. Obviously, anyone with a brain would know that a person from the AP will agree with anyone that criticises Bush, Cheney, the War on Terror, etc. So he complained about being lied to. Wonderful. The problem is, I suspect this guy will get called on the carpet for that quote. They might not actually go to that extreme, but I'm 99% sure, based on my knowledge of the Army, that a quote like that falls into the category of Article 15/Court-martial offenses.

Let's assume the worst. Specialist Sheck gets disciplined formally for that quote. If he has any plans for a career in the military, they have suffered, at best, a minor setback. At worst, he'll be done whenever his current enlistment ends. Actions, consequences. In the broad scheme, okay whatever. So he gets booted from something that he wants. What happens now? Why he's a victim! The Army and the politicians screwed him over because he stood up for what he believed in. So that would tend to make him even more opposed to the people that sent him there. His attitude would slip more, and he would get more criticism. Which would lead to more anger, etc.

And if he gets thrown out of the Army, then he is a victim of the Establishment, that wouldn't allow a simple soldier to say what he thought. Isn't it horrible that a member of the military can be punished for exercising his right to Free Speech?

I wonder if the AP reporters there will manage to find him the next time they want a quote about something that happens in Iraq. Bet they will. And think of the time they'll save, by not having to run around interviewing random soldiers, hunting desperately for one that will say what they want to hear (and print).

And people wonder why I hate liberals and the mainstream media so much.

Later.

A wee bit misleading

Here's a story from Yahoo this morning. They say that Gerald Ford "Ford disagreed with Bush over Iraq invasion". Okay, fine. Makes it sound like Ford would never have invaded Iraq. Now first off, that's a matter of opinion. Secondly, it falls into the category of "appeal to authority", which I recall being listed as one of the primary logical fallacies.

And thirdly, it's not quite true. What he actually said is that he thought Bush over-emphasized the WMD argument. Which is of course true. (Remembering that the Senate resolution authorising force had twenty-some other reasons). Here's that quote: "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

Ford also said that he would have tried other means-sanctions, restrictions, etc- first.
Again, fine. Of course, we had tried sanctions, restrictions, etc before, and they never worked. But that's a minor problem, now isn't it?

Now here's an interesting thing: I first read the Yahoo article about 20 minutes ago. Looking over it again as I write this, I discovered that it isn't the same article. The newer version has things that I absolutely did NOT see in the original one. Things that I believe would have been slightly more favorable to Bush.

I hate to go all tin foil hat paranoid here, but why was this story changed in the course of 15-20 minutes? Either that or there are 2 versions of it.

This appears to be the case. Check this out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061228/pl_nm/ford_interview_dc_3 (This is the original piece)

And here's the latter one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061228/pl_nm/ford_interview_dc

Same headline, different article with different slant to it. Curious, isn't it?

(I hope that both links work. Now the original one seems to have disappeared entirely.)

Here it comes again

Just a while ago, while driving home, I passed a van that had the following bumper sticker on it:

Obama!
President 2008


Yippee. Already people are supporting him, and I doubt the woman (surprisingly, she was white) could name any solid reason to vote for him.

I assume that one would agree "He's Black" is not a valid reason to vote for him. On a less likely note, let's assume for the sake of argument that "He's a democrat" is also not a valid reason. The only thing I've ever heard of him doing is giving speeches. And over the last few months (at least leading up to the last elections), his most common theme seems to have been "elect more blacks to the Senate, since I'm getting lonely."

Wow. Brings a patriotic tear to your eye, doesn't it?

Ah well. Perhaps someday he'll propose a piece of legislation, or make a coherent and interesting speech that'll tell us more about him. At this point though, he seems to be running (or not. One never knows, do we?) [Note: I typed that last sentence with a straight face. I can do that for the bitch from New York also!] on the theme of "I'm young, black and charismatic. Elect me your next president because I deserve it."

Sadly, while I don't ever vote straight Republican, since I don't always agree with them, I never vote Democrat, since I swore them off after the clinton impeachment, when they lied their asses off about the lack of evidence, overturning elections, etc.. And at this point, it appears that we're gonna be stuck with liberal Republicans (read: mainstream Democrats), and whacked out leftists masquerading as mainstream Democrats.

Looks like '08 could be a Mickey Mouse kind of election, no?

Later.