Magic in the World of Harry Potter

[][][]

I believe in Magic.

Not the stuff we see on television, and certainly not as it's depicted in movies and most fiction, but it's real, and terribly tricky stuff. There's a lot of Magic in the Bible (and yes, I believe the Bible tells the truth), and it shows up in both good and bad hands. Yet Magic has gone away, for the most part, to be replaced by Technology. I would guess, if I had to, that there is a balnce of some sort, with Magic on one end and Technology on the other. Note that there are always people who seem to be able to use the tools available, and those people who are unable to use what's there.

I've been picking a bit on J.K. Rowling this week, and today is no exception. This is because her work is very good at times, which makes the flaws stand out a bit more. I understand it's tricky, but in the stories, it becomes very difficult to understand how Magic ability is developed. From age 11, young Harry Potter seems able to do amazing, by luck in some places, but by a process undefined in many others, as in his ability to create a Patronus. I find some of this a bit hard to accept; on the one hand, we're always hearing how much study and practice goes into working Magic, whether it's conjuring, drawing up a potion, or recognizing the tools available for a process. The stories make clear that Herry Potter does not study much more than any ordinary student, which (among other things) makes him the object of scorn from Professor Snape. Yet every so often - poof! - Potter is able to get or do what he needs or really wants, whether it's mastering broom flying well enough to play on the Gryffindor Quidditch team his first year, or discovering secrets about the school unknown to students in their last year, and even some of the teachers. How ... convenient. I don't like convenient in a story, when it pops up too often, and it certainly shows up too often in the 'Potter' stories.

Just because I have thought about it some (having played my share of D&D in the old days), I divide Magic into three sorts:

Magic which is contained in an object - and therefore can be used up or worn out, and only does a very limited number of things, and only to a certain degree

Magic which resides in a person - this can be developed, but only with practice, and only up to the limit of a person's ability to control the force and direct it

Magic granted by a patron - This showed up a lot in the Bible, God granting powers when He so desired, to His prophets and seers and leaders.


The more I think about the 'Potter' world, and see the special exceptions made to make Harry Potter succeed with less effort than other people, the more I understand Severus Snape.

'Fifty points from Gryffindor, I think, for playing about with the order of things.'

Snape would have made a fair literary critic, I think.

A Brief Critique of Harry Potter's World

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I am still thinking over the world created by Ms. Rowling for her “Harry Potter” series, and I have noticed a troubling aspect; Justice does not seem to play a prominent role in it.

Consider, as an example, poor Harry’s run-ins with the Ministry of Magic. In one of the books, Dobby the house-elf comes to visit Harry and levitates a plate of food, for which the Ministry blames Harry and issues a stern warning. In a later book, when Harry loses his temper and inflates a relative like a balloon, he is clearly in the wrong, but this time receives no punishment at all from the Minister of Magic, who personally smooths things over for Harry. Still later, Harry is forced to use magic in self-defense against Dementors (which were, he later learns, sent after him by an employee of the Ministry of Magic), and for that the Ministry attempts to expel him from Hogwarts and destroy his wand.

The same thing exists with the legal system. The Ministry acts with no sort of due process, only a sham ritual which allows for no serious chance at a defense. For instance, when Hagrid’s Hippogriff attacks a student who insults it (after being warned that such an attack would happen if provoked), the Ministry decides to kill the animal even before the appeal is heard. Similarly, we find that Sirius Black was sentenced to Azkaban Prison with little in the way of a trial, and no legal defense for him at all. And later, even though Harry is honest about what he has seen or heard, the Death Eaters sent to Azkaban are also sentenced with no province for their defense. It is chilling to consider the scope of a governmental power with no respect for any sort of dissent, even a fair review of its own actions.

Hogwarts is much the same. Teachers are allowed to give or take points to or from the Houses for any success or foul, or even on a whim, as they please. Accordingly, it is difficult to believe that the much-vaunted House Cup has any true value, as it depends a great deal more on whom the staff likes, than on what the actual students do. The same thing for detention, which may be applied with no restrictions or standards of any kind.

In the course of the book, Harry Potter and his friends do a great many things which may be described as reckless and irresponsible. It appears that the world in which they live would have it no other way.

Thoughts on the "Harry Potter" Stories

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

I am in the process of reading the Harry Potter series, and have finally found my way to book 6, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". I admit it took me a while to give J.K. Rowling a try, and I would say that I was both wrong and right in my initial reluctance.

I was right to some degree. Rowling introduces a lot of characters in her stories, and she has had a bit of trouble making all of them believable, or creating the sort of depth of character one likes to see in novels. A good example is Voldemort; for such an important character he's paper-thin in personal depth, and annoyingly predictable. It's also difficult to believe he is some kind of Mastermind, given how badly he seems to blunder a lot more than someone of his ability should suffer. His victories are always heard about only in passing, and never seem to rank up with his defeats. Rowling seems to have drawn up Voldemort only as a foil for Potter, and this is a distinct disappointment in the stories.

That said, Rowling has done an exceptional job with many of the other characters. Since she is an Inkblot, I would say that she did more with Dumbledore, than Tolkien did with Gandalf, and that's saying something. I especially liked the way that Harry Potter has developed, making mistakes and going through doubt and worry like any boy his age. I like the Weasley family, particularly the sibling rivalry between Ron and his brothers. I also thought it especially good, how Rowling not only makes some of the outcasts appealing, like Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom, but makes them integral to certain elements of the story. To that point, Rowling has a nice touch about telling the lesson of how things may come back around - Harry's basic decency to Dobby early on, pays a lot of dividends later, and the same thing shows up in other places. Everything counts, though you don't always see it on the surface.

And then there is Snape. Obviously, everyone interested in the story is trying to sort him out. I am beginning to suspect that Snape is one of those 'hiding in plain sight' guys, the kind who turns out to be rather like he appeared, but you lost him in all the talk and action. What I mean is, I think that in the end, Snape will turn out to be the sort of fellow who is driven by his emotions, even as he keeps them concealed. Snape hates Potter, but he hates the Dark Lord more. Why? Because if you think about it, the nemesis of Snape is not Harry Potter but James Potter, the arrogant powerful type who can do exactly as he pleases. Harry Potter looks enough liek Snape to set off Snape, but in the end, it's Voldemort whose character is the most like James Potter's cruel nature. So, in the end Snape will turn on his former Master, to Potter's benefit - but these two will never be friends. I like that; in real life there's many times you have to cooperate with someone you despise, yet need.

To those who think the 'Potter' series is somehow anti-Christian or supports witchcraft, let me set your mind at ease. There's a good deal of symbolism in the stories, and more than a few lessons one could apply to Bible Study (and I might do just that, if there is any interest). I do not, however, see anything that is designed to lead people away from Christ, or oppose Christian teaching. Yes, it's true that there are no obviously Christian symbols in the story, but then C.S. Lewis' 'Perelandra' and 'Narnia' series held none of that either, yet they are well-affirmed as Christian literature. Subtlety sometimes is the better way...

Most of all, the 'Potter' series is an engrossing tale, with a lot of good lessons and worthwhile characters. If you have not read the books, you might want to give them a try.

A Monday Break

...

Hard Day at Work.

Catching up on Harry Potter.

Post tomorrw, but not now.

Reason to the Wind

||||||

Back when I was certified as an official in several sports, I learned a lot about the games, and about human nature. An official has three basic responsibilities in any sport; Safety, consistent and objective application of the Rules, and to encourage Sportsmanship. Usually, the aspect of Sportsmanship was the easiest to enforce, because most school districts and sports associations also pursue this ideal with great energy. There were two occasions however, when Sportsmanship was tested and sometimes gave way to bitterness; on very close contests of importance, and when the game was a blow-out.

In fact, the worst offenses of poor sportsmanship happened in the blow-outs. In close contests, the comptetitors were aware that the penalty for a foul could be the deciding factor in the game, so there was a natural deterrent to avoid commiting a personal foul. When a game was clearly out of reach, however, the losing team often felt they had nothing to lose by "sending a message", even if that foul was serious enough to merit expulsion from the game and a heavy penalty on the team. That seems to be what is going on right now with the Democratic Party.

I have been trying to sort out the logic behind many of the words and actions taken by leading Democrats. It occurs to me now, that the Democrats consider the present race out of their control, and they have resorted to trying to get in any shot they can, even if it means living by the cheap shot.

Why Blogs Live, and Must Grow

[#][#]

“As a news anchor at the highest echelon, Jennings had a front-row seat at the biggest events and stories of the last quarter century and, as the special repeatedly showed, he made the most of it, always taking his journalistic obligations to heart.”

Reuters eulogy for Peter Jennings, August 12 2005

"He established a level of trust with the viewer that would be difficult for anyone else to match going forward."

Tom Bettag, CBS News executive producer, quoted in the New York Times continuing attempt to canonize Peter Jennings

“Veteran newsman Peter Jennings was remembered Monday as an outstanding journalist, a hard worker and a man of conscience and integrity.”

CNN obituary for Peter Jennings


“Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”

- The always-objective Peter Jennings' on-air national broadcast assessment of the 1994 midterm elections, when the first clear signs of the fall of Democratic Party from its control of the U.S. Congress

“Next week on ABC’s World News Tonight, a series of reports about our environment which will tell you precisely what the new Congress has in mind: the most frontal assault on the environment in 25 years.”

- DNC mascot Jennings’ unfounded indictment of the Republican-controlled Congress, 1995

“The President’s tax cut is beginning to show up. Will three extra dollars stimulate the national economy?”

- Economic expert Jennings sneers at the notion that Americans deserve to keep more of their own money, 2003.

“The Secretary of Defense said today that those people who are questioning the effectiveness of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan are too impatient, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said much the same thing. The Pentagon is being pressed harder to be specific about what it has accomplished so far. The bombing campaign against the Taliban is now entering its fourth week, and the Taliban are still standing.”

- Jennings, noted military strategist, sneers at the war in Afgahnistan, 2001.

“This week we were surprised to see several hundred artists and writers walking through the streets of Baghdad to say thank you to Saddam Hussein. He had just increased their monthly financial support. Cynical, you could argue with this particular time, but the state has always supported the arts, and some of the most creative people in the Arab world have always been Iraqis. And whatever they think about Saddam Hussein in the privacy of their homes, on this occasion they were praising his defense of the homeland in the face of American threats.”

- Social guru Jennings explains how Saddam was really the victim, 2003.


And of course, no review of the Peter Jennings saga would be complete without a glimpse at his conscience and objectivity:

“We all have baggage, but one of the good things about journalists is that they recognize bias and work hard to keep it out of their coverage.”

- Jennings defends against charges of media bias, 2002.

(Source for all Jennings quotes, and there’s much much more)



Look, I’m not one for bashing a guy when he’s just died, but if you really want to know why the MainPain Media is losing market share and a steadily growing number of alternative resources are being sought for analysis and an overview, like Talk Radio, Cable News, and blogs of course, just look over these statements, and consider that, in the opinion of the speakers, they’re not lying. They really believe that bilge, and they promote it because it’s what they themselves are made of, at their core.

God save the blogs.

John Zogby and the Return of the 10-Foot Poll

%#&$*!

In the interest of full disclosure, I will begin by saying that I neither like nor respect John Zogby. During the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election campaign, Mr. Zogby not only mixed his telephone respondent pool with his online respondent poll for a number of his opinion polls, he also voiced a clear advocacy for John Kerry’s campaign, most egregiously when he bluntly stated in June that Kerry would win the Presidential election. Within a month, Zogby was backing off the promise, but the evidence of his clear partiality was already plain, and for a professional pollster to make the statements Zogby did, betrays either an unconscionable bias, or such slipshod methodology as to make his conclusions worthless as a barometer of public opinion.

I received an e-mail from Mr. Zogby this week, one of those broadcast types we see form companies trying to sell a product while implying that they are sending you a personal message. My thoughts about Zogby’s practices having been published last summer and fall, I am under no illusion that Mr. Zogby is seeking out my opinion of his statements, but as I have received the e-mail, my response is forthcoming anyway.

Writing for a periodical identified only as “The Financial Times”, Mr. Zogby began his article so:

“I have received a flurry of calls from reporters in the past few days
asking me to clarify something difficult to understand. They suggested that George W. Bush, US president, had had a very good week and wondered why his cluster of successes had not been reflected in the national polls.”

Interesting statement. At first glance, once might be led to believe that Mr. Zogby is referring to the standard coterie of MSM reporters, but even they are not likely to Dubya as “George W. Bush, US President”. That odd formality smacks of the European mind, and the old continental style at that. It also explains the name of the periodical; in the U.S., political news is reported by political papers and political sections of magazines. The Europeans are quite unlikely to give even a rat’s hindquarters about the state of a President’s popularity, except where money is involved, and the condition of their own investments is quite likely to be driven by the U.S. Stock Market, which supposedly is affected by the popularity of the President.

Zogby goes on to cite the Gallup Poll, his own piece of work, CBS and Ipsos-Reid. He completely ignores all the other polls, which only reinforces my earlier opinion of his inability to see beyond his sneer, a common Liberal trait but a weakness in a professional. I note that Zogby has taken only one of Gallup’s indictors, instead of the more balanced array of questions that group employs, and as for CBS/Zogby/Ipsos, the clear anti-Bush bias in those polls has been documented and reported many times and long ago, by myself and others. I suppose the next step for Zogby, would have been to quote Carville, but as it would happen, the Democracy Corps poll’s most recent numbers for the President show him at 46 percent, which is actually higher than the point Zogby is trying to sell. It truly says something, when James Carville has more respect for the President than John Zogby can manage to observe. I guess John didn’t poll in all of the Red States. . .

Zogby made a weak effort to sound balanced, as he noted that specific pieces of legislation rarely excite the public, but being Zogby, he moved on to try to sell his schtick again, and as usual, got in trouble with the facts. Zogby wrote:

“most important, the US is still polarized [sic] over the war in Iraq and half the nation is still bitter over the 2004 election. Mr Bush's presidency is all about Iraq. This is fitting because it is what he and his team wanted from the time they took office.”

This is, for those of you not familiar with the Zogby style, a formation of claims known to many people plainly as a pack of lies. Most Americans support the War in Iraq, although everyone is grieved by the continuing violence. The overwhelming majority of people not named Moore, Dean, or Zogby have gotten past the election. Indeed, it’s difficult to find a rational person who even brings up the election results these days. Claiming that Bush’s Administration is all about Iraq is just a poor attempt to ignore the many successes of Dubya’s service so far, and to pretend that the President and his Administration wanted a war “from the time they took office”, is the kind of tripe one normally has to go to Daily Kos to suffer.

So, in the end, nothing is changed. John Zogby, like most other high-profile Liberals, has reached the end of reason, and then chose to dive off the deep end into full-blown hysteria.

Say ‘hello’ to Maureen Dowd, John.

What’s the word for ‘oops’ in Jihad? ‘Merde’?

()*()*()*()

I was watching ABC last night, as they gave effusive praise to Peter Jennings, who apparently is destined to be the first MSM Newscaster canonized by the Church of, well, the Church of the Secular Deceivers, I guess. ABC sure didn’t praise Reagan or Pope John Paul II this much.

Anyway, along the joyful praise being issued by the network, I caught an interesting comment from Peter Jennings about September 11th, to the effect that looking back, we see things much differently than we did on the day itself. As an MSM Anchor, Jennings focused on the confusion, fear, and mistakes he saw in American actions at the time, which doubtless was just what bin Laden and his cronies hoped and planned to create. But the lesson also reminded me to consider how differently things have come along, from what those murdering bastards thought ahead of the event.

In 1999, the United States appeared to be in retreat. During the Clinton years, the U.S. sent troops to many places, but they always left the existing governments in power. Haiti kept its dictator, so did China and North Korea, and of course Saddam kept his palaces and his bribe deals with the U.N. Afghanistan belonged to the Taliban, Syria controlled a bunch of territory outside its nominal borders, China was buying WMD technology, and - you get the idea. Small wonder Somekinda bin Addled figured that a hard shot to America’s pride would hurt us badly. Instead, bin Stupid discovered the difference between a hot flash and genuine Fury.

A lot of people get angry in a flash, and get over it just as quickly. Even nations do this, as the French are such obvious examples. But true Fury is something else entirely, and America is a nation with a history of Fury. Fury is when you not only kick out the oppressive overlords, but you set up a Constitution for an entirely new set of laws to prevent their kind from returning. Fury is when you are willing to destroy half your country, rather than allow the union to be dissolved. Fury is when you are willing to send hundreds of thousands of your young men around the world to fight an evil for years on end. The United States has fought wars not only for the normal selfish reasons, but to end injustice, remove oppressive regimes, and to instill Democracy around the world. New tactics, new weapons, and new laws have all been developed to carry on these fights, and only a complete fool could miss the lesson of that History. O-Ima big Thug is just such a fool.

I’ve said it before, but it’s still worth saying again. We are winning, and have already won a lot of major battles. If the MSM spent even a quarter as much time on the facts in the Middle East, as they do on praising their own overpaid talking hairpieces, this would be far better understood by the American public.

Cautery

XOXOXOXOXOX

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb which destroyed the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later on August 9, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb, this time on the city of Nagasaki, Japan. In both cases, the cities targeted were utterly destroyed. It is salient to note that Japan refused to surrender, even after these attacks, until August 14. On that day, just hours after Ministers Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda argued that it was still possible for Japan to defeat the Allied forces, the Japanese government resolved to surrender, only and specifically because of the request made by Emperor Hirohito: “It is my desire that you, my Ministers of State, accede to my wishes and forthwith accept the Allied reply". In this way, the Second World War of the 20th century ended at last, making way for the Cold War already in progress.

The debate over the use of the atom bomb in World War 2 has been rashly cast over the years, with the U.S. most often portrayed as the aggressor. The stubborn refusal of the Japanese cabinet to surrender, even after the use of two atom bombs, clearly shows the need for extreme measures, especially given the clear cost of a conventional invasion. Also, the United States needed to send a clear message to the Soviet Union, to demonstrate a capacity which would deter the clear aggression planned by Stalin. And, to be frank, it worked.

The use of nuclear weapons is hardly trivial or a simple decision. But the decision was made for hard and valid reasons, and while whiners and the short-sighted attempt to rewrite History, the men who had the hard decisions, took it on themselves to make the choice. A painful cost now, may well be better than allowing a danger to spread. A lesson worth retelling.

Why The Blue Meanies Rage

[][][]

I was thinking last night, that many times people do not see greatness in its time.

Many of America's Founding Fathers were taunted and ridiculed. Abraham Lincoln was much maligned in the press during the Civil War, and what the British press had to say about Winston Churchill before World War 2 and shortly after its end was far from flattering. Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were both mocked by the bluebloods of their day, and in their turn Jack Kennedy and Barry Goldwater were ridiculed as men who didn't know their business. And of course, there was Reagan, a man the press loved to vilify, calling him evil or foolish or both at every chance.

Now they are heroes all. Their detractors deny ever doubting their greatness, and once the evidence of their success was undeniable, all claim to have been believers from the start.

With that in mind, look at the accomplishments of George W. Bush. Aside from freeing a few dozen million people, creating a foothold for Democracy and Equal Rights in a region which has never broadly known these things before, his redirection of American Politics and the potential future with better security (economic as much as national) for all Americans suggests that Dubya will enjoy at least the reputation Reagan does now.

And as for the Screaming Blue Meanies of the Left? Well, who remembers who lost to Churchill, or who led the Democrats during the eighties? Small wonder they are so angry. Unable to keep the power their predecessors left them, they will receive only the oblivion their policies and tactics deserve.

A Sea Change, and A Return To Tradition

[]+[]+[]

A Russian mini-sub was successfully rescued this weekend by a British “Super-Scorpio” robot submarine. Seven crew members have been recovered off the coast of Kamchatka, but most of the details have been kept from the public so far.

The mission was a collaboration between Russia, Britain, and the United States. The present public story, is that the Russians provided the best known information about the mini-sub’s location to the Americans, who flew the Super-Scorpio into place to cut the submarine loose.

The choice of operational duties is telling, however. The United States Navy’s Deep Submergence Unit also has robot submarines capable of doing just what the Super-Scorpio performed. Also, earlier reports from Friday indicated that the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy already had rescue vessels in the immediate area. The reasons for choosing to move a specialized unit in this fashion is food for a great deal of speculation, but I think it was three-fold:

First, the history. In August of 2000, the Russian nuclear Submarine Kursk suffered an explosion and sank, killing all 118 crew members. The full explanation for why the Russian Government refused aid offered by other nations, including the United States and Britain, has never been presented and many never come out in public, but the Russians seem determined to avoid a similar blunder this time.

Second, geopolitics. Regarding the nature of the exercise, it is telling that Vladimir Putin is on better terms with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, than with most of his European counterparts. This is in many ways a return to form for the Russians. As far back as Catherine the Great, Russia has been interested in learning the tactics and stratagems of both British and American naval officers, and when the Soviet Navy came into its own influence under Admiral Gorshkov, he was strongly influenced by Mahan and Corbett, although he was also properly impressed by the more recent examples from Halsey and Nimitz. It is extremely likely that under the present conditions, Admiral Federov is determined to glean as much information as he can with the UK-US navies, and to build as much trust as he can. This is because of the basic fact of Sea Power; no nation can hold any sort of regional hegemony and intercontinental influence, without a substantial navy. The empires of the past fell in large part because they were one-dimensional in their military force. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, the Persians, even the ancient Chinese kingdoms all fell because they could not defend their flanks from an enemy. Alexander introduced the use of naval action independent of land movements, which created a new level of mobility and power projection. The Romans carried this to the next level, and in the bargain gained a means to control trade shipping as well. Britain, as is now understood, perfected the use of Sea Power, building a far-flung empire by providing itself a means to reach virtually any nation on the globe with military force. The Japanese Navy introduced the next level of power projection through its development of a Carrier fleet, which notion the United States itself perfected, destroying the Japanese fleet in the same process. By 1945, the United States was the world’s clear military leader, in large part because of the multiple dimensions of attack available to its choice. Since that time, the gap between the United States and everyone else has simply grown to a chasm, then become a canyon, and is not likely to be caught in the foreseeable future. But the British are no slackers. While the United States has built its capital ships principally for power projection and nuclear deterrence and reconnaissance, the United Kingdom has built its forces to serve its needs. The 1982 Falklands War is seen by many people as an essential draw, but this is not the case; leaving aside the question of the terms of cease-fire, the United Kingdom proved that it was quite capable to sending a military force of whatever size was need, anywhere it is needed. The British habit of understatement has hidden the many successes in the field produced by their troops, but it’s worth noting that a regiment of SAS is to be prized or feared (depending on whether you are with them or against them) more than virtually any other group its size on the Earth. When military men want to improve themselves, they visit Quantico and Sandhurst if they can.

The final reason is obvious, by simply reading the news and noting a globe. The fall of the old Soviet Union hit the Russians hard, but especially their Navy. There are few resources for training and maintenance, which are critical elements for a functional navy. John Keegan sagely observed that a large piece of Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar, came from the keen edge of training the British sailors had. The Russians know this lesson well, but are ill-suited to scrape up the means to keep the Russian navy ready. And this provides a strategic threat that needs a look.

In the years leading up to World War 2, the intention of Japan to control Asia was plain, and the United States took action to prevent this through the imposition of stiff tariffs and a blockade. The invasion of China was planned by Japan, to provide it with key resources necessary for the war, but Japan failed to gain the necessary metals and oil to keep its industry functioning. China has studied this lesson for more than a half century, because of the same ambition, and like Japan, with a wary eye on American actions.

Siberia is a largely undeveloped portion of the world, largely due to its remote location and inhospitable climate. However, recent discoveries of certain exotic metals greatly increases the attractiveness of Siberia to a nation planning to greatly increase its manufacturing capabilities, especially in heavy industry, as China does. Also, China has made a number of claims over the past decade to oil fields located in the waters between the Philippines and Vietnam, and in the China Sea; there have even been attempts by Chinese naval forces to secure some of the disputed fields by chasing away civilian vessels with threats of personal capture or seizure of their vessels.

Russia has a strategic interest in preventing China from gaining such control of resources, and doubtless Putin has reminded Bush and Blair, that they also need to watch out for China’s intentions. There is no better signal for Russia to send, in the event of a naval incident like this, than to show the Chinese that the Americans and the British consider Russia a friend.

Finally, the rescue of the Russian mini-sub shows a welcome return to an old imperative, one worthy of recognition but lost long ago. As recently as World War 1, if a ship was sunk, all ships in the vicinity were expected to lend assistance in recovering survivors, even from an enemy vessel. In fact, failure to lend assistance was considered an inexcusable negligence, and could cost a captain his command and career. When German submarines sank ships without attempting to assist in rescue efforts (for which they were never designed, anyway), the British played up the incidents as evidence of barbarism. By World War 2, the chivalry to rescuing enemy combatants was long gone, and the Cold War saw no improvement in the practice.

The cooperation in the rescue effort this past weekend is a small but significant step, therefore, in the restoration in the Brotherhood of the Sea, and sets a precedent that will, if carried ahead, set a course to the advantage of every nation concerned.

Hot Time

.!.!.!.!.

Whew, it's hot. Too hot for the normal topics, so courtesy of Bob Byers, a list of ways you know you're in Texas during Summer:

[] The trees are whistling for the dogs to come on over

[] The birds have to use potholders to pull worms out of the ground

[] The best parking space is determined by shade instead of distance

[] Hot water now comes out of both taps

[] You learn that a sealt-belt buckle makes a pretty good branding iron

[] If the temperature drops below 95, you feel like you need to go put a sweater on

[] You discover it only takes 2 fingers to steer the steering wheel

[] You notice that asphalt has a liquid state.

Tax Talk

$$$$$$$$

Steve Forbes was on the radio again last week, pushing his ‘Flat Tax ' proposal, which had the benefit of sparking debate on reforming the IRS and Income Tax, but had the distinct weakness of tossing out an old half-considered plan in the guise of a complete product. What Mr. Forbes fails to realize now is precisely what he has failed to see before; the Flat Tax, at least he describes it, is a non-starter.

I certainly agree that the Internal Revenue Service needs a refit, and the entire Tax Code must be replaced with something that most people will agree is acceptable. Not fair, not perfect, not some impractical nirvana where nothing is ever bad for anyone, but at least an acceptable system where the average taxpayer has reason to believe he is being treated with a modicum of respect and a general attempt at objective balance has at least been made. But there are a number of ways to get there, and part of the matter begins with accepting that with hundreds of millions of taxpayers, there is a minimum level of complexity which must exist. That complexity has three legs on which any plan stands; organization, income, and audit.

Without going overboard into the somnorific qualities of tax codes, there are three basic contenders for tax reform; a Flat Tax, like the 17% rate proposed by Forces, a tax on Consumption, like the proposed National Sales Tax, and a reformed Progressive-Rate Income Tax. All have their advantages and disadvantages. And all are based on the need to develop a functional system which pays for the government without crating a general resentment of itself. This is why the most principal quality of a tax code is proper organization. You will need a means to collect revenue, a means to report it and file the necessary paperwork, and you need a means to enforce your code. The present organization suffers, because the system of collecting revenue is punitive towards the average wage-earner, while it allows corporations and the wealthy to believe they can play with the works. Not many do, but the impression is enough to cause a great deal of trouble. The Flat Tax and the Progressive-Rate Tax both suffer from this condition, while the Consumption Tax is better-suited to acquire the revenue smoothly and with an appearance of balance.

The second leg is Income. The United States 2006 Federal Budget is an estimated $2.6 Trillion , against an expected $2.2 Trillion in revenue, representing an outlay of 19.9% of the GDP. Obviously that’s a lot of pork, but for here it is important to note that it explains the effective average paid of $17,368 per taxpayer. And yes, that’s just for your federal taxes. Whatever system you use, it has to produce approximately $334 a week in federal tax revenue from each and every taxpayer. This is the problem for the Consumption Tax; you’d have to calculate accurately just how much to charge, and whether or not to exempt staples besides the existing basics. And the bottom line, is that unless and until the Federal Government gets really serious about taking a chainsaw to spending, there’s not really going to be such a thing as a serious tax cut; a large chunk of the voting public is not going to like whatever system is chosen, and the Congress will take a hit from the unhappy voters, but in a way that by definition cannot be predicted. Just in case you were wondering why so many Congressmen are happy to say the Tax Code needs reform, but most refuse to go into specifics about what plan they support.

Next, no matter what sort of plan is implemented, taxpayers will need audits. For one thing, there are people who will try to cheat no matter how fair a system is, and also, there will be many people who will not like the new system, whatever is chosen. Also, despite the complex nature of modern life, there are an amazing number of people able to miss basic facts of life, and doing your taxes properly is generally considered an aberration, and will be viewed with prejudice no matter how simple a method of reporting is designed. The notion of ‘doing your taxes on a postcard’, or not having to file at all, is as naïve as the initial claim that an Income Tax would never claim more than four or five percent of a taxpayer’s income. Obviously, any system which allows for deductions means paperwork and mistakes and cheating to some degree, but so does a system which bases revenue on the merchants turning in the money – a merchant can increase his profit margin by cheating on what he pays to the government, so the Consumption Tax would also need a close eye. And as for the Fair Tax? Without deductions, it would come down to people honestly reporting income. It would drive a new resentment of class, because the lower-middle class lives pretty much on paychecks, while the lowest classes and professional classes are able to work “off the books”; the poorest because their employer wants to avoid government checks on his conditions, the professional because he can arrange such terms. This cannot be anything but a problem in convincing the average taxpayer to accept radical change.

Also, there needs to be considered the most likely effect of each system. For example, I used to be a referee in high school sports, which was difficult, took long hours and was expensive. The only thing which made it workable, was that I could file Schedule C on the officiating fees I received, balancing the money I got against the costs of my equipment and my travel to clinics, scrimmages, and games. If a tax system which allowed deductions was to be replaced with something else, the sports official would either be penalized for his income without a chance to claim his necessary expenses, or else buying the materials needed to do the job would increase in cost through the Consumption tax. In either case, no official would be willing to work at the same rates as before; the change in tax conditions would require a few increase. Or, to put it another way, no matter what system is put into place, some of the workforce will suffer under it and demand compensation, while those who gain from the new system will demand to keep their gains as a right. Any new system will necessarily be inflationary and also damage consumer confidence in the short term. In many ways, reforming the Tax Code will be a bit like adopting several teenagers into your family; expensive, noisy, full of surprises and things that wreck your plans.

After all this, I am not saying that a Consumption Tax or a Flat Tax cannot work, simply that their proponents have not thought things through even half so far as they need, and until that happens, the only changes we may expect will be timid, incremental, and politically rewarding for their sponsor.

New York Propaganda Review

[][]////[][]\\\\[][]

Well, the New York Times is at it again. Courtesy of Real Clear Politics, the NYT has published an editorial attacking “Congressional China bashers”, for their decision not to hand over a strategic prize to Red China. The problem in doing an autopsy on anything from the Times, is deciding where to begin. The ubiquitous abandonment of facts is a given, but the way in which rational analysis is savaged and ripped from the piece by the various editors makes it difficult to identify the victim. Which provides the first point of reference, actually: I noticed as I began to look at the corpse, that the Times has not bothered to sign a name to their work. As an aside, it occurs to me that one reason blogs carry at least a minimal level of credibility, is that the blog author has his/her name attached to the work; none of this anonymous presentation of a piece which everyone can claim they had no connection with, should it bomb in public opinion. Weasel Journalism, that.

Next is the title: “No Way to Treat a Dragon”. My, what a choice. First off, dragons are mythical, which is to say fictitious, creatures – they are not real. Rather like China’s long-term capability of making and keeping business contracts. There is not, for example, a single privately-owned business of a billion dollars’ worth or greater which has done business with China to its profit for even one decade yet. That is a big red flag, if you’ll pardon the imagery, to any investor capable of comprehending a financial statement, which admittedly is a skill beyond the abilities of the NYT editors.

But just that title creates the air that the United States somehow owes the People’s Republic of China deference, in the manner of a humble man addressing the majesty of a celestial creature. Leaving aside other comparisons between the United States and China, to imply (as the Times does here) that the USA’s business climate and conditions are such that we are obliged to treat China as an equal, let alone a superior financial power, is to display an appalling ignorance of how finance, trade, and strategic resources operate.

Here’s how the Times summarized the attempt by China to take over Unocal: “Facing crippling delays imposed by Congress, Cnooc, a state-controlled Chinese oil company, has now withdrawn its $18.5 billion bid for Unocal, conceding the prize to Chevron”. That is, having found the foreign offer unsuitable, the United States Congress acted responsibly, and took actions which worked in favor of the American-held oil company remaining in the control and ownership of Americans. The technical terms for keeping a strategic interest out of foreign hands would include “wise”, “sound”, even “smart”. To the Times, however, it was “a loss for the United States' global interests, and it sets a dangerous precedent of dealing with China by demonizing the Chinese”. Sorry, but that doesn’t come close to being accurate. Serious and competent businessmen do not throw a tantrum, just because they do not get what they want, and denying a strategic resource to a nation likely to use it to America’s disadvantage does not 'demonize' China, anymore than anyone who voted for Bush last year was automatically questioning Kerry’s patriotism.

But it gets even sillier. The Times then goes on to opine that keeping strategic resources in American hands “risks turning China, an emerging Superpower, into an aggressive opponent rather than simply a global competitor.” Bull patties. First off, in no substantive way is China a “superpower”; they enjoy regional hegemony in certain areas, but for their size surprisingly small influence or real power. Second, until China allows for a true Free Market, there is no way that real businessmen can trust their statements, which amount to allowing the Chinese government to audit itself, and present the numbers with nothing remotely like due diligence. You wouldn’t buy a used car for five thousand without expecting an independent confirmation of its condition; only a complete moron would suggest a multi-billion dollar deal with a nation which refuses to allow independent audits.

Ever the self-convinced, the Times pushes on: “So the way has been paved for tit-for-tat retaliation. That could be a precursor to escalation, which, in turn, could be the catalyst for a serious economic clash. Congress has already spent the summer considering half a dozen proposals for across-the-board tariffs against Chinese imports. The Bush administration is also trying to forcibly stem the flow of Chinese textiles into the United States.” In English, that simply means that the United States, a true First-World nation, is being very careful to make sure it is not bound by unreasonable requirements from China, a Second-World nation. I’m sure the Chinese government would like more contracts on the level as they received from LORAL during the Clinton Administration, but Dubya is the kind of man to check the door before he opens it, much less let you date his family. Keeping an eye on companies and capacities the U.S. cannot afford to lose, is not “tit-for-tat retaliation”, it’s good sense. But then, good sense has been missing from the Times for quite a while.

The Law of Ko

[]X[]X[]X[]

There's an old saying; What comes around, goes around. For some reason, it never seems to occur to people, that this applies to politics as well.

The Republicans sat on their hands during the 1920s, and so they lost power for a generation.

Eisenhower did nothing about the USSR, and so JFK came into the White House.

Richard Nixon abused his power, and so we had to endure 2 terms of Bubba.

But the other way works, too...

FDR changed the government to his liking, and now W gets his chance to set things right, especially in the courts.

Harry Truman fired a general for not putting politics ahead of the war, and wver since then Democrats have had trouble supporting troops, who for their part have had no trouble supporting Republicans.

Lyndon Johnson proved a single President could undermine a nation, so now Dubya is proving a single President can help new nations stand on their own.

We still have yet to see the rebound from 40 years of Socialist domination in Academia and Congress, but it will come, it will come.

Ko.

Barbarians Judging The Faithful

~~~~~~~

On his radio show, host and author Hugh Hewitt (who has also applied to become the next President of the University of Colorado, along with an assortment of fancies and whimsical posts) often likes to match wits with various guests and opponents. Sometimes with respect, sometimes otherwise.

A little while back, Tom Tancredo opined that the United States should make known a simple policy, in the event a nuclear weapon is discharged in the territorial United States; if a nuke goes off anywhere in the U.S., the United States would destroy Mecca with a nuclear strike. Tancredo believes that such a warning/threat/malicious fantasy would act as a deterrent against a nuclear attack on the United States, while Hewitt believes it would only set off a new recruiting drive by the terrorists, as if they would lay low and play nice if we only said good things about their faith. I find serious problems with both contentions.

First, to Mr. Tancredo. Imagine an enemy of the United States, which wanted very badly for the U.S. to get caught up in a prolonged and bitter war, with no reasonable chance of a constructive result, which would allow this enemy to make significant gains in influence and power around the world, while the U.S. declined in money, power, and credibility. All that enemy would need to do in the Tancredo Scenario, is to arrange to set off a nuclear device inside the United States. When the U.S. destroyed Mecca in retaliation, the ensuing worldwide campaign against the United States by enraged Muslims would dwarf anything seen as a religious conflict before. The United States would be very unlikely to lose such a war because of its resources and caliber of military, but it would be even less likely to conclude that war in anything less than a generation, and the lasting hatred of America for such an act would do permanent damage to relations worldwide. In essence, if the United States used nuclear weapons on a religious center known to be free of any sort of strategic weapons, on anything less than complete and compelling forensic and empirical proof of direct involvement by leaders in that city, such an action would be to permanently abdicate any right to leadership in any moral or idealist sense. And who would be capable of such a provocation? China, India, even Pakistan or Iran under certain circumstances, are all capable and inclined to put just such a strategy to work if they knew the U.S. would strike Mecca instead of them. This alone completely discredits Tancredo’s suggestion, not that there is any situation where I would automatically advocate the use of nuclear weapons as the first and immediate course of action. Even the old Soviet Union understood that the cost of Nuclear Weapons outweighed their positive value, except in the case of Internal Security. Simply put, nations kept Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent against a foreign first strike, but this was on the assumption that such a strike would be massive and obvious in origin. The use of a nuclear device by a terrorist cell of uncertain origin would be another matter entirely, and the assumption that only one potential enemy must be at fault, and that a non-aggressor should be struck in retaliation, is simply not an acceptable course of action.

As for Mr. Hewitt, the problem of Muslim complicity in the Wahabist Jihad cannot be overlooked. The problem can be summed up by examining the numbers. Perhaps fifty to one hundred thousand Muslims are active participants in the militant Jihad of Fasict Islam, a small number indeed compared to the estimated 1.4 Billion Muslims in the world. Yet a far smaller portion of Muslims have spoken out against the Fascists, implying their consent and approval through their silence. This is especially true in the United States, where Muslims are well aware of the value and effectiveness of public statements, yet vicious attacks against Americans and Democracy go unchallenged by the so-called moderates. Muslims cannot claim to deserve respect for their faith, if they will not separate themselves from the monsters using the name of Allah as an excuse to murder innocent people. Islam must be considered part of the problem, unless and until it takes active steps to address its own cancer. We have to take the Mullahs and Imams to task, even here in the U.S., and make it clear they cannot evade their responsibility.

The Hillary Effect

().().().

A few columnists have been trying to sound out the question of “Can Hillary Win?”, which to me is on the par with “Will Howard Dean Make Inappropriate Noises?”, or “Will Michael Moore Fib On Camera?”, but if you’re a Democrat, I guess you have to kick all the tires and look under the hood, even when you’re visiting the neighbors.

Anyway, take a look back at the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. Do either Al Gore or John Kerry look at all, like the kind of leadership America needs and wants? Yet each of them pulled in tens of millions of votes, and more than 47% of the Popular vote, no matter how you figure it. This means that the Democrats could (and to my mind already have) nominated an undead ghoul, and he would still collect enough votes to win under certain circumstances. Therefore, the Republicans not only have to be careful to stay unified in their support for the party nominee, the Democrats know that any kind of capable Democrat can be genuinely significant.

It may seem ironic, but the best opportunity to knock Hillary from the race will likely come in the Primaries. This happened, I believe, in 2000 and in 2004, as qualified and thoughtful Democrats failed to gain the respect and attention from the more rabid Democrats, and by the time the race was serious, only the clowns were left to run in it. This trait of self-annihilation explains why the Democrats cannot mount an effective policy campaign, nor present an effective candidate for the White House. They rally around the nominee, sure, but by that time the best-qualified talent has been chased away by character thugs and the votes of the most rabid activists. One does not employ reason with Jackals, especially when the Jackals run the political party. Republicans may worry about the possible effectiveness of a Hillary Administration, but leading Democrats resent the potential she carries even more, and so redouble their efforts to keep her locked out, at any cost.

It’s always dangerous to project an outcome so far in advance, but if I had to do so now, HilClin08 has honed her tools well, with lots of money, a lot of lawyers on board already, and a PR team to give the impression she can raise the dead (Nationalized Healthcare) and walk on water (raise taxes, but only on “them"). The primaries will be a bloodbath, and HilClin08 seems hungry for the fight. The downside to this, is that it will be very difficult afterwards to recreate the image of the thoughtful, gentle leader. If we are going to pick music to represent the candidates, at a time when most Republicans will try to be like Toby Keith, HilClin08 will sound like Ludacris. With similar imagery. The Democratic primaries will set her image, and America will be very likely to see HilClin08 in a new light by summer, one with power and conviction, but not likely to be quite the picture she planned.

I have made it no secret, that the best Republican candidate for 2008 is the present Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. No stranger to tough opposition and cheap shots, or to racism and sexism used against her, Rice will be, I think, impossible for HilClin08 to defeat, in large part because of the damage done early by HC’s in-party rivals. If it happens that another Republican wins the nomination, it will come down to National Security credentials. Nothing else will be as important in the success of the next President as that issue with Rice in the race, though the election will be influenced, as always, by the Economy. If another Democrat than HC wins the nomination, then the general election will revert more or less to normal conditions of mixing security and the economy for the vote, because without HC or Rice in the mix, the two most formidable forces on each side will have been removed and the voters will know this. The nominees will have to energize the voters, and at this time I simply do not see a candidate with the requisite qualities to do so, save HC and Rice. Political parties have made incredibly stupid mistakes before, so there is no reason to believe they cannot fumble again here.

Hillary Clinton will, absolutely, run for President in 2008. She is not, to any standard, qualified for the job. But she has the money and organization to be the early poll leader and is in position to win the early primaries, key to any Democrat’s run. If the Democrats are smart, they will recognize this now, and polish her image collectively and prepare for the hard questions to come, but party history shows this is extremely unlikely. If the Republicans are smart, they will recognize the limitations of any of the narcissist Senators or other high-maintenance hairspray types out there, and get serious about preparing a candidate for the real work to be done. Sadly, again there is little reason to believe they will do the responsible thing. Fortunately, on the whole the Democrats play dirtier than the Republicans, and by the time the parties hold their conventions, the Left will have more damage control and cleanup to do than the Right.

Hillary Clinton: The Heat-Seeking Candidate. And that could make all the difference.

Dubya's Choice

[]/\[]/\[]

George W. Bush should decide who best is qualified to serve as his successor in the White House, and should make his opinion known to that candidate and in due course, provide his full and unwavering support for the campaign.

Democrats would be outraged by such a bold decision on the part of the President, even though it has a long and valid presidential precedent. They would claim it plays with the political process, when in fact it would not harm the process one bit, except making clear to Americans how to continue the programs and policies of George W. Bush. And that, in my opinion, would be a serious blow to any Democrat’s hope to grabbing the White House.

The first President, George Washington, made clear that he considered James Monroe something of his protege. It in no way subverted the electoral process, and in these days of popular votes, for Dubya to note whom he likes is no threat to the voice of the people. Also, throughout pesidential history, many Chief Executives have played their preferences or supported the Party’s choice. Dubya’s father enjoyed a healthy margin of victory in 1988, in large part because Ronald Reagan supported him, so that GHWB appeared to be Ronnie’s pick. Before that, in 1964 LBJ enjoyed a landslide victory, in large part because he appeared to JFK’s right-hand man. It’s worth noting that because Reagan did not make his personal preference known ahead of the campaign, he was more or less stuck with the party choice, whom he backed loyally. And because Kennedy never anticipated his demise, he did not make public the choice to kick LBJ off the boat, and so America was misled about what Jack Kennedy wanted.

Ordinarily, there would be small value to pressing to have a President name his personal choice to follow him, but the stakes are extremely high for 2008. The Global War on Terror will be continuing, and in a different aspect. Just as the majority of Americans in 2004 understood that no issue was as important as the War on Terror, they will be looking for the right leadership and direction in 2008 on that same issue. by 2007 it will be necessary, even critical, for Bush to name an individual who is best-qualified to meet that challenge. Personally, I do not doubt for an instant that the best candidate is not the one who knows the Economy best, or the Abortion or even the Court issues best, would ideally be a candidate known for handling pressure and complex issues, someone with direct experience in National Security, and someone who has worked in addressing our relations with other countries in the context of the threat from Global Terrorism. The sole candidate so qualified is Secretary of State (and former National Security Advisor) Condoleeza Rice. If President Bush has someone else in mind, it would be important to know his preference, but this is absolutely an instance where America should know the mind of George W. Bush.

Modern Epidemiology

}{ }{ }{ }{

I’m re-reading Michael Crichton’s “The Andromeda Strain”, and as always I am impressed with Crichton’s ability to explain the force of events, not always in our control.

“The Andromeda Strain” dealt with the unexpected arrival of a strain of a previously unknown organism, one which killed rapidly, and seemed to represent a grave and unstoppable threat. With respect to the plot as Crichton wrote it, I could not help but see the present world political condition in that light. On the one hand, Global Terrorism is a virulent threat to every nation in contact with it, and puts all nations at risk by its nature. To that, the W Doctrine is an antibody (and the Democratic Party is the guy who wants to avoid going to the doctor). On the other, the obviously beneficial effects of free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are like the reinforcement of an Immune system, making the W Doctrine like a Symbiotic organism which generates healthy blood (as in Free Trade) and cell regeneration (as in the development of democracy-friendly policies in Middle East countries). The people most famous for trying to prevent that healthy existence (Mcdermott, Penn, Moore, Dean, Kennedy, as obvious examples), may best be compared in function to, well, germs.

I wonder how Michael Crichton would write up the next Presidential Elections?

Terrorists Are Morons

[-][-][-][-][-]

OK, it felt good to make that statement. But I put it up there as the title, because it is unfortunately necessary to state so basic a fact as that, since certain people (I will be nice and not say which particular ones) have managed to muddy the picture quite a bit:

”We have to work to understand their anger”

“American has to face its responsibility for these attacks”

“George W. Bush has declared War on Islam”


Uhhhh, no, no, annnnnnd no. We need to kill terrorists and capture them, not play psychiatry games. America has generally done a credible job of advancing human rights and promoting peace and fair play throughout the world, certainly more than any other nation, so blaming us for terrorism aimed at innocents is distinctly obscene and false. And George W. Bush is attacking a few thousand fascist terrorists, not the hundreds of millions of innocent Muslims. But I digress…

Terrorists generally seem to come from two groups; the very rich who have taken up Jihad as a personal pursuit, in many cases as a way to make their name, and the very poor, who are enticed by groups like Hamas with promises that their family will be looked after and they will be given entry directly into Paradise. Fools on both ends. Sure, they’re technically proficient and able to pull off some sophisticated tricks, but that just makes them the Evil version of ‘Rainman’. And they don’t have Hoffman’s charisma, anyway.

Want proof? Let’s look at the scorecard. Let’s start with the poor kids who are suckered into joining up. Do that, and your personal career ends in death or life in prison. Yeah, that’s a plan. And their families? Just look at the refugee camps and the slums in terrorist-controlled regions. The families get a subsistence from the thuggish terror cells, but they are no better off without their young men, than they would have been if they had their child with them to build a future for himself and them. There is a firm history of emigrants who get education and an opportunity, who then are able to come back and help their parents. Not so if junior dies in a flaming car bomb, for which the family gets a small check and a slogan. It’s an obscene lie told to people unable in most cases to find out they’re being fooled into giving up their most precious hope. There is not a single family whose future was made better by having their son murder innocents for a useless political cause.

As for the “leadership” of these groups? Well, you got your choices there, as well. Some choose the heroic martyr route, which is to say they carry out bold and ruthless missions until they get killed themselves, at which time the Cause simply finds another puppet to preach their bile and vomit. Or they play for power and privilege. Looking at the roster of recent terrorists in the news, here’s what we see:

Abu Abbas – captured
Khalid Shiekh Mohammed – captured
Ansar-al-Islam - largely captured
Abu Farraj Al-Libbi , Al Qaeda 3rd-in-Command - captured
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani - captured
Abu Nidal - captured, now dead
Mullah Mahdi, Deputy to Al-Zarqawi - captured
Abu Anas al-Shami, Deputy to Al-Zarqawi - killed
Husem al-Yemeni, Deputy to Al-Zarqawi - captured
Abu Alghadiya, Al Qaeda official - killed
Khaled al-Harbi, Al Qaeda mission planner - captured
Mohammed Atef, bin Laden lieutenant - killed
Hassan Ghul, bin Laden lieutenant - captured
Abu Zubaydah, bin Laden lieutenant - captured

75% of Al Qaeda’s operatives and leadership - captured or killed

I could go on, but the lesson is clear. Speaking of lessons, here's another datum:

27 Battalions of the new native Iraqi Army - Now fully operational

As for Al-Zarqawi and bin Laden themselves? If they are still alive (which is under debate), they are in hiding and living on the run, never staying in one place too long. At best, they are eating and sleeping poorly, aware that everyone they considered a close associate or friend a few years ago is either dead or in Coalition hands. Sound like a winning plan to you? Fools, all of them.

So, some say, what about “the Cause”? OK, let’s look at that. How has the terrorist way fared in the past, say 50 years?

IRA – Ireland still under the same government, IRA largely wiped out, what’s left is now a political party with complete rejection of terrorist violence.

Hamas, PLO, Hizbollah – Still around, but then so is Israel, no less likely to continue existing or to defend itself than when this all started.

Iraq – Dictatorship removed, support for terrorist groups abolished. Under self-rule and moving towards self-defense.

Afghanistan – Taliban removed, support for terrorist groups abolished. Under self-rule and moving towards self-defense.

Lebanon – Vocal in demanding self-rule and end to occupation by Syrian forces, and also to ending support for terrorist groups.

Saudi Arabia – Held minor elections, could lead to greater effect in democratization.

Iran - Forced to deny its nuclear weapons program and scale back operations. Increasing pressure from young generation for democracy.

Across the board, the terrorist cause and message is being rejected. Flatly, without exception. Only a moron could miss it. And only a moron could defend them instead of backing the Marines and the President, whose resolution is identical and unwavering on this question.

I was asked what I thought about Hell...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\''

I don’t like writing about Hell, for two basic reasons. First, Hell exists as an Absolute existence, a place and condition which is assigned by God Almighty after a Final Judgment; by definition a mortal being like myself cannot comprehend all there is to know about Hell and the resolution of souls, that would lead to such a consignment. Secondly, I have always found that the focus of a person’s attention can influence their thoughts, words, and actions. In that light, too much attention on Hell is not desirable. That said, there is reason to sort out the question of what Hell is and is not, and to prepare ourselves for what is to come.

While it is never completely wise to generalize, there seem to be four basic views of Hell, to my mind none of them quite satisfactory. The first version comes from the mostly Humanist perspective, to the argument that there is no Hell at all, that Hell comes from misunderstanding or the war against one’s self, and such contentions. To me, that position is faulty for a number of reasons. First, as a person who believes the Bible to be true, the many references to Hell and warnings to guard against ending there are hardly only moral stories or metaphors. Hell is real, and is to be avoided. But for those who do not accept the Bible, there is also the double whammy of consequences and of balance. What I mean is, for good to be rewarded, evil must be punished and vice versa. Therefore, there must be a Hell of some sort for evil doers. Also, it follows that if deeds have meaning, as I contend they do, then there is a consequence for them. If morality is true at all, then there is a consequence for evil, and that means that even if someone suffers no ill effects during their life, something is yet waiting for them. I cannot agree to the claim that there is no Hell.

The second contention is the opposite pole; that Hell is an eternal and terrible place, with no hope of end or solace. Granted, we’re talking about Absolutes, and if Heaven is a place of unending joy and peace and happiness, then Hell must fall to the dregs of existence, but again there are conflicts which must be considered. Revelation, not usually considered a happy book for sinners, notes that Hell itself will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, which certainly seems to indicate an end to the torment. Also, we again come to a question of consequence and balance. Many have questioned the justice in eternal punishment for finite acts, and deliberate torment for what is in many cases unintentional offense. What’s more, it is common sense to many people that if a man kills one person but then refrains from killing again, he is better than the man who kills and kills again. If the punishment for both men was identical, it could hardly be said to be just. I cannot, after thinking it through, accept that this second contention holds up to inspection.

So we move to the third and fourth contentions. The third basically accepts that hell is eternal, but grants differing punishments to those condemned. This is the stuff of Dante’s ‘Inferno’, but it is not really to be found in Scripture. Also, it gets really tricky trying on the one hand to be consistent, yet on the other to say that we should give different people different punishment for what appears to be the same sin. Difficult to accept that one, especially since we are left to sort out why a lighter punishment should be considered the product of a Merciful God, or a Just one, if it is eternal and allows no hope of reconciliation.

That brings me to the fourth case, which is like the third, except that there Hell exists only temporarily. The problem there is again Scriptural; while Revelation says Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, it never says the sinners get out from hell first. And Daniel says, as does Matthew, that the shame and torment will be forever. Ow.

Then there’s the biggy for me. I’ve gotten to know lots of people in my life. Lots of mean, selfish people, but only a few really evil ones. And I’ve gotten to know some good folks, and some are amazingly good, clearly in line with the Lord. But I’ve never yet met anyone who I would say was completely Good, or completely Evil. We all have sins in our lives, though some are small and few, and we all have good in our hearts, so some have tried to bury it. I do not believe that God condones evil, or will allow it into Heaven, or that He will ignore or punish Good. So here’s what I think:

God will separate us, Good from Bad. Not saying the mostly-good people get in with the Good, and the mostly-bad in with the Bad, but that our Good and our Bad will be separated. And we choose which part we want to keep.

Not a perfect answer, but that’s what I think.

Global Terrorism: Refresher (Conclusion)

/[]\/[]\/[]
The fact that it has taken six articles to cover the highlights of Global Terrorism as it exists today, helps illustrate why so few people seem to understand the threat or its resolution. In this conclusion, then, I intend not only to wrap up the review of how we got here, but also what is necessary for us to win.

The collective impetus of 1961-2001 led men like Osama bin Laden to consider the United States just like any previous empire, fat and soft and not willing to fight for anything that was too far, too long, or too difficult. “Paper Tiger” was a phrase used often by the self-proclaimed elite in the Western Media, Academia, and groups like the U.S. Democratic Party, used to justify non-resistance to the violence brought on by the terrorists. Small wonder the terrorists believed it was true.

The success of the Palestine Liberation Organization as an independent group with both capability and volition made Terrorism desirable as a career choice for some. Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, and of course Yassir Arafat are obvious examples of men who spoke for their “cause”, but in fact lined their own pockets ahead of anything else. There is strong reason to believe that the top men in Al Qaeda hoped for the same benefits, made more attractive by blessings from the Wahhabist oligarchy. While State-sponsored terrorism had become unpalatable because of the American presence, there remained a large number of patrons ready to fund a group privately, especially in the hope of chasing Americans away, as they had seen in Beirut, Somalia, and the Sudan.

By the late 1990s, there were essentially four classes of discernable terrorist groups. State-sponsored terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Libya, as examples) had turned some prominent terrorist leaders into politicians and their “cause” into a corporate image. Other groups were reduced to suicide raids, unable to mount a significant military threat (for all the appalling carnage from such raids, suicide attacks consistently fail to change the course of governance and public acclamation for change, whether one counts the Kamikaze attacks on U.S. warships by the Japanese in late World War 2, or such tactics as the IRA used in Belfast or Hamas has used in Israel, or even the Black Hand bombings of the early 1920’s or the Underground movements in the U.S. during the 1960s). Still others enjoyed a measure of success, but only in their locality and specific condition. None of these local groups stood up to any sizable organized force, especially from the U.S. or the U.K. The new lot were the Jihadists, who were much better prepared and motivated to carry out terrorist attacks, especially on targets they considered to be in “their” territory. I say “their” in quotations, because an early trait of the Jihadists was operation in a nation not their homeland, most probably due to a combination of secrecy from the authorities in the target country, and absolute control over the Jihadist’s environment. The Jihadists worked to coordinate the other three groups to support their campaigns. They learned the keys to success for the few terrorists who had managed to survive and flourish; they planned for a series of attacks intended to achieve true unbalancing of the target nation (as worked in Afghanistan), and they began to contact and coordinate with various local groups to mutual goals.

There are six salient elements for a successful international Jihadist group. They are:

1. Money
2. Madrassahs
3. Methodology
4. Munitions
5. Media, and
6. Malice

The early success for Osama bin Laden lay in his ability to arrange and coordinate those six elements. The attacks of September 11, the Bali attacks in 2002, the train bombing in Madrid, the school massacre in Beslan, and the bombings in London were all very well planned and executed, tactically. Yet they were also, on the strategic plane, incredible blunders. Consider these significant events following the attacks:

[] There were no follow-up terrorist attacks after September 11th, March 11th, or July 7th, even though there is clear evidence that Al Qaeda planned such attacks.
[] None of Al Qaeda’s attacks led to a militarily significant change in conditions in AQ’s favor. The 9/11 attacks led to the loss of Afghanistan for the terrorists and their Taliban hosts, and further to the loss of Iraq to the Coalition and pro-democratic forces. The Bali attacks and London bombings hardened British and U.K. resolve to win the fight. And while Spain withdrew their forces from Iraq following the train bombings, this led to no significant change in Coalition strength or success.
[] Al Qaeda was unable to protect their money lines, and most of their most important patrons refused to support them any longer.
[] The U.S.-led Coalition handled the Media far better than Al Qaeda ever expected, enough so that despite constant attempts to portray the U.S. and President Bush in negative light, the Coalition in general and U.S. Marines in particular, are well-respected in the regions under Coalition control. It is not coincidence that almost all Iraqi forces which once opposed the Coalition, have either stopped their opposition to the new Iraqi government, or have actually allied their groups with the new Iraqi police and army in training. Even Al Jazeera has toned down their rhetoric, so that the harshest Anti-American rhetoric regarding the Middle East is usually heard from Vermont and Massachusetts politicians.
[] Public resolution regarding the mission to eradicate Al Qaeda and Global Terrorism is firm, as evidenced not only by the last two American elections, but also by response to the Afghan and Iraqi elections. It is significant that even the most rabid Bush-hater in Washington is forced to concede that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and “finish the job”. Further, changes in attitudes towards the United States in places like Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Iran, demonstrate that in the eyes of the men most aware of the events and their significance, the Americans are clearly winning.
[] Mullahs who once decried the U.S. presence in Iraq, have in large number switched to denouncing Jihadism in Middle East countries, even denouncing the deaths of innocents in the name of Islam. Three years ago, this would have been unthinkable.


A lot of the credit has to be placed in the ledger for George W. Bush. His enemies who once insisted he was mad, a puppet, or incredibly stupid, now say he was able to coast on the work of skilled subordinates (although they fail to note that Bush chose and defended them), that he was playing for political points, mixing a popular war in Afghanistan with the war he wanted in Iraq, or that he was incredibly lucky. In fact, Bush chose to take the Taliban out of Afghanistan in spite of stiff protests and political games by the Left, and he decided to remove Saddam on the evidence, not in the belief that it would be popular, as the polls at the time made it clear that to pursue Saddam would be to put his chances of re-election at risk. Bush chose the difficult road, and on the evidence chose far more wisely than any President in generations. And Al Qaeda has become an unwilling testament to that wisdom, declining from a truly legitimate strategic threat to the United States in 2001 to a force barely able to blow up buses and cars by tricking young men into thinking they are on a reconnaissance mission. The evidence is further supported by the fact that car bombers in the Middle East have been found chained to their steering wheel. The old rhetoric not working, and it’s hard to take the hit knowing it won’t change anything. Kinda makes a young man doubt the promise of all those virgins waiting in Paradise, I’d say.

I mentioned in the first article, that when a threat is understood to be launched against the very foundation of the nation, there is common purpose and resolve in defeating it. Dubya understood that, perhaps at a level less mature people do not develop, but men in the mold of Truman and Churchill do. That said, there is still the question of what needs to be done to win the war. Simply having the upper hand is not nearly enough.

The road, fortunately, has been cleared of many obstacles. The need to stabilize Iraq is obvious, and enjoys a broad consensus. Iran and North Korea will be troublesome at the least, and possibly a genuine crisis for the next Administration. Also, as Al Qaeda begins to understand that it cannot win in its present incarnation, they will be very likely to try to dissolve the organization as it presently exists; this is no surprise, as the existing Al Qaeda was little more than a nameplate for a loose confederation of cells. Rock bands change names with greater impact.

The real issue is what form of reorganization the Jihadist movement will take. The loss of two, going on three, countries to Democracy (and worse, truly Secular government!) is going to sting them badly. Also, the knowledge that Al Qaeda failed in every strategic objective it held is going to make it hard for ObL to get a receptive audience; if he has not been killed already, I should not be surprised if someone arranged a little event in order to make him a martyr for the Jihadist cause – he certainly did not work out well as a general.

The Jihadists are not at all likely to admit they were wrong. Expect them to organize a Khomeini-style rebellion in Saudi Arabia, probably between 2006 and 2008. Kuwait and Egypt are also prime targets for the same sort of action, though with far less assurance of success. The true test will come when young Arab men will have to decide between becoming the next Iraq or the next Iran, with either a dead battleground or a thriving economy to make the difference. Remember that this time, there is no USSR to prevent American assistance if it is requested, and there is no SAVAK to show the SA regime as evil, though they are admittedly corrupt, and the influence of the Madrassahs will help the Jihadists immensely. Also, if the next President is unwilling to take the necessary risks, or lacks the vision of GWB, there is a real possibility that the promise planted now will fail in the heat of an imported civil war. Accordingly, what is needed most is Resolve and clear unwavering support for the U.S. mission, along with full provision for campaigns to bring the Iraqi and Afghan economies up to speed. What else is needed is a Counter-Terror Command, which will coordinate military actions where they are needed, with appropriate requests and reports to the President and the Congress, and which will remain immune from political consideration. Both Republicans and Democrats must agree to a 'hands-off' policy where this Command is concerned. The slot for the CINC-CTCOM should be 4-star, with full authority over the Counter-Terrorism Center for the acquisition, direction, and employment of Intelligence regarding terrorists. Congress should expect semi-annual reports from the CTCOM on progress, obstacles, and costs. The State Department must pursue recruitment into an international Anti-Terrorism Treaty Organization (ATTO), which would replace the old NATO/SEATO-style groups both physically and in direction. The Justice Department needs to develop specific and consistent rules of control to address the custody and treatment of terrorists captured. And not only the Bush Administration, but at least the next three Administrations following his must make clear that the eradication of Global Terrorism is not going to fade away with the change to a new President, regardless of whether the campaign is going well or badly at the time the new POTUS takes office.

There will always be terrorists, make no mistake, just as there are still gangs, carjackings, and murders. But there was a time when Slavery was the normal course in the Western World. No more. There was a time when any ship sailing across an ocean had to fear interception by pirates. No more. There was a time when being non-white or non-male in America meant you couldn’t expect full rights. No more. There was a time when men rode in gangs and burned down houses to intimidate voters and minorities in America. No more. There was a time when terrorists in the Middle East could plan to kill Americans and Europeans by the thousands in hopes of advancing a Jihad. God willing, no more of that, either.

Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 5

/[]\/[]\/[]
The world has changed so drastically in the past generation, yet many people have failed to grasp the meaning of these changes.

The Soviet Union not only no longer controls approximately half the world’s nations, but itself has been dissolved and the Kremlin’s method of governance decried by the very men who now rule Russia.

In 1973, the United States and the Soviet Union came close to using nuclear weapons over Israel. In 1984, an accident in the Soviet Union almost provoked a nuclear launch. Since then, there has not been an incident, even September 11th, which has brought the United States to the threshold of nuclear war.

In 1991, Coalition ground forces, led and commanded by American tank and officers, retook Kuwait in only 3 days of ground operations. In a Politburo meeting in March, a shaken Defense Minister Yazov warned the Kremlin that the Soviet Union had nothing that could possibly match the rebuilt American military.

In the 1994 mid-term elections, Democrats lost 56 House and 8 Senate seats to the Republicans, effectively losing control of Congress for the first time since the Eisenhower Administration, and in the context of the next five elections the GOP continued to gain control in U.S. Government to a point not held since before the 1929 Stock Market Crash.

With the explosion of home computer and internet access has come the rise of blogs, along with Talk Radio and Cable News, collectively known as New Media, and generally acknowledged to be a legitimate political force, sufficient to counter the extant political influence of the Old or Mainstream Media of network television and print news conglomerates.

And in the Middle East, it had slowly begun to dawn on Muslims in general, that A)Israel was not going to be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea anytime soon, and B)No-one was seriously protecting the rights of Palestinians, but rather using their suffering as a pretext for whatever they felt like pursuing.

Not a happy time to be a terrorist, the early Nineties, with all this change in the air, and the terrorist groups of note either fading into a fat retirement like the PLO, or flaming out gloriously like the Islamic Jihad. Fortunately for Global Terrorism, and badly for the world, there came three significant forces into play, symbolized by their figureheads: Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan, and Osama bin Laden.

None of these three men was at all the powerful leader he represented himself to be, but in each case the system was already in place for him to play to his advantage. In respect to Terrorism, Bill Clinton treated it as no more than a nuisance, not even bothering to visit the site of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and although Clinton deployed the military dozens of times during his two terms, none of them resulted in regime change of a nation or leader hostile to American ideals, or removed a single terrorist group from operation. Kofi Annan was the architect of the now-infamous U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, which paid bribes to hundreds of United Nations and European officials, while allowing Saddam Hussein access to billions of dollars to use as he pleased, and in its course starving tens of thousands of needy Iraqis, for which Hussein and Annan cruelly and falsely blamed the U.S. Embargo on Iraq. As for bin Laden, his early career in Afghanistan was essentially as a supply source for the mujahadeen, which made him respected but not revered. Needing to feed his ego, bin Laden (rather like Hussein) used Islam for his own purpose, building a group around Taliban and ex-mujahadeen who wanted a new fight once the Russians left. Some went to Chechnya, but bin Laden took others with him back to Saudi Arabia, where they looked to the next natural target: America. Bin Laden didn’t want Israel, because too many other groups were already attacking Israel, and in any case the Israelis were clearly tough and ready. Al Qaeda made its name on soft targets, kidnapping businessmen and bombing movie theaters if Arabs dared to go to the cinema instead of a mosque on Friday. Al Qaeda was suceesful also, because it had learned tactical tricks from other groups. The PLO, for example, had become an umbrella for a number of groups, allowing the organization’s leaders to claim or deny knowledge of actions with complete veracity. Al Qaeda was not one firm organization, but a collective name taken at convenience for actions, and sometimes acting with no claim at all, to practice technique and instill a general unease in a population. Further, as terrorists continued to be treated as criminals, they needed only to provide legal cover to avoid serious repercussions for their actions. When the Khobar barracks blew, as well as the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, bin Laden was sending a test message to the United States. The silence from the White House told him his enemy in Washington was going to be just like his enemy in Moscow had been (bin Laden giving himself an inordinate amount of credit for the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan). Even before the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, then, bin Laden planned to make a name for his umbrella organization, and (he hoped) explode the Western World into chaos and a true Jihad.

(to be concluded in the next article)

Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 4

/[]\/[]\/[]
The Middle East loved the Eighties. Or I should say, the terrorists loved the Eighties. Iran and Iraq were at war with each other, yet both supported terrorist groups. Syria also played the game, as did Libya. It became quite the fashion to send bombers in training to Lebanon, then Southern Europe, especially Italy and Bavaria, the most effective to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and the most daring to a short mission in Israel. Along the way they built madrassahs everywhere, to recruit and indoctrinate the next generation of sociopaths.

It’s telling to see that the terrorists preferred Soviet or Israeli targets when they wanted to feel effective, and American businessmen when they just wanted a little press. It’s not clear what the Americans did when military forces were attacked, but the world changed when a bomber drove a munition-laden truck into the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, which event caused the U.S. to effectively cede Lebanon to the thugs. From there, terrorists felt that their claims had been proven true; the Americans were just like the Soviets, weak when put to the test, and they rejoiced at the opportunity to establish their control throughout the Mediterranean basin. The timid response from the West German, Italian, and French governments only reinforced this impression.

The air strikes ordered at various times by President Reagan made American military targets relatively less desirable than other options. The terrorists made a pattern clear by choosing softer targets, but ones just as spectacular, as evidenced by the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Literally dozens of terrorist groups sprang up, and with easy pickings in Europe, International operations became popular, especially with sponsor governments playing the Americans and Soviets against each other.

The focus for the terrorists changed with the arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev to power in Moscow. The wily bureaucrat understood that to play the predictable East vs. West game would be disastrous, especially for the East, with rising tensions just to the South of the Soviet borders. Accordingly, Gorbachev did his best to persuade American assistance in the Middle East, which also suited Reagan’s intentions for the region. Israel received quiet but significant assistance from both the USA and USSR, not for its political stance but as an island of stability in the region. Jordan’s King Hussein, ever savvy, also jumped at the chance to be seen as a force for peace, and the terrorists abruptly saw their welcome revoked in many places, at least publicly.

(to be continued in further articles)

Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 3

/[]\/[]\/[]
After seizing the OPEC conference in 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization actually began to fade from prominence in terrorist actions. By the end of the Carter Administration, the shape and texture of the Middle East had evolved into something else entirely, though not in a good way. The “wipe out Israel” supergoal of Arab states had been proven all-but-impossible by the stunning results of the 1967 “Six-Day” War, and the chaotic events in the 1973 “Yom Kippur” War. The backlash from the 1972 Olympics massacre had forced most Arab nations to publicly disavow violence as a policy. As a result, new groups sprung up, initially under private sponsorship from influential patrons. This caused concern in the Politburo, as groups which once welcomed Soviet support now voiced an independence of mind the Communists found unsettling. Unsettling enough to approve the invasion of Soviet-leaning Afghanistan in 1979. And unsettling enough in the Middle East, to spur on dissident groups in places like Iran and Iraq, leading to the rise of both Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein.

Into this mix arrived President Reagan, a man of clear vision and firm ideals, the sort of man to hate murderers of any stripe. And the Soviets freaked. 1981 featured the attempted assassination of President Reagan, which does not appear to have any sort of Soviet connection, but also the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, which certainly did have Soviet involvement. It was at this time that dozens of new terrorist groups sprang up, operating in both the Middle East and Europe. It’s impossible to say which specific groups were created, trained, and supplied by the Soviets, but KGB documents produced after the fall of the USSR show the effort was coordinated in Moscow. That proved to be a poor investment, indeed.

While many on the Left seek every opportunity to connect the United States with support for terrorists, the truth is that most Islamic terrorists initially got help from the Kremlin. What happened to throw things awry for the Reds, was that these groups quickly learned they were not bound by their word to the Soviets, and many Soviet client states simply took what they got from Moscow, and handed it over to cells that ran operations as a sort of shadow war. The case of Osama bin Laden is a good example; When Osama became angry at the Soviets' occupation of Afghanistan, he began to coordinate delivery of weapons and logistical support to bands of mujahadeen in the hills. This included material acquired (by various means) from the Sudan, Egypt, and Iraq, as well as purchased on the black market (which itself found Soviet small arms and ammunition in good supply). Because his action was not government-sponsored, it had the additional advantage of strong security - only the members knew the connections, and very few indeed understood the cell structure well enough to attack it. The combination of tight control with the use of his enemies' tools against them became the forte' of OBL plans, but they have a limit that bin Laden does not understand. This is a trump card in the hand of Coalition forces, but not the only one.

For here, it's important to understand that bin Laden the religious fascist predated Al Qaeda the religious fascist organization, and that initially, bin Laden and Al Qaeda followed the established road of attacking known targets in known locations, where the enemy was at a severe disadvantage. Even the attack on the U.S.S. Cole fell into that category. The significance of Global Terrorism comes from Media and the Internet.


(to be continued in further articles)