Islam and Jihadism - Part 1 (repeated from February 2006)

There is an old dictum, so hoary that many people forget the reason for its original emphasis: Know Your Enemy. While many people correctly understand this to mean guarding against being surprised by an enemy, it also warns against creating problems by attacking a non-belligerent, and so increasing your foes. The United States is walking a narrow and winding road in the Middle East, precisely because of that caution. A great many people incorrectly believe the War On Terror is against Islam, when in fact there is the potential to make Islam an ally against one of the great abominations of our day.

Islam counts more than a billion people as believers across the globe. They can be found in every major nation and city, and the emphatic public displays of their belief can lead people to consider Muslims rigid and intolerant. But it is not valid to label Islam an automatically violent faith, anymore than it would be to blame all of Christianity for the violence of the Irish Republican Army or Abortion Clinic bombers. While Islam must wrestle with its obligation to speak out against the evil in its midst, it must also be accorded the respect it deserves as a major religion. The extremists of Islam must be understood as the outcasts of their religion.

People do not generally understand Islam. That was fine when Islam was an exotic religion practiced by few people close to your home, and which was unlikely to ever impact your life directly. But in these days of a nuclear threat from Iran, uprisings in regions of Europe and Asia, as well as the threat of a prolonged conflict, both military and cultural, with Islamic nations around the globe, it becomes critical to learn the basics of both Islam and of Jihadism, and why they are not the same, but one must inevitably supplant the other.

Islam is a major religion, with over a billion adherents. Islam is growing faster than Christianity, and so poses the possible position of majority support within the entury, presuming present growth continues. Yet Islam is not monolithic, nor is it a unified faith as it is so often protrayed. A simple example is to look at the violence done in the name of Islam; if even one percent of all Muslims took up arms, the resulting army would be one of the largest in the world. With significant mathematical and scientific resources, Muslims could also quickly modernize a military force; certainly WMD are no obstacle. Indeed, most experts agree that Muslim countries likely all have CW stockpiles, with research in BW also likely since the 1980s, a nasty legacy of Saddam’s policies, which in turn spurred the creation and development of counter-weapons. Iran has well over a hundred missiles capable of reaching Israel right now, so the only questions are what they will put in the warheads, and what will stop them from launching. More on the Muslim-Israeli standoff in a little bit. For here, it is important to understand a bit of what drives the Muslim political machine, especially in the Middle East. The politics of Islam began with Mohammed himself, and developed through victory and defeat over more than a thousand years.

A thorough study of Islam would take a long time, so right here I will admit that this is a montage of snap shot concepts, and even then a brief one. Islam, of course,starts out with Mohammed, whose name is spelled a number of ways in the West because Arabic uses a different alphabet. That alone sets the stage for confusion, as it is not always posible to get a direct translation from Arabic to English; a certain amount of nuance is always there, and often gets lost. Imagine the literal translation of “What’s Up?” to someone unfamiliar with American idioms, and then apply it to a complex social issue. Even when language is not the issue, culture also throws up obstacles. Winston Churchill once quipped that America and England are two countries separated by a common language. So we should be very careful about assuming we understand the mindset of a land far different from our own in distance, history, perspective, and opportunity. And we should realize that it is very difficult for the Muslim world to understand the American ideal, even when they want to make the attempt. But one key issue, to start, is the founder. Jesus Christ was known for His gentle forgiveness and message of peace. Contrast that with Mohammed, who led a number of bloody fights to establish Islam, and then to give it control of key territory. But it would be unfair to leave it at that. Mohammed, after all, also wanted peace and stability, which was a prime reason for the establishment of Sharia - a common law to which all men would be subject. So it is also important to understand that Mohammed learned from the Christian Church. By his day, he had seen the power of the Church in Rome, how kings kneeled to the Pope, and how armies went where the Church commanded. Small wonder Mohammed took the trouble to copy that same strategy. Tie the Church and State together, and with Allah on your side you cannot lose. And that has not changed in the Muslim worldview.

OK, fast forward to the Renaissance. That happened in large part because the Church underwent a Reformation, but that was hardly a fast or peaceful process. No one denies Islam needs a similar Reformation, but no one wants a Muslim version of the Inquisition or a repeat of the Crusades, which began incidentally with the Muslim invasion of Europe. The Muslims basically lost the Crusades, and the Middle East was relegated to inconsequence, until oil became important to industry and economy. Oil became a factor by the latter half of the 19th Century, setting the stage for more than a century of greed, fervor, and fury. This is where we must begin to tie the threads of the religion, the politics, the regional culture, and economy of the Middle East.

Essentially, the Middle East of 1900 was not much different from the Middle East of 1500; the Muslims lacked the economic strength to support extensive military campaigns, and European trade with China had provided not only mercantile success, but improvements in metallurgy, artillery, and cavalry tactics. Ironically, Europe had learned from its wars with the Hun, its member states, and of course, also from the Crusades. The Muslim world held a cultural disdain for failure, so losses were not carefully analyzed for corrections, and in any case the unity of Islam was never quite what Mohammed or Ali, or even Salazar, had hoped to create.

Many people are vaguely aware of the ‘Schism’ between Catholics and Protestants which was brought about by the Reformation, but few pay much attention to the much earlier split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In much the same way, early Muslims split on questions of leadership and proper doctrine between the Shia and Sunni sects.These also fractured and fragmented sheikdoms and sultanates, both in time of defeat and in times of victory. So it was that Islam could not agree on a number of key points, and each ruler approved the version of Sharia which suited his mind. Thus the popular legend of the Mahdi - that mythical Imam who would bring all Islam together once again. Ask historians about that name - Muslims rebelled in British-held Sudan in the 1880s, because a yahoo there declared himself the Mahdi. The original ‘Mahdi’, Tarikh-e Imamat, the first Fatimid Caliph who named his son al-Qaim to be the ‘12th Imam’ and 2nd Fatimid Caliph before his own death, would hardly have approved of Muhammad Ahmad, whose woeful logistics and tactical mistakes doomed his revolt, though not before thousands of errant Muslims and British troops died over a war that lasted eighteen years. Other ‘Mahdis’ rose from the crowd, usually in hopes of reforming Islam and establish a measure of Islamist influence in the state. Long before Ahmad, a 15th-Century Sultan named Mehmed II was distinctly open to European scholarship and faith and who codified Sharia during the creation of the Ottoman Empire, and also combined conquest (he invaded Bosnia and Constantinople) with treaties to avoid major escalation of his wars. Significantly, this Sultan was far more amenable to Christian leaders than he was of secular government; Mehmed put to death the entire ruling family of Karamania, because they were both secular and Turks. Mehmed II is popular known in Islamic history classes as “Mohammed II”. So Jihad, reform of Islam and Middle East governments, the ‘Mahdi’ myth, and the dream of conquering the world for Mohammed is a periodic, if inconstant, pursuit.

NEXT - Part 2, Nationalism and Industry

Blogging From the Dark Side

Credit card bill with the tuition, fees, and textbooks arrived Saturday. Classes started today. Working right now to keep Professors Vader and Palpatine happy.

Unless you want a comparison between the marketing strategies of Reliant Energy and COSTCO, this is not likely to be a big blogging day.

What We Owe The Ramseys

I admit it; I was one of those people who read the news reports leaked by police about the Ramsey family’s actions after the murder of JonBenet and found the family unsatisfactory in their behavior. While I never jumped to the conclusion that the Ramsey family was complicit in the murder of their daughter, I bought into the media hype at the time that the family ‘should have done more’. I am sorry for that, as many of us should be.

By now many people have heard about the arrest in Thailand of John Mark Karr, who confessed to ‘being with JonBenet when she died’. Further information indicates Karr knew details not available to the general public, but it remains to be confirmed whether Karr’s confession proves he was the killer. After so much hysteria and unfounded assumption, we should be wary of assuming that appearances are accurate.

But one thing which has become clear, should be shouted loudly and often; as a federal judge said in dismissing a 2003 civil case against the parents of JonBenet, "the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenét than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did it." In fact, a substantial amount of evidence pointed away from the parents, including the DNA samples from the murder scene. Putting it bluntly, the DNA evidence cleared the Ramseys, but almost no one ever heard about that, because the media had targeted the parents.

Just two months ago, Patsy Ramsey died of Ovarian Cancer. She’d fought it off before, but it came back and killed her.

It’s sentimental perhaps, to think that the stress of first losing her daughter then being persecuted as if she had something to do with it for a decade could have led to the return of her cancer, but clearly the last decade of Patsy Ramsey’s life was a tragedy that was made worse by the media and the police. Perhaps in the coming weeks, we will see a proper apology from the worst of the Ramsey’s venomous antagonists, but somehow I doubt that.

We bloggers have a responsibility in this sort of affair, as well. There were no real bloggers on the job in 1996, but there have been a lot of websites started in the past decade, and more than a few devoted to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Most of them took the media at face value, and focused almost solely on the family as complicit, like this forum.

Imagine what the father went through. The daughter murdered, from the start the media is ruthless and hungry for a high-profile target, like the mom or dad. You try to get through the burial and to protect your family by having an agent hired to deal with the press, for which you are even further vilified. Along the course of a decade, you are personally accused, even sued, for the death of your own daughter, your wife is also accused on no evidence, then your son – nine years old when his sister was murdered – is blamed in the press. You finally get a taste of vindication for the crime, but not until your wife dies, in all likelihood never knowing for sure who murdered her daughter. It is hard to imagine a more heinous injustice for a family to suffer than the Ramseys endured. It’s even harder to imagine what can be done to properly apologize for the conduct of the police and the press. For my part, I mean to keep this whole incident in mind as an especially painful and gruesome reminder to make sure of facts, and to avoid wholesale and salacious condemnation. I can’t but wonder who else would have the honesty to make the same commitment.

Thought For The Day

Am I the only person who believes that is Kofi Annan had been the detective in charge of the Simpson murder, he would have had the corpse of Nicole Simpson arrested for the crime?

Filling The “Delay” Seat

The Twenty-Second Congressional District in Texas, Sugarland to be specific, became an exciting race when Tom Delay, the former powerhouse representative for the Republicans, was abandoned by his party and decided to leave Congress for more hospitable climes. Virginia, to be specific.

The Democrats, in a move which seemed to be smart at the time, demanded Delay’s name be kept on the ballot. The plan was a clearly hypocritical move by the party, since in the previous election they went to court to allow themselves to replace their badly-losing candidate on a New Jersey ballot, well after the statutory deadline for such an action. The plan seemed to backfire on Democrats when Delay mused that if he could not be removed from the ballot, he might go ahead and run for his old seat; local polls showed Delay would be a strong favorite in such a case.

But Delay was made sick of politics by the collapse of support from the GOP, and the weak-willed abandonment of Delay by so many colleagues he had supported and defended convinced Tom that there was little good to be had in returning to Congress. So it is, that Delay went ahead to get his name out of the race, and to support a write-in candidate. This marked a poor condition for Republicans, since write-in candidates have almost no chance to win, especially against a known opponent, and Nick “Satan’s Not Such A Bad Guy” Lampson is well known in the area. Enter Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

Sekula-Gibbs may appear to be a relative unknown to people outside Houston, but S-G (as I will call her here for convenience) is a courageous and outspoken Republican, and quite popular among Houston conservatives. I know this as a Houston conservative. Also, unlike some politicians, S-G already lives in the necessary area and so is no outsider or interloper. It should be noted that while Lampson lives in the greater Houston area, he has moved around to suit his goals - from Beaumont where he originally won election to Congress, now to Sugarland in order to try to claim Delay’s old seat; the redistricting which corrected half a century of Democrat gerrymandering cost Lampson his seat, so like all bad movie villains or nominal Democrats, Lampson is seeking a measure of revenge by going after his nemesis’ seat.

To be blunt, the Republicans have done a poor job with regard to this issue; they owed Delay much better support than they gave him when Ronnie Earle started his latest vendetta, and they effectively forced Tom to run for a seat he no longer wanted, in order to play tactical games which did not work out. The current mess is the responsibility of the national and Texas GOP committees, and if Lampson is able to steal it away, it’s because people like Hastert and Mehlman let it happen. Fortunately, the GOP has a very good candidate in Sekula-Gibbs, and for all the obstacles they have put in her path, she can win this thing. It’s by no means going to be easy, but by selecting S-G for the candidacy, at least the GOP has finally done something right, and given the voters of District 22 a decent chance to have effective representation. It remains to be seen if the write-in obstacle will be too great an obstacle, or Lampson’s clearly deficient qualities will leave the door open for Sekula-Gibbs’ run.

A Quick And Obvious Retort to ‘Newsweek’

Once again throwing subtlety, let alone objective reporting, out the window, here is what is printed on the current cover of ‘Newsweek’ magazine:

”TERROR NOW

A Plot Against Airlines

Bin Laden At Large

Iraq In Flames

Five Years After 9/11, Are We Any Safer?”

Point by point, then –

The plot against airlines was foiled, which even ’Newsweek’ admits.

Bin Laden is hiding from every known responsible government and has done little but release whiny tapes, which hardly matches the ominous tone ’Newsweek’ is trying to sell. Shewt, right now Cindy Sheehan is a greater threat to the United States than Osama bin Loser.

Iraq is not in flames. The Iraqi government is fairly stable, especially by Middle East standards, and the Iraqi police and army are gaining ground across the nation. The few remaining terrorist strongholds hardly justify the breathless falsehood portrayed by ’Newsweek’, no matter how hard they try.

The common sense answer is also the obvious one – a number of plots have been devised since the 9/11 attacks, some publicized and some kept quiet, but nothing has been successfully carried out here since 9/11. As hard as ’Newsweek’ and other lying media try to pretend otherwise, President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security have actually done a pretty good job on meeting their National Security responsibilities. That ’Newsweek’ keeps trying to make this story into a scare and an attack on the Administration, instead of cheering an obvious victory against a particularly nasty plot, effectively proves where their allegiance lies.

The 2006 Hezbollah-Israel Conflict In Context

‘Nobody won’. This is the common wisdom tossed out after the UN ceasefire has been set up between the sovereign state of Israel and the infernal puppets of Hezbollah. Others go so far as to claim that Hezbollah won. Both claims are wrong.

Hezbollah is not accustomed to telling the truth, but a week into the conflict the terrorist group admitted the Israeli response and resolve was much stronger than they had expected. Israel went for the throat early, destroying known command centers and Hezbollah leadership; the vicious ones who planned the worst I mean, not the political martinets. It may be that Israel had hoped to accomplish what they publicly claimed, to eliminate Hezbollah as a significant threat, but for that they would have needed a very unlikely set of circumstances, and much better friends than they had available in 2006. I suspect, however, that Israel always understood what they could accomplish, and what was beyond their grasp, and this conflict was a new type of fight, and much more a reconnaissance than an all-out war.

For all its bluster, it was never in Hezbollah’s power to eradicate Israel. They could not even reach Tel Aviv with their missiles imported from Iran and Syria. And to be blunt, Israel’s strategy as practiced would have been extremely unlikely to have removed Hezbollah from the theater; I would go so far as to suggest that Israel did not really want Hezbollah gone entirely, since they knew the hands which were really moving the pawn.

Iran was behind this war. In simple terms, this is because President Ahmadinejad is not only an insanely paranoid religious fanatic, but also a power-mad coward who greatly prefers duping people into fighting for him, rather than manning it up and taking his own risks for his own causes. It should be understood that Hezbollah was and is a creation of the Iranian Jihad a la Ayatollah Khomeini, and these guys would not even take a leak before first asking the nearest Iranian nutjob which way they should face while doing the deed. Hezbollah was paid by Iran, trained by Iran, supplied by Iran … you get the idea, or maybe you thought ball-bearing-filled missiles could be purchased hundreds at a time at a South Beirut Wal-Mart? Mad Mahmoud wanted to see how weak Israel might have become, or perhaps a bit slow to react. Now he knows better, but unfortunately he has gained the most from the events of the past month.

The United States, it should be remembered, once had a force in Lebanon, with an eye to keeping what peace was left to be had. But the Marine Barracks bombing in 1983 ended that, and we have not been back since. And the GOP Congress is far too timid to even consider meeting that challenge now, so Lebanon belongs to the terrorists, their puppet-masters, and those few Lebanese willing to risk their lives for a future Lebanon free from such monsters. Lebanon used to be the sort of country which Americans, Democrat and Republican alike, were willing to help rid of monsters, but not these days.

Israel may still come out ahead; it’s too early to know whether the cease-fire was accepting the inevitable, a surrender or principle to expediency, or a canny move to draw out the enemy.

Hezbollah lost. They will claim otherwise, of course, but they lost the most fighters, the most material, and while they have no intention of disarming, they are utter fools if they really think Israel will ignore them and not pick up the fight when it is necessary and unavoidable again. And in the end, Hezbollah has nothing to gain; for all their bluster, they do not represent Lebanon or its common welfare. They cannot accomplish their main goal of destroying Israel, and the moment they become inconvenient to Iran, their supplies and support will dry up. Hezbollah sold its soul to the Devil a long time ago, but as often happens in these Faustian dramas, they remain very much in denial, and will even as the demons drag them into the hellfire they deserve.

We Need Two Effective Parties In America

It’s hard for folks to imagine, but every U.S. President has been harassed by nay-sayers and overpaid poop-heads. Even George W. the First, who is the only man ever to be unanimously elected as President of the United States. During his second term as President, Washington called out the militias from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and several states to put down an armed revolt in 1794 by a large number of angry farmers. The force used was as large as the entire Continental Army of the Revolutionary War, so more than a few men suggested the response, especially to be used against citizens, was excessive, even perhaps oppressive. Thus even George Washington found his judgment and decisions questioned. From his administration to the current George W., whining and complaining has been a constant counterpoint in American political discourse.

Although Congress has always held the commanding portion of power in the American government, Americans have always considered the President to be the man who sets plans into motion and makes policy. Accordingly, entire parties have held prolonged and heated debates on the initiatives and programs of various Presidents. That has reached a ridiculous condition in the present Administration, where Democrats and Republicans these days both do their worst to malign and insult President Bush, equally falsely, but with a strange argument why they are assaulting the President.

What seems to be happening, is that the Democrats see the schism on the Right and believe it is opening a door for them, then they blow it by making statements and supporting positions that any sane person could tell them is a losing play. Republicans, for their part, were only too happy to take the gains which Dubya made happen, only to shun him the moment the MSM claimed he was not effective. It strikes me as an oddly fitting balance; George W. Bush has done more for the United States of America and its citizens, than most Republicans and the Democrats put together, so it makes a strange kind of sense that so many “Phants and ‘Donks would lie about him and attack his character as they do. But it also proves worth the effort, to consider why these turncoats and demagogues chose that course in the first place.

Over the past generation, a sea change has been taking place in the American political culture. People who, to be blunt, had bought into the lie that FDR’s leadership was continued in Democrats like LBJ and Carter, or even Mondale and Kerry, have largely come to their senses or been replaced by a generation that is more likely to test claims made by politicians. Democrats can no longer presume that they own whole demographic blocs, much less that the Left-tilted media will be able to fool enough people to win on a regular basis. Once the hysteria of discovering they are no longer in the majority, but actually in a condition which may fairly be described as a tailspin, the Democrats will have to decide if they are willing to do what it takes to survive. More on that in a moment.

The Republicans, for their part, have become a bit arrogant. Extremists declare themselves the “base” of the party, emit demands that are very much like Extortion in their character and practice, with the express intent of shutting down debate. So-called “moderates” ignore the will of their own people, because they vainly believe that their condition is immune to change or electoral loss. And the self-ordained “leaders” of the party are far more devoted to Machivellian intrigues than the welfare of their nation or party. Even when it is clear that a party may only retain its majority by allegiance to the promises which brought that majority into being, and to the President whose leadership made their post so much more secure, these narcissists see only their own design and purpose, and they wager everything they have or influence on the myth that their vanity counts as virtue.

It is a plain fact that most Americans are not especially enamoured of either major political party. Both parties are facing exceptional dangers, but also exceptional opportunities. And this country needs both parties, like it or not. It should be understood that the Republicans and Democrats of today have changed a lot from their progenitors, even from the variety which fought and won against the Nazis. The Democrats need a center of focus, to understand what really matters. The Republicans need to remember how they came to be the majority, and what represents the promise and the ideal in America. Name-calling and attacking the elected leadership is not sound governance, but symptoms of a serious malady. In the classic case, Liberals sought ways for government to serve the greater good against extant evil, while Conservatives sought to keep American ideals on top and the government aware that it reports to the people. Liberals have sought to reach future hopes, while Conservatives have protected traditional virtues. There is something of the mix of the Liberal and the Conservative in everyone, as the words originally meant to be used. The twisting of them, by enemies and by politicos who wanted to replace Accountability with slick Rhetoric, is a perversion which both Republicans and Democrats should eschew. The notion that a new veneer or package will do the trick is self-delusion, and only delays the much-needed repair.

Disquiet And Justice

Hate is insidious. Shortly after I wrote about the significant difference between most Muslims and the monsters who make up Al Qaeda and similar terror groups, I found a swarm of comments. Some ignored the main thrust of my argument, others went ahead and blamed Islam in total absence of any supporting evidence, and others evoked paranoid images with their fears in print. I found it peculiar that I also received a fair bit of mail on the article. For some reason the public comments were largely opposed to my point, while the private emails were unanimous in support. Doubtless, some of the haters may wish to adjust that balance by shooting off a hate mail or two.

One particularly interesting comment at Wizbang! was this one (writer left anonmymous out of courtesy):

“Do I think all muslims should be rounded up and interned/deported? No. Do I think that people from muslim controlled theocracies should be rounded up and interned/deported? Do I believe that we should stop allowing people from terrorist states entry into the US? ABSOLUTELY. Send them home, and lock the door on the way out.

Saudi Arabia exchange student programs? Cancel them. Iranian student
visas? Cancelled, return home.

I'd like to see some money spent on compiling the various sources of data that have recorded entry into the US by foreigners from terrorist nations. Once we have the data compiled, we should give that data to the US Marshall Service to track down, arrest, and intern/deport each and every immigration offender, known terrorist/terrorist ally, and foreign national from a terrorist state. Clean the books. Track them all down, and throw them out.”

Just a quick walk through that set of statements. The writer seems oblivious to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who come to the United States from places like Iran and Syria, do so to flee from the tyranny of the reigning mullahs. Most Iranian immigrants fled the Ayatollah, for crying out loud. I am sure that Mahmoud “I Have A Bomb” Amahdinejad would be delighted if the United States chased down and forcibly brought those émigrés to the tender mercies of his idea of a police force. The same may be said of Syria, where the Baath Party still rules, in much the same way as Baathist former President Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. Strange, that the paranoid here have so much in common with the paranoid there.

Now as for interning or deporting legal residents of the United States, on exactly what grounds would that be done? I have always supported strong no-nonsense enforcement of our laws, which by the way already calls it illegal to enter the United States on false pretenses or from a hostile nation. We already try to track anyone who enters the country illegally. Why this does not work, and what should be done to fix the problem is under intense discussion. It’s quite a false suggestion to claim that anyone who does not have a (D) after their name is not intent on finding a solution, or that you are somehow the first person to discover there is a problem. But such people are prone to ‘bumper sticker’ slogans, in the stupid and malevolent idea that they have it all figured out, and that anyone who does not but 100% into their personal plan is necessarily wrong and must be attacked and destroyed.

And about those student visas. Not one of these geniuses seems to have considered why, exactly, the student visa project exists. Remember those student protests in Iran over the past two years? Here’s a clue, Sherlock: They did not get their ideas about political representation and universal suffrage from Teheran Tech, Bubba. There is a real and significant gain to be had from exposing foreign students to American education. While the political character of many universities is unfortunately leftist, regular interaction with American students and culture has a real value in advancing American interests in the Middle East and Asia. Yes, some go bad but many more go good. It’s unfortunate that so many people just refuse to look beyond the shouting. Or to put it another way – when those Muslim crowds marched in protest against the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, how many of you Nimrods noticed that the marchers were similar in age, physical condition, and social class no matter where they went? It’s because the Jihadists put together those mobs from the unemployed and the dispossessed. What you did not see at those protests were doctors and engineers who went to American schools, or anyone whose life was not largely dependant on the power of the Jihadists.

There are smart, savvy ways to fight terrorism through careful use of the tools we have, and no one with a working brain is denying the threat of Islamofascism. But the notion of locking up people for their faith is stupid, cruel, unjust, and in every practical sense a loser. If we were, for example, to go after religious groups deemed to be a potential threat to the ‘American Way of Life’ as it is most commonly described, we would have to go after the Nation Of Islam, certain sects of Christian extremist communities, the Mormons, certain Catholic organizations, every survivalist group and a large chunk of Montana. We would soon after be forced to “protect” America by disarming veterans of souvenir weapons and deny any sort of protest by military veterans, on the basis that political dissent by any group experienced in combat would represent a threat to National Security.

Sound whacko? Once you decide that what a person believes should be outlawed, rather than responding to what is actually done, the cliff has already been jumped.

What troubles me the most in all of this, is how many of these hotheads do not personally know a single Muslim. They judge the whole issue by what they see on television or are told by a biased party. And we are all biased. Yes, it’s true that at the present time the heavy portion of international terrorist acts are committed by professed Muslims. But in my own lifetime, that has not always been the case. The IRA was not Muslim, nor was the Bahder-Meinhoff gang. The Weathermen of the 1960s were not Arabs nor Muslim. Going back a generation before that, Islam had nothing to do with the rise of Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin, or even Mao or Pol Pot. Idi Amin was not a Muslim. Jim Jackson did not teach Islam, nor did David Koresh. The Unabomber was not a Muslim, nor was Dr. King killed by a Muslim.

Please wake up, and see the difference between the monsters and the people. Those who cannot, are becoming monsters themselves.

Islam Is (Still) Not The Enemy

I received an email Saturday from Errol Phillips, regarding the necessary course for America to win the War on Global Terror. Phillips contends that “our leaders” are too “P.C.” to take what Phillips contends is the necessary action of “rounding up” Muslims for the safety of Americans. Otherwise, says Phillips, Americans “will have to take matters into our own hands and do what is necessary to protect our way of life and our families.”

I could not disagree more.

As I am a Southern Baptist in doctrine, and have long noted the disparity between what is taught by the Bible and by the Quran, I certainly do not agree with much that Islam claims, as a religion. That said, I cannot condone the collective demonization of nearly a billion people simply because of how they choose to serve God. There have been, according to a site which blames Islam for Islamofascism, 5,568 “deadly acts of terror” since the 9/11 attacks. Assuming this to be true, that works out to about one act of terror for every 197,557 Muslims. Since it is reasonable to believe that the same people commit these kinds of acts, the ratio is far closer to more than one million Muslims who have never committed a violent act for every Muslim who has committed one. Frankly, that speaks rather well of Islam.

So what’s going on? What I mean is, Islam has not exactly done a great job of defending its image as a religion of freedom and peace. Groups like CAIR, frankly, do more damage than support for their cause, as they cannot seem to understand that people do not trust groups which will not be accountable for the bad things done in their name. It should be remembered that Christianity had to split in half before the Roman Catholic Church, oh so grudgingly, came about to admit that the Inquisition and things like Simony and Indulgences were not very Christ-like. I mention this, because the overwhelming majority of Protestants today accept the Roman Catholics as real Christians and brothers in Christ, and see the late Pope John Paul II as a true saint. It should also be recalled that John Paul II was never shy to criticize authorities, whether the Soviets, the Americans, the Protestants – or the Catholics.

But getting back to the point, most Muslims should not be confused, at all, with the people who claim to speak for the faith, much less the extremists who think that God is impressed by a bloodbath. I know this, because in my garrulous habit of chatting up anyone willing to have a conversation with me, I have made acquaintance with a fair number of Muslims here in Houston. They tend to keep their privacy, for a number of reasons, but when they speak they often do so with a fervor and conviction I find straightforward. For the longest time, Muslims have addressed their own community, thinking of the world as pretty much an alien place. This allows fiends like bin Laden and Khomeini an open stage to claim the mantle of religious leadership, especially since Islam teaches that a man who claims moral authority he does not really receive from God is in dire peril of his soul. The soulless, of course, do not worry about that.

I also discovered that many Muslims are unsure of American motives. We value freedom, but that freedom protects pornography and obscenity. We have laws, but the rich seem to get away, literally, with murder. We offer products at good price all around the world, but it seems that we inject our culture into everything we touch. Muslims are not keen to have their daughters be seen as sex objects, their men judged mainly on their ability to make money, and their families mocked for practicing traditional beliefs and holding closely to their culture. When America speaks to the world, Muslims worry that we are giving orders, not making suggestions. So, most Muslims are reluctant to appear too supportive of America. Even those who agree with the American way of life worry that the Arab world would misunderstand them.

The false image of America in the Muslim world is hard enough to correct, but it can be done. Indeed, the changes in Iraq and Afghanistan are going a long way to prove the extremists liars. But it is imperative that the American people, even if they do not agree with the teachings of Islam, do not wrongly blame Islam for everything done in its name.

A Reminder About Polls

I have noticed that a lot of the media noise right now is about polls, Job Approval polls, estimates of leads in opinion polls, generic party preference polls, take your choice. I did a search under the News section of Google for “polls” and got 17,600 hits. Under “opinion polls elections” I got 1,490 hits. This is under ‘News’, and that’s no mistake – the media is regularly treating opinion polls as news events in themselves. Even the blogs do this, so every so often it is important to stop and go back to the basics, to understand the information in a proper and organized fashion.

To be blunt, there are good polls and there are bad polls, and I do not mean that a poll is good if it says what I want to hear, or vice versa. In fact, I may disagree with the stated conclusions of a poll, yet consider it a good one. This is because, as I judge them, a “good” poll is one which basically tells you how it got to the results it posts, especially noting the demographics of the respondent pool, the ‘ingredients’ which make the poll what it is. The really bad polls are the ones which either hide the internal data, which use an inconstant methodology, select demographic weighting significantly at odds with known standards, or which present a proprietary poll for a client but then attempt to present it to the public as an objective effort without financial influence from an outside party. It can be tricky, but after you learn which polls are consistent and reliable, you can get a better feel for what is going on.

Rule number one – don’t be fooled by headlines. More than a few agencies, especially national wire services, have a peculiar habit of taking one item from a poll and ignoring significant information. A case in point would be the recent claims of poor support for President Bush, without observing A – that the President, even at his lowest point, enjoyed significantly better support and approval than Congress, or either or the two major political parties, and B – that the President’s numbers have slowly but steadily been rising for several months. If you are going to consider the results of a poll, take the time to read everything, especially how the questions are phrased and in what order.

Rule number two – Look for a poll’s internal data, including demographics of the respondent pool and weighting. Some polls will claim that they need to protect their methodology from copying, but that’s simply dishonest. ANY poll which releases information to the public, owes support for its claims. No exceptions, no excuses. This is critical, because the balance of things like urban/suburban/rural, men to women, or race proportions has everything to do with the results. If I did a poll mostly on the East Coast, but claimed it was a national poll, that would hardly be a true statement, and if I overcounted minorities the results would unquestionably be skewed. If a poll will not give specifics and support its numbers, they are not being honest, no matter whether you like what it says or not.

Rule number three – reading a poll can be interesting, but never take any single poll by itself for your source of opinion. Always consider the results from at least three polls in any two-week period of time on any question, or you risk letting an anomaly throw you off.

And finally, rule number four - even if a poll is valid and accurate, and done with a conscientious application of accepted standards and practices, it is only a snapshot of the moment. Never count too much into any poll.

Context In Elections

One thing about the election season; there’s always a lot of people willing to predict this or that, even half a year before the election. The thing is, they forget events that change the outcome, sometimes just the margin, but sometimes everything changes.

It’s too soon to know the impact that the aborted Air Bomb plot will have on the midterm elections, but it seems clear to me that there will be an effect. A candidate could goof by trying to make political gain on a crisis; people do not much like a politician pretending to be a security blanket. But a politician would be very foolish to try to pretend that there is not a real National Security issue raised by the continuing war on Terror. The plotters in England sent a clear rebuttal to the sneering condescension from Leftists who try to wish America back to sleep about the threat. Considering the difficulties caused by the new restrictions on carry-on luggage – think about a 2-hour wait and you can’t have a drink, cosmetics, or any number of other ‘comfort’ items to pass the time – and compare them to the broad acceptance of these conditions as necessary, and you will see that the unconscious behavior of Americans shows they understand the issue at a gut level, and they are on the President’s side in general. That does not mean that Republican ‘X’ will get any more support in his race just because of that, but if his Democrat opponent tries the now-familiar ‘terrorists are not an issue’ claim again, it will make a difference.

Every election in the same season is affected by national and international events, but it should also be remembered that every individual election has its own character. The ‘generic ballot’ is laughably stupid; people vote for specific people, not the least because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats enjoy the deep or broad confidence in their party to drive most people to vote just because of the party. Speaking a bit harshly about the modern media, I think that many of the fancy-hair media are just not willing to do the kind of digging and real investigation it would take to even figure out which races are really the competitive ones. Every election season has a few surprises, not least because the news crews spend more time and attention on makeup and lighting than in finding out what’s really on the public mind.

Now I Know Osama Is Dead

They know we are winning, and they are increasingly desperate.

The “they” I mean is Al Qaeda and the Jihadists. The “we” is the Coalition of nations which invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, and which has resolved to rid the world of one of the more pernicious threats to innocent people around the world. While I am aware that we still have very little specific information, and that there is still considerable danger – apparently a number of the action cells are still at large and presumably able and motivated to try to carry out their mission in some way – it occurs to me that the past two days has brought a great deal of good news on the strategic and tactical levels of this war. If things are as they appear, ‘we’ the people have made significant progress against ‘they’ the monsters. To illustrate this, since so many people have already pointed out that the terrorists wanted this to be another 9/11, I will point out some of the many differences which tell us some fascinating things about this war.

First, the tactics. I find myself wondering how true it is that we supposedly got an agent inside the terrorist planning. If we did, it appears to mean that the group which planned this was in such straits that they had to recruit people to join in on the plan. That’s a big change from the 9/11 attacks, which were held in close confidence – some of the hijackers themselves did not know their role in detail until right before the event – and whose planners were very careful to hand-pick team members. If there was no undercover agent, then the British and Americans are protecting some very special sources and methods, which is even better news, since that would mean we possess an effective intelligence weapon moving forward for future plans and operations. Incidentally, that’s something else I love about this – in the old days, the governments on both sides of the Atlantic had a bad habit of letting important details slip, so the creeps could learn and adapt. Not any more. I love that British officials understood enough that they could look straight at a reporter and explain, 'You don’t need to know that, boyo.'

And of course, there is the way things played out. It seems that all the planning was done at the theoretical level, with none of the physical rehearsal done for the 9/11 hijackings, nor does there seem to be the redundant personnel available or alternative plan for a fall back. No Khalid to plan this one out for the monsters.

Then there is the strategic perspective to this plan. War is not a game, where every action counts the same, and you win by making a big enough bang. The terrorists have lost their bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are having a bad time of it in many other places. The terrorists understand the loss in logistical terms, and are becoming very worried about what happens if this western notion of representative government and armies which serve the commonwealth instead of the loudest mullah catches on in a country near them. Worst of all, the terrorists realize that if the United States establishes self-supporting governments and stable infrastructures in Iraq and Afghanistan, then they can do that thing which is the Jihadists’ nightmare: They might remove their forces from those Middle Eastern territories, as friends with the people living there and the clear victors in those nations. The rhetorical support for the Jihad against the West takes a body blow and then some if and when that happens.

With that in mind, look at this operation from a strategic perspective. The Jihadists could only have hoped for one of two possible responses. They either hoped that the attacks would damage confidence in the leadership of PM Tony Blair and President George W. Bush, or they hoped that the attacks would spur the Brits and Yanks to some sort of reckless action for revenge. Anyone who has been paying attention in the past half-dozen years knows that neither scenario would have developed. Had the attacks succeeded, the American and British outrage would have coalesced into renewed understanding as a whole for why we have to fight this war, and would have led to a more determined, yet still controlled, campaign. We already understand these bastards target innocents and like to saw heads off people if there’s a camera rolling; this would have only confirmed that knowledge and shut up some of the more stupidly naïve speakers on the Left. The terrorists, of course, made the mistake of focusing on their own perspective and not correcting for bias, and they missed the results of the last several elections. To wit, they acted as if Al Gore were the President of the United States, not George W. Bush.

And then there is the cost of failure. Image is everything to a terrorist. Cutting off the head of a helpless hostage is an obscene sin in every culture, which is why the terrorists like it as a message – the greater the atrocity, they believe, the greater the effect of their message. While that is a sick and perverted concept, there is some evidence that it works in the Middle East, or at least works where your choice of government is between arrogant tyrants and intolerant religious fanatics. But the terrorists cannot abide failure. And an international plan which results only in the arrest of most of the planners and participants without even a single murder to brag about, well folks that’s just embarrassing for the terrorists. How do they figure on getting money and political protection if their biggest plans not only fail, but make the target governments look effective and responsible?

Osama bin Laden was a fiendish and evil man, whose plots have hurt countless people around the world, but he was a careful planner and he chose his operatives carefully. The results of this latest plan show me two things for sure; the planners in Al Qaeda or whomever is leading the Jihadist parade these days are of a distinctly poorer caliber of mind than the had before, and the West is more able and effective than before.

A Rat By Choice

I have accepted that I will, in all likelihood, never enjoy the fame nor fortune of a Hewitt, a Limbaugh, or a Malkin. Part of this is due to the fact – seldom acknowledged – that for all their gushing about the New Media, these all established their names and lucrative ventures in the Old Media. Nothing at all wrong with making money and getting famous through newspapers or radio or television, but let’s be honest about it – the Blogosphere is not a center of High Finance or Mercantile industry, nor could it thrive if it became so. The Blogs exist for a variety of motives, but every successful blog comes into being because its author(s) sense a need to fill a void, correct a lie, or right a wrong, and so are unique and generally sacrifice size for agility. Some blogs will make money, and some will become widely popular, but many others must serve a different purpose.

In my case, I find that I am not very good at all as a glad-handing showman or salesman. That’s not to say I have not enjoyed success; sometime today my site is going to log visit number one hundred thousand, but I am reminded that there are many blogs which do as well in a week as I have in three years. Ah well, keeps me humble it does.

Not silent, though. I have long understood that I am a peculiar sort. A Republican who sees a place and a need for Democrats in American politics, a Fundamentalist Christian who nonetheless accepts that God has love and hope for every person, even if I do not understand the plan. An American who sees our place as one of duty as much as power, and our authority on loan from the Lord. So it is that I accept very little at face value, and pursue truth and the higher purpose wherever I can see it. It is also true, that as I am both Scots-Irish and a Texan, that I sometimes speak my mind in warm vernacular, though I try hard to avoid personal insults. I certainly receive such perjoratives in comments and my mail, which always tells me when I have hit a nerve.

Now about that title. In the Chinese Zodiac, people are categorized more by year than by month, and while I am not all that keen on Astrology, I am impressed with how many people I know who fit their Chinese “animal”. As for me, I was born in the “Year of the Rat”. Intelligent and talky, a big ego and fiercely loyal to family and friends. Yeah, that sounds about right. But you know what? That would pretty much be my choice, anyway. And like rats everywhere there are always more of us than you think, and we never really go away. OK sure, I do like to keep clean and neat, and I hire exterminators, I don’t hide from them, but the analogy works on the rhetorical level; I am one of those guys who doesn’t mind tweaking anyone who needs it, and even my own party could use a reminder from time to time that we have to measure up to the promise, not turn into just another flavor of the arrogant politicos we saw from Donkeytown for all those years. Sometimes that means reminding Malkin that she owes the President, and not vice versa. Sometimes that means pointing out the errors in even El Rushbo’s bluster when it happens – an acolyte or well-paid disciple cannot do that, but we rats will chew on whatever seems tasty. And since they are so crummy in their standards and behavior, count on the Left getting more than a munch from my teeth. I may never be a household name, but me and mine are never quite forgotten. Nor should we be.

The Word and The Gunny

And it came to pass that the Lord saw that Injustice and Tyranny were growing in the world. So to protect the right and defend the righteous the Lord spake, and said “Let there be Marines!!!”

And it was very good.

The Christian and Politics

I find myself just a bit depressed by the tone of political debate in America. The Left seems to demand the abolition of every traditional American and Christian value, including – almost especially – our right as free people to hold and express our faith as we see fit. The Party which speaks so much of ‘Tolerance’, shows none at all in practice.

But the Right has gone wrong, as well. Lately, the extremists in the Conservative Media, especially the Blogosphere, have produced a series of litmus tests for political reliability, a la the old Political Officers of the KGB – now there’s a model for you! – so that only the people saying the right things, and in the approved way, are deemed worthy of support. So it is that many who can talk the talk but never show any results, are lionized as some kind of ‘Champion of the Right’, even when their tactics and brittle ideology shuts down any chance for constructive dialog. And so it is, that many who do serious work, whose hearts and minds are devoted not to their ego but to the work they promised their constituents, are attacked and demeaned, even by their self-proclaimed “base”, for the sin of not playing puppet.

It seems to me not only that Condi Rice would make a good President of the United States, but that at this time in history we very much need someone of her character and abilities. It also seems to me, sadly, that she understands all too well what a nest of vipers inhabit the RNC and the various outlets of “Conservative” media, and that a person of true integrity and steadfast commitment to the nation will find few friends there. Consequently, Dr. Rice would rather have a series of root canals than enter that modern version of the Inquisition we call the Republican primaries.

This, by the way, is why the President has such trouble with getting his programs through Congress. The Rabies Wing of the GOP hates him because they claim he is not a real Conservative, which is debatable, and the Liberal leaders of the Democratic Party (Hypocrites since 1969) hate him because he is a Christian leader, and a very real one.

Even as I type that, I can hear the howls of outrage from those who deem themselves the gatekeepers to ‘True Christianity’. To my mind, that very outrage proves the falsity of such egos; Christ owns His kingdom and knows His servants, and no man has the right to hate a professed Christian. As an example, while I take issue with many specific instances of his personal conduct, I do not deny that Bill Clinton is a Christian. But looking closer, the real distinction is that aspect of Leadership. I believe President Clinton meant well, but he acted as a man, thinking and deciding on the course of the nation according to what he personally wanted to do. President Bush takes his commission as a Christian seriously, and so take the caution to consider his course in the light of Scripture, and with prayer ahead of the decision. If nothing else, this allegiance to God first has helped Bush maintain a vital sense of balance through a number of crises. In 2000, while Gore raged and both parties ranted, then-Governor Bush was surprisingly calm; the media did not understand that Bush had put his trust in the Lord, and would accept whatever God commanded. So also after 9/11; for all the lies thrown out that Bush wanted to ‘rush to war’, the plain fact evidenced by the record was that he was careful, deliberate, and made sure to warn America not to hate Islam for what only a few extremists had done. As for the war itself, I know that many on the Left cannot accept that God would command a Christian leader to go to war, but the Bible bears abundant testimony that the Lord is a King of War as well of Peace, and once one accepts that the Lord has plans for specific nations, the leaders of those nations owe their obedience to the Lord.

But there is a direct and personal responsibility for the Christian to accept. Some people choose not to vote, much less support a candidate in elections, because they do not accept that God has granted dominion to Man. Yet again, we are reminded many times in Scripture that until Christ returns to the Earth to begin His reign, God will appoint and select certain people to rule as regents; God alone is to be worshipped, but even Caesar is to be obeyed and honored. If pagan leaders are so to be obeyed and respected, how much more should we accept the leadership of a brother in Christ who is assigned his place by the Lord?

It is not right to love Democracy so much, that one demands God should step down, but the freedoms granted by God should not be abandoned simply because a man leads the country. So then the political duty of every Christian is to work for the election of men who serve God, to obey the law and work for any needed change through prayer but also through campaigning. And when God allows a man to take office through His wisdom, it is not fitting that a Christian should mock that man, for to do so is to mock God’s will. Better we should honor him whom God allows to hold authority, and to listen closely for the Lord’s will and desire. Especially when a man serves the Lord better than men are willing to admit.

Elections Are Not Scientific

Tom Delay runs for and wins the GOP Primary for his Congressional District in Texas, then decides he wants off the ballot, then two courts say he has to stay on the ballot in a race he no longer wishes to run.

Cynthia McKinney strikes a police officer, yet does not think this will impact her political future.

Joe Lieberman, once a major name in the Democrats' White House hopes, is pilloried for speaking his mind and showing respect for the troops, and loses his primary to an arrogant extremist in a nice suit.

At one time, all three of these individuals were considered very solid in their elected position, both in terms of support and personal influence. Yet once they ran into trouble, their friends and one-time allies ran for cover and denied any connection to them. Small wonder Colin Powell and Condi Rice have repeatedly declined to run for office, and the field for President in 2008 appears to include only the demented and the extremely arrogant.

Power, Enemies, Privilege, Target

Tom Delay deserves better. He wrestled the House Republicans into something like a united force, he provided the impetus for the redistricting in Texas to correct half a century of Democrat gerrymandering and race-baiting, and for all his work since 1984 he has received precious little thanks from the Republican Party, or support from the Conservative Movement.

Delay is under indictment from a political witchhunt directed by Travis County DA Ronnie Earl. The effect of this worthless case has been to smear Delay’s reputation and exhaust his financial resources and personal energy, in large part because most Republicans turned their back on Delay rather than stand with him against charges they knew to be false, indeed no better than a frivolous attack by a man known to have a grudge against a legion of political targets. Delay stood by the Party however, so that he ran in the primaries to protect the character of the district’s seat. But after winning the primary, Delay decided he’d had quite enough of the timid version of less-than-lukewarm support he had seen from his party, and the ephemeral memory of Conservatives for all he had done, and he retired, only to be told by a judge that he cannot be removed from the ballot. Now, Delay finds himself forced to return to Texas to defend his seat from a party which has deceitfully maligned and assaulted him, for the specific benefit of a party which has been glad to receive the benefits of Delay’s work, only to forget him the moment he is in need himself.

If you are a Republican, you owe Tom Delay a lot, starting with a sincere apology.

If you are a Democrat, you should hate Judge Sam Sparks, who could not see past his partisanship to let Delay quit the race. Because of this stunt, Delay will likely campaign hard for his seat, because Delay is nothing if not a fighter and a man of his ideals. Despite the way the GOP deserted him, Delay will not surrender his seat to a Democrat, nor let the lies and dirty tricks they have played in trying to steal this district.

Whatever happens, Tom deserves better.

Fingers, Wind, and Fate: The Lieberman-Lamont Dilemma

A lot of analysts and bloggers have pointed to the Senate primary in Connecticut between incumbent Joe Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont as the bellwether for the Democratic Party’s direction, leadership focus, and future. Something about that notion bothers me.

The first problem is the state. Connecticut is not America. That is, one should not think that what happens in Connecticut represents the national trend. True, John Kerry emerged from New England, and so did Michael Dukakis, so to some extent New England is a cradle for Democratic aspirants, but considering how each candidate fared, this is not a salient indicator of political strength.

Next is the question of issues. Basically, it seems Lamont has one chord to play:“Iraq”. Considering that the 2002 and 2004 elections amounted to referendums on Iraq (and the Democrats at both times said so), it does not seem to me the wisest strategy for a general course, especially given the events in the Middle East as a whole. Americans understand that the maniacs in Syria and Iran cannot be allowed to expand their Jihad the way they plan, and Americans support Israel’s right to defend itself – they are more than willing to choose a course which the Arab world and yellow-flag Europe cannot stomach. The Democrats are clearly on the wrong side of this issue, and even if they win in Connecticut, they will find this tune hard to sell in most of America. America is a nation which loves Marines, not the timid or bitter whiners we see in the ranks of the Left.

Continuing with the issues, one wonders why Connecticut Democrats have not noticed Lamont’s weak spots with the key issues. It is not really that hard to note that Connecticut voters, like the nation as a whole, worry about their finances, their taxes, the cost of oil and gas, and the safety of our borders. It may be that the average Connecticut voter doesn’t like President Bush very much, but it’s fairly foolish to think the voter is eager to spend more on taxes, or put his family at risk just to “send a message”.

Then there is Schlesinger. Rumors are bouncing around that the Connecticut GOP wants Schlesinger to quit his race, which would open up the race for a bigger name to jump in. No, I don’t seriously think that the Democrat nominee will lose in November, but then again, how stupid do you have to be to not only whack a former VP nominee and sitting Senator, on the basis of his personal opinion on one issue, but also attack him so foully that he considers a run as an Independent. The only way a GOP candidate for the Senate could win in November, is if the Democrats made it possible for 35-38% of the vote to win. By the methods they chose to attack Lieberman, the Democrats have made that a real possibility. I cannot believe that the national Democrats would make such a suicidal strategy their overall platform.

Of course, the Will of God – or Fate if you prefer - may well be playing a part in this. It is my strictly personal opinion that we have been blessed with the leadership of the Republican Party, rather than the Democrats, especially with men like Ronald W. Reagan and George W. Bush, because God wished it so. No, that doesn’t make God a Republican. It just means the Elephants annoy Him a bit less than the Donkeys do.

Religious Thoughts

I have been reading up on the Mel Gibson scandal. Strange to me, how a few words from a man clearly not in control of his mouth are deemed more worthy of condemnation than the deliberate bombardment of civilians nation by literally thousands of missiles from a terrorist organization.

But it also reminds me, that when one discusses religious thought, reasonable discussion, especially the sort where mutual respect is observed, quickly proves beyond hope. I have noticed that some people cannot show any respect to differing beliefs, even within the same faith. What I mean is, I have been doing some reading on the Biblical book of “Revelation”. Not surprisingly, there is a wide range of thought on what that book means, but unfortunately there is also a good deal of anger and hatred on the subject. Protestants blaming Catholics and vice versa, a lot of Fundamentalist accusations against “watered-down” Christianity, any many cruel and false things said about the Fundamentalists as well. After reading some of this, and considering the sorts of things done in the name of Christ in the past two thousand years, I am not nearly surprised that the Muslims now find themselves using the Quran to try to excuse the most ungodly and monstrous acts.

I have in mind more to write about the different sects and denominations, as well as a few thoughts about the book of Revelation, but for now I would just remind every one of us in Christ, that we are brothers and sisters, and should show our love for the Father through love for each other.

Justice Or What?

Down here in Houston, the case of former TSU President Priscilla Slade is in the news. The news has all but called for tar and feathering, and I admit that for just a moment I actually bought into it. After all, the woman had a high-paying and prestigious job as President of university, she lived in a fine mansion and is accused of violating the public trust and almost bankrupting the university. I should mention here that TSU – Texas Southern University – is a mostly-black university which serves comparatively low-income students for the most part, and so financial irregularities at TSU would impact the school more severely than most other universities. In plain words, the woman is accused not only of taking university money and property for her own benefit and enjoyment, but in doing so jeopardized the education and futures of thousands of students who can ill afford such abuse.

But here in Houston, Councilman and would-be Congressman Michael Berry is questioning the possible sentence Slade might receive if found guilty. I do not totally agree with Berry’s argument – after all, just because other people have received too light a sentence, does not mean everyone should also get off. I also think that the context of an offence should be considered; far too many white-collar criminals get off easily, and yes, sometimes that means the county or the state should make an example of someone who violates a position of trust like this. Bear in mind, of course, that at this point Slade has only been indicted, not even tried, so there’s not a lot of evidence which is known, just a lot of talk.

But Berry raises a good question, and one which should make everyone cringe a bit. Whether Old-School or New Age, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, we should all be able to recognize that the system does not always work, and even when it does it is far from perfect. Anything designed by humans will have errors, and Berry raises the key question about our Criminal Justice system – what do we want it to do, and why? I had to think again about that question, and I commend such contemplation to everyone.

Why I Support Mel Gibson

Back on July 28, actor/director Mel Gibson said some truly awful things when he was stopped for driving under the influence. Gibson has since apologized, directly, fully, and humbly, for his words.

The question now, is what do we make of this? Some people have rejected Mel’s apology, even though it was far more humble than most we see these days. Other people want to pretend the incident never happened, even though the words used by Gibson were every bit as “reprehensible” as he himself admitted. And in either case, it’s impossible for us on the outside to really know which Mel Gibson is the real article? Well, I stand with Mel, and here’s why.

First off, while it is true that Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ” was controversial, there is no evidence that Gibson meant the film as a slur against Jews. The Gospel accounts are all generally harsh in their judgment of the Sanhedrin and especially the High Priest Caiaphas, so any film which is faithful to a literal reading of those books would be controversial in that respect. I will not go further in discussing that film here, since I neither agree totally nor disagree completely with the film, and because I do not believe the film in any way demonstrates any hostility against Jews by Gibson. I am also aware of the many donations made by Gibson to Jewish charities and foundations, and the significant fact of Gibson’s close friendship with a number of observant Jews. From what I can tell, the evidence of Gibson’s actual work demonstrates that he is not a bigot.
If that is true, then, what do we make of Gibson’s rant? One can hardly say he was misquoted or simply phrased a thought in a bad way. But since I do not believe that rant represents Gibson’s true spirit, where did it come from?

To answer that, and to further explain why I support Gibson, I want to share something from my own life. My parents have always been good, God-fearing people who want to live in imitation of Christ. To love and forgive and be good to everyone To that end, my parents always instructed me to judge people by their character, never by just their appearance or superficial things like race or culture. Because of this, I have many friends from many cultures and backgrounds, and I consider myself much better-rounded and more fully developed as a person. And it happens that my wife is a different race than I am. And it is that fact which led to a great surprise.

When I announced to my parents that I had asked my girlfriend to marry me, I expected them to be surprised – after all, I was in my mid thirties and everyone had pretty much decided I would never marry. But I was stunned when my mother gave me a stony look, and my father sat me down and lectured me to consider whether I knew what I was getting into, if I insisted on marrying “one of those people”.

That was the closest I ever came to physically striking my own father. In time, however, he and my mom came to appreciate my wife better, and to show her respect. The funny thing is, my parents were not being hypocritical – they meant what they taught me about judging people by character only, but they had not prepared themselves for the cultural shock which came from a logical extension of those beliefs. In their generation, no one they knew married outside their race, and they simply never expected their son might not walk the expected path.

Mel’s dad, well, what I have read is not at all complimentary about the man, especially in the matter of Jews. I have no doubt that when he was growing up, Mel heard a lot of things which were just like what he said last Friday night, and somehow the liquor brought it out from Mel. Maybe it was something Mel used to believe but does not anymore. Maybe it was something he never believed, but heard so often the phrases were in his brain, ready to roll out at bad times. Or maybe part of Mel was brought up to believe that crap, and he’s been fighting that demon for a long time now.

I know this. Mel has done himself some very bad damage, and he knows that. His actions up to now are not those of an anti-Semite, and I for one found his apology contrite and honest. He wants to fight his alcoholism, and to make reparation for the hurt his words caused. A lot of famous people wouldn’t, and have not, done or said as much as Mel has.

Give him a chance.

The Black Hand Returns – The Anarchist Aspect to Jihadism

One of the stranger things about debating the Global War on Terror, is having to sell some folks on the idea that defending our nation from terrorists is a good and necessary thing. In fact, there seem to be a lot of people on the Left, who are very bad at convincing folks they are as patriotic as the regular guy, since they insist on making excuses for some very bad people. Oddly enough, there is a long historical trail for groups like Hezbollah and the various Jihadist factions, one which has made clear their character and motive. And yet mainstream political parties support, even embrace, such monsters.

Back in the early years of the Twentieth Century, an international group existed which changed Terrorism into something very like what we know today, yet for many years the schools did not teach children about it. Most people are aware that World War One as it is commonly known, was set in motion through a series of causes and events, but the spark was the assassination on June 28 1914 of the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand during a visit to Sarajevo. What is not commonly taught or remembered, is that Ferdinand was killed by a Serbian subsect of the Black Hand, for the specific intention of sparking a great war which would destabilize governments so that revolution could occur. The scary part is that this is exactly what happened. Russia fell, Germany was forever changed, France and England greatly weakened by the conflict. Even the United States radically changed its foreign policy and military doctrine because of what happened in Europe. In fact, the Black Hand also came to the United States and began a series of bombings and assassinations, including attacks on Federal Judges, a number of Senators and Supreme Court Justices, and notable business leaders. When a bomb in 1920 exploded on the very doorstep of Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, he appointed a young graduate from the George Washington University Law School to head up a task force to deal with the crisis. Almost three hundred terrorists were arrested in the next three months by the group led by J. Edgar Hoover, who forever linked the anarchists with the Bolsheviks, who often carried letters or copies of speeches from the Soviet leader Lenin, who in his own turn may fairly be compared to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in both style and tactic. Like the anarchists of a century ago, today’s anarchists ardently believe that in order to have a chance to establish the sort of government they desire, they must first destabilize and bring down the existing order.

So then, why would Democrats support such monsters? It is clear that the anarchists in the United States, in so far as they vote or support a party, have chosen to support the Democrats. This, to be fair, was not true during the days of Bill Clinton, when the anarchists saw him as the force of order to be opposed, but since the Republicans have gained control of the White House and the Congress, they are especially hated by the extreme Left, who are quite willing to accept the apparently strong support. Basically, it seems that the Left makes a number of questionable assumptions:

1. They believe that the extremists are not going to be able to succeed, and therefore conclude that there will be no consequences to accepting their help.
2. They believe that they are close enough to win, so that even extremists are worth accepting in order to gain votes.
3. Democrats mistake noise for significance, so that they are willing to offend the larger portion of their voter base in order to pander to relatively small groups, which create a far greater image than they can support at the polls. Consider the disappointing effect of the DU crowd, for instance.
4. Extreme Liberals have convinced the national party that only extreme positions will catch the attention of the voting public in a meaningful way.

It should be noted as well, that the Democrats ands American Liberals are hardly the only people to have fallen for the trap of accepting anarchists into their number. The overwhelming majority of international protests against American actions in the Middle East have had connections to or influence by anarchist groups, and more than a few governments have thought they could play with the anarchists without getting burned. Certainly this is a factor in Jihadism – some of these groups are waiting for a chance to establish their idea of a perfect nation, and to do that they are determined to undermine public confidence in the existing regimes. This is why they target the innocent, why they look for soft targets with high visibility. It is why, when Al Qaeda struck on 9/11, that their first and primary target was the World Trade Center rather than a legitimate military target – they wanted to hurt innocents in the belief that this atrocity would weaken the government. It is obvious that the only hope for Al Qaeda in Iraq is to provoke a civil war, so they attack mosques and bomb shopping centers. Ultimately however, there can be no resolution in order through the use of anarchist forces. Look at Lebanon. Prior to 1970 Lebanon was a peaceful, stable nation, but after the anarchists brought about civil war, order was lost, and even though Syria was successful in taking control, it turns out they could not hold it – the chaos of the anarchists led only to more disorder and violence. The anarchists win by a simple fact – they do not care about winning, except that the forces of Order are undone. And even the Jihadists are finding out that you cannot play games with Chaos on your terms.

Justice Delayed, Sometimes Just Finds Another Door

Over at Polipundit.com, writer “Oak Leaf” wrote about how the Bush White House is dealing with the absurd SCOTUS ruling that denied the use of military tribunals, for no reason beyond their demand that the President, in essence, get permission from Congress to do his job. Oak Leaf, a reserve Lt. Colonel with a tour in Afghanistan under his belt along with some significant experience and a better-than-average mind, linked to a draft of a resolution he found, which essentially hands President Bush back his authority to use military tribunals for terrorists apprehended and detained at places like Guantanamo.

The “Enemy Combatant Military Commissions Act of 2006”, as the bill is tentatively titled, properly observes historical and legal precedent for what is deemed the “Law of War”, and is consistent with all treaties and legislated obligations to which the United States is signatory. I should stop here and emphasize that the use of military tribunals is not only legal under the auspices of the much-vaunted yet commonly misunderstood Geneva Convention, but military courts are specified as the only acceptable kind (Article 84), and that death sentences are legal and legitimate if certain restrictions and conditions are observed (Articles 100, 102). The Congress, in this proposed Act, merely adds its consent to the administration of the President’s authority in wartime, which should not reasonably be required by this interloping court but since such is the case, this Act affirms that the President has the authority and the consent of the Congress.

The 2008 Republican Nomination for President

Tod Lindberg at The Washington Times wrote a piece with a look towards the 2008 Presidential election, specifically focusing on the possible Republican nominee. It’s a good article, and worth reading, but it strikes me as short-sighted, missing a few lessons from History. And so I find myself taking a shot at the crystal ball of party leader decision.

Lindberg looked basically at who is popular now, more than 2 years out from the election. That is not really an accurate look. While he quickly became the front-runner, George W. Bush did not announce his candidacy until 1999. And does the name Paul Tsongas ring a bell? After G.H.W. Bush hit 90%+ approval ratings after the first Gulf war, only Tsongas declared he would run against him. Bill Clinton did not join the race until October of 1991. In fact, many successful campaigners come into the fray late, and for good reason; a campaign is expensive and a long exposure gives opponents, both in your own and in the other party, a long time to dig up anything about you they can attack. So, to be blunt, anyone who is a front-runner right now probably won’t be around when the real race begins.

Here’s my take on Lindberg’s pack:

John McCain has no chance to become President of the United States. None. First off, anyone experienced in election politics knows that Senators do not do well in Presidential contests, especially when running against non-Senators. Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, and so on all broadcast the same message in the way they act and speak, and it shows up in the voting. And McCain has already blown out in primaries before, and not just because he was running against Dubya. But there’s more. Any national contest means you need connections and alliances. That’s another reason why newbies do well in their POTUS run, because they haven’t burned their bridges yet. McCain has put knives in the backs of lots of people, and so he won’t get their help when he needs it. McCain can win in the East and in Arizona, but he’s far too divisive to build the kind of momentum he needs to hope for the party nod.

Rudy? Hey, I love Giuliani, even if he is pro-Choice and a N’Yawker. But like McCain, he’s been on the shelf long enough to make lots of friends, but also shove a few folks away. Yes, he can win New York, but probably does not have the staying power for a long campaign on the national scale. Call him a ‘maybe’, but not my idea of a front-runner. Too many questions on how he’d handle Foreign Policy, Taxes, Immigration, the things we already know will be on a lot of voters minds in 2008.

What about Romney? It’s wrong to think that folks are all that worried about a Mormon becoming President – I don’t see that it will matter if he can get past his real anchor – he’s from Massachusetts, but is a Republican. He’s everything the Democrats hate, so he may not even carry his home state, normally the kiss of death for a national contender, and Republicans are not all that excited by Romney, mostly because he has not been around the ‘Red Meat’ Republicans that usually do well in elections. I’d lock Romney in a room with a bunch of Reagan speeches, along with the ones which Dubs did well. I’d even throw in a few of the G.H.W. Bush speeches from his 1980 and 1988 campaigns – if “Poppy” Bush can sound manly by studying ‘Red Meat’ speechifying, then Romney could do well to learn it. As it is, he stands out kind of like Kerry at a NASCAR event. And it just makes sense to be as un-Kerry-like as possible.

So, if it’s not the present gaggle of wannabe’s, who will get the GOP nod? I can’t say for sure right now, since it comes down to three keys, but I can tell you what those keys are and where to look for them:

[] Talk the Talk. I just noted that there’s a ‘Core Republican’ way of making speeches and explaining your policies. The Democrats never figured it out, and a lot of Republicans are clueless, too. It showed up in Reagan’s ‘Shining City on a Hill’ speech, and again when Bush extemporized on the rubble at Ground Zero. It’s when a Republican shows real emotion, the kind of ideal shining through that most of us want in a leader, with a zeal for Justice and a love of America that is a lot deeper than the veneer politicos usually paint on for show. It’s what we all are, only more so. Make bold promises, and dare to cheer for the Right.

[] Be national. The race to the White House means claiming at least 270 Electoral Votes. Polarized or regional candidates won’t make it in the marathon of the Primaries, and as Howard “Scream” Dean found out, a loud name and a big warchest can’t overcome fundamental flaws. The ideal candidate will either be a Governor, preferably from the South or West, or the candidate will be someone widely respected at the national level.

[] Act Like You Already Are The President. You’d be amazed how often perception is framed by the image most often projected by the candidate. A small ego in the package of a clearly confident competitor is a big plus.

More Proof That The U.S. Has One Political Party And One Political Street Gang

John Hawkins asked right-wing bloggers to name the twelve people “on the right” that we found the most annoying. The main thing which struck me was that Conservatives are honest enough to admit that not all Conservatives are good people, and not all Republicans are good Conservatives, and not everyone who has the right opinion expresses it in the best way.

Take Michael Savage, for instance. Strictly speaking, I agree with many of his political views, but he expresses his opinion in a very poor way, regularly insulting people with no provocation or reason – I lost all respect for him when he remarked once that he felt no sympathy for the family of the Princess Diana, because – in his words – she was ‘planning to marry a raghead’. The man is a classless boor who does far more harm than good with his style.

On the political scene, my list also included John McCain. McCain is a tough call in some ways – he sometimes makes stands for noble causes, and as a former combat veteran and P.O.W., he has earned the credibility few others can claim when speaking about war. That said, McCain has often also proved himself an opportunist and a back-stabber, whose word cannot be trusted for a moment. He strikes me very much like a Republican Clinton, and therefore must never be trusted with the office of President of the United States.

I also included Michelle Malkin on my list. That was a tragic turn; Malkin used to be one of the most insightful and rational writers for the Conservative point of view, but that all changed with the Immigration debate. Malkin fell into the practice of unfairly twisting the President’s words just so she could use him as a rhetorical punching bag, and blame him – a la Al Franken – for things she knew full well he either had not caused, never said, or simply had no control over. She slipped, as some other notables on the Right have done, over the edge of rational debate and considered opinion into bitter rancor and feuding. Her own words may now be used in testament against her, all because she chose a poor method in a bitter mood.

Doubtless, some or even many Conservatives may read my submissions here and take issue with them. Savage, McCain, Malkin, and many others who made the list presented by Hawkins have their fans and supporters. And that, too, is my point. There is no monolithic “Conservative” view; we are as varied as the sixty-two million voters who re-elected President Bush, and more to come as the new generation of voters wake up not only to the lies of Liberal politicians, but to the fact that the Democrats are bankrupt at the Bank of Ideas. Every proposal from the Donks in the past quarter-century has been nothing but copied from an old Donk playbook. You know why the Donks always try to compare the War in Iraq to Vietnam? Because for the Donks, that’s the last war that they understood. Maybe it was a bad reaction to the first run of “Miami Vice”, but the Donks lost it and just never got moving forward again.

Anyway, this poll proves it once again. Sure, there are plenty of Liberal sites and columns which are quick to name the various Conservatives they despise, and God help the Donk who steps out of line as decreed from the DNC – funny, actually, it sure looks like it’s the Left which acts like robots and whacks their own if they show an independent mind – just look at the grief Joe Lieberman is getting for actually holding an opinion that did not get approved by a Clinton or a Moore. I cannot think of a single Democrat forum where vicious attacks by Liberals which cost the Left more of its dwindling credibility, is criticized for its incivility and poor strategy. I cannot recall ever reading a piece where Liberals warn their extremists to use evidence instead of insults to persuade the nation. As long as our side is willing to be honest and criticize our own, we will stay healthy and become stronger. The Democrats/Liberals are more and more becoming like the Crips, dangerous but stupid.

Cowards In Character: The NYT and Hezbollah

The New York Times, never able these days to sort Good from Evil with any consistent accuracy, reverted to form again in their latest opinion piece.

Writing for the Times, author Noah Feldman falsely insulted the elected government of Israel, the victims of more than a thousand cross-border missile attacks by Hezbollah, and – of course – the Bush Administration in a gross misrepresentation of the current climate in the Middle East, and the courses taken to address it.

Sniffs Feldman: “Destabilizing the old order really has changed the rules of the game. We are now witnessing the most serious regional test so far to the wisdom of starting down this uncertain path.”

“The old order”, as Mr. Feldman so fondly labels it, was one of dictators and torture prisons – not ‘torture’ as the NYT calls it, where a few people break the law and humiliate prisoners through ridicule, but REAL torture, where limbs are sawn off and prisoners murdered. The “old order” continues in Iran and Syria, where teenagers are murdered for things which are not even misdemeanors in the West (courtesy – BBC), and writers are arrested for discussing social problems in their nation (courtesy Al-Jazeera). In generations past, the public would furiously demand to know why we waited to respond, but Feldman thinks responding at all to evil is an “uncertain path”.

Like so many Liberals today, Feldman is unable to recognize, much less state, the obvious. He claims that “The most important new feature of the present situation is the strange hybrid character shared by Hamas and Hezbollah: both are simultaneously militias and democratically elected political parties participating in government”, but fails completely to mention that both of these so-called “militias” have long histories of kidnapping of civilians, torture, terrorist atrocities and murders. It would appear that the combination of, say, ‘U.S. Marines’, ‘Beirut’, ‘1983’ would ring no bells for this guy. Certainly he goes well out of his way to imply a moral equivalency between the government of Israel defending itself against unprovoked missile attack, and a non-government organization which has seized a nation’s territory for the express purpose of attacking Israel.

Feldman stupidly thinks that the legitimate government of Iraq should be compared to the junta style in Lebanon, claiming that “The model of Islamist organizations that combine electoral politics with paramilitary tactics is fast becoming the calling card of the new wave of Arab democratization.” I rather doubt that the millions of Iraqis and Afghans who participated in free elections, at great personal risk from terrorists still operating in their countries, felt that they were electing a pseudo-republic which planned to rule by coercion and threat, as is the practice with Hezbollah. I further doubt that any objective review of the official government policies in Baghdad, Kabul, or even Riyadh or Amman would reveal much similarity to the deranged venom coming from Hezbollah or its sponsors, the mullahs in Teheran.

Feldman sneers at pretty much everyone in the region, when he claims that the recent election of Hamas and Hezbollah to political position “calls into question the viability of Middle Eastern democracy as a peaceful practice”. I have already noted the clear chasm between the practices both of the new governments and many current administrations, against the vicious predatory pattern of terrorist groups.

Having crossed the line from accidental misstatement to deliberate lie, Feldman plunges on, claiming “Israel has targeted not only Hezbollah leaders and strongholds but has also bombed infrastructure that sustains daily life for everybody in Lebanon.” If that claim were true, Israel would have been poor in its targeting, as major roads, hospitals, water and power supplies, and civil government buildings have been left untouched. Only Hezbollah facilities and sites from which weapons have been launched have been attacked. Feldman in that statement is out and out lying, and he knows it.

Having plunged into clearly partisan propaganda and deliberate deceit, Feldman tries to counter the obvious problem that Israel was the victim from the start, rather than the provocateur. Feldman writes, “Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza last year on the theory that disengagement would lead to fewer attacks on it, not more. Right-wing Israelis argued that withdrawal rewarded Islamist violence and that rockets would soon be fired into Israel from the very areas being vacated. Now those critics claim to have been vindicated”. Since Israel withdrew as part of an agreement which was promised to protect Israeli lives, and since Hezbollah did exactly what the conservatives in Israel warned they would do, to claim they were anything but right is impossible. Further, Feldman once again ducks Hezbollah’s responsibility for the crisis, since the terrorists not only held territory they had promised to give up, and did not withdraw their armed forces but instead obtained more and heavier arms and immediately used them in regular attacks on known innocents and civilians in Israel, anyone noting the chronology of the past half-decade would not only understand Israel’s need to finally oppose Hezbollah at the source, but would be amazed at the long forbearance by Israel while it waited for the other side to keep its many promises, or at least for the U.N. to keep maybe a few of its own “solemn” assurances.

I had to laugh when I read Feldman’s claim that “In the past, crises involving Israel were addressed by dealing with the regional Arab powers, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all of which exerted influence of different kinds on the actors.” Given that most Arab powers have officially established a doctrine demanding the destruction of Israel, and almost none have rescinded such policies, and given the many wars begun by Arabs specifically against Israel, and given the many targeted attacks on shopping malls, busses, schools, and other innocents, to pretend that the Arab position is at all honorable is disingenuous at best.

Feldman, notes the squib at the end, is a law professor. His words confirm he is not very good at comprehending History, especially the Military sort. And the New York Times, as always, cannot stand with America or her allies, when there is a chance to attack her instead.

No Room For Anyone Else

I was reading The Anchoress on Friday, and came across a part where she said she had been begged to “fisk this woman”, the woman in question being one Helen Kirwan-Taylor.

Ms. Kirwan-Taylor, or “Ms. ME-ME-ME” as I am inclined to think of her, wrote a column which basically amounts to suburban dreck – a mild complaint about how she finds her two sons too boring to merit her time and attention, if she can find a way to slough them off on someone else. Ms. ME-ME-ME goes so far as to claim that her column “argues provocatively that modern women must not be enslaved by their children.” Granted, there are some children who are so whiny and selfish that if their parents are not careful to lay down the law, they might indeed find themselves controlled by their children, but as the reader makes his way through the column, we find that Ms. ME-ME-ME is the one who finds selfishness the ideal way of life. Indeed, I could almost agree that Ms. ME-ME-ME should not be allowed contact with her sons, as her sort of personality seems the poisonous sort which could damage their future outlook and sense of responsibility. It was difficult to take the column seriously, but because such people exist, it needs a look from the broader perspective.

Ms. ME-ME-ME starts her litany of self-pity by explaining how she lied to get out of attending parties with her sons. Ms. ME-ME-ME reports that she sent off the nanny with the boys, who then “almost always returned complaining that my son had been singled out for pitiful stares by the other mothers.” Ms. ME-ME-ME protests that she loves her children “as much as any other mother”, but that lie is proven out by the sentence immediately before it, where Ms. ME-ME-ME admits she found shopping and personal gratification much higher on her list of priorities than spending time with her sons, even at signal life events.

Ms. ME-ME-ME also had little interest in sharing experiences and insights with the other mothers in her neighborhood, deriding such discussions as “mind-numbing”. Since Ms. ME-ME-ME confesses that she found “the thought of spending time” with her own children “more stressful than any journalistic assignment”, it appears that she could have done with paying attention to how the competent and loving mothers managed to get things done. Instead of ‘mind-numbing’, comprehending her duties and opportunities as a mother seems to have been rather at an intellectual level beyond the comprehension of MS. ME-ME-ME.

Ms. ME-ME-ME asks the reader: “Kids are supposed to be fulfilling, life-changing, life-enhancing fun: why was my attitude towards them so different?” She won’t like the answer – it’s because Ms. ME-ME-ME is a self-obsessed narcissist, with no room for anyone whose priority is not to satisfy her every whim.

Sniffs Ms. ME-ME-ME: “To admit that you, a mother of the new millennium, don't find your offspring thoroughly fascinating and enjoyable at all times is a state of affairs very few women are prepared to admit. We feel ashamed, and unfit to be mothers.” That, madam, is because you are very much unfit to claim the title of ‘Mother’ as it is properly meant, and your arrogance - claiming that all women must be like you to some degree because you are unwilling to admit the sheer selfishness in choosing to have children which you then treat with less attention than your furniture, and the callous character which you are exhibiting towards their growth, education, and experience is abhorrent on its face.

She does not sit with them while they do homework, or share trips to a cricket match, or even holidays when families – real ones, anyway – look forward to spending time together and sharing what they have learned.

“Am I a lazy, superficial person?” asks Ms. ME-ME-ME. Absolutely, you are, and worse you know it but are trying, even now, to make excuses instead of trying to be a better Mother.

“I can't remember most of the teachers' names” admits Ms. ME-ME-ME. How long, I wonder, before you start forgetting your sons’ names? You’re certainly on the road to that place.

Ms. ME-ME-ME, I have to warn you that when you are a dried-up, miserable old prune who – at long last – finally realizes that a business career is little more than spending time and energy making money for someone and working hard to only transient accomplishments, and that nothing in this world matters more than the people you love and who love you, you will finally come to realize what you threw away, but it will be too late. Every mother and father – the real ones – put their heart and soul into raising their children with the absolute best of their devotion and care. Yes, it’s boring sometimes and annoying at times, and it means going without many of the luxuries and personal entertainments. Yes it means you have to work through tantrums and diapers and teaching the child to behave and it means doing better than going through the motions to help them learn responsibility. And it never ends, even if you do a perfect job, which no parent manages. But the secret is, a real Mom or Dad gets back just as much as they put in. My own little girl is the smartest in her class, in large part because I work with her every day on her math, reading, and behavior. She is loved by pretty much everybody, because my wife works hard to keep her hair just so, and her clothes neat and clean, and together we teach her how a princess behaves, as much by example as we are able. You may think that such a child will be a narcissist, but you could not be more wrong. Imitation parents like you make children narcissists, because children learn from their parents and often become like them. So in a surprisingly short while, you may expect your sons to give you all the space and time you want, because following your lead they will be obsessed with their own pleasures and wants, and you will never see them. Even when it becomes the dearest hope you hold. I am old enough to have seen it many times, and you are lying to yourself to pretend that ignoring your children will ever lead to a good end, or that the parents who spend so much time and attention helping their children grow up loved and responsible are not the ones who win the most in the end. You are a cold, selfish monster, Ms. Kirwan-Taylor, and all your lies and excuses cannot change that fact.

The broader perspective I mentioned, is the uncomfortable question: Just how many other parents are like Ms. ME-ME-ME? I have long observed that while many parents are genuinely committed to doing the very best for their children, others are clearly only interested in their children in ways which suit their mood. Not to say abuse, but a clear disinterest in paying attention to their child's interests unless it happens to match their own. It seems very strange to me, that people could have children and not see the treasure God has granted them, but there it is. The truly scary part about Ms. ME-ME-ME, is that she really does speak for a segment of the parent population.

God save the children.