Global Terrorism: Refresher Part 2

/[]\/[]\/[]
At the end of World War 1, many nations studied the war to learn its lessons. The nations so interested naturally included Germany and Japan. One key maxim they carried into their Grand Strategies by 1935, was the absolute need for access to oil. Admiral Yamamoto tried to warn the Regime of Tojo, that if America pursued a long war with Japan, that Japan could not possibly win. The reason Hitler sent Rommel, his best general, to the Middle East, was because he understood that without access to the largest reserves of refined petroleum, the Nazis were doomed. While the Liberal cry of “War for Oil” is misplaced in the present conflict, it has a valid place in the rationale for many other conflicts in the past century.

Josef Stalin has been compared to Adolf Hitler in a number of valid ways, including his murderous hatred of Jews and a paranoid foundation of Geopolitical strategy. Stalin also understood the need for access to oil, but perceived that the Soviet Union would not be well received in most Arab countries. To address this problem, the Politburo developed a three-level plan to insure they would not be cut off from the Middle East. First, the Soviet Union offered agreements to countries which would guarantee delivery of oil products to the USSR as its prime client. Second, the USSR moved military forces into any country it could, such as the 1946 incursion into Iran, which led to a crisis between Stalin and Truman. And third, beginning in the 1950s the USSR began to sponsor groups to destabilize countries under the control or influence of Western powers, such as Indonesia, Algeria, and Egypt. When Nasser came to power in Egypt, this was in part due to Soviet provocations, and the success there fed later initiatives. While the Soviets never controlled the PLO, they did provide money and weapons to the group through indirect channels, hoping to destabilize Israel.

The use of state-sponsored terrorism is not limited to the 20th Century, but what happened with the PLO is distinctive. In 1972, the Black September faction held the Israeli delegation to the Olympics in Munich hostage, but later investigation revealed links to suggest that Black September had been initially trained and supplied by the PLO. This demonstrated the strategy of the PLO, to spread out and influence other groups to both common purpose and to disperse law enforcement efforts (as the anti-terrorism fight was then focused) across different groups. Then, in 1974, the PLO seized the offices where the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was holding a conference, including a number of countries which had sponsored PLO actions in the past. The act was both a test of the PLO’s independence, and a bold move to seize financial independence, and it worked. After a ransom estimated between 100 and 150 million dollars was paid, the PLO was a truly independent player, no less violent but now free to choose its own targets. This established the viability of a stand-alone Global Terrorist organization.

(to be continued in further articles)

Global Terrorism: A Refresher

/[]\/[]\/[]
America is at war. For some reason, that fact gets forgotten a lot by people, but it’s true. And it’s not something we really had a choice in. Sure, we could have left Afghanistan alone, but then if he had, Al Qaeda would still have a whole country in which to recruit, train, and deploy terrorists. And sure, we could have left Saddam alone in Iraq, but his behavior over the years does not suggest to me that he would have stopped supporting terrorists, whatever he did with the WMD known to exist in 1995 and 1998. The War on Terrorism had to start somewhere, and it began not only with responding to 9/11, but with a plan to eradicate the threat of Global Terrorism. Let me be very clear where I stand; Iraq had to be invaded just as much as Afghanistan, and the United States has won not one but a series of stunning victories, apparent only when one matches up the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, Palestine and Saudi Arabia, with what was available in the past generation, or even the past century, and in some places, ever in History before. The cost in casualities taken by Coalition forces, matched against these victories, is very, very low. Any general from any other place and time than 21st Century USA would have laughed in delight at his good fortune. Instead, American leaders are expected to have prevented any losses at all, as if US soldiers should be expected to never die or suffer serious injury. Frankly, it is obscene for many on the Left to criticize the War as they do, when the casualty records from previous wars are clear testimony to the cost of defending freedom. I have no respect, none, for the men who lie that they “support the troops”, but make no attempt to understand or support their mission or goals.

Global Terrorism is different from terrorism in general. Timothy McVeigh, as foul as his act was, was unable to continue his murders beyond the first attempt. Others are able to act for a longer time, but on a small and personal scale, like a gang which terrorizes a neighborhood. And there is also Regional Terrorism, like the South China Sea pirates who raid freighters and oil rigs, or any number of terrorist groups which fight against the established regime of their country. While they are a threat which needs attention, History shows that small-scale terrorist groups are impossible to wipe out altogether. That is, any individual group might be dissolved if a force focuses on them, but they are often small enough to escape serious attention.

Global Terrorism is more difficult to create and maintain, and it also represents a graver threat. The Palestine Liberation Organization is significant in this respect, because the PLO represents the first significant stand-alone Global Terrorist organization which has survived all attempts up to now to wipe it out. Small wonder Yassir Arafat made it such a priority to tie the PLO to the accepted role of the Palestinian Authority. Compare this to two noteworthy Global Terrorist groups of the past; the Hashishin and the Black Hand. The Hashishin were the infamous assassins for hire in the Middle East during the 11th through 13th Centuries, and the Black Hand were international terrorists active during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Both groups were wiped out when a group of nations formed a coalition and sent armed forces to destroy them. Most people are unaware that the creation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in large part due to concern about Black Hand bombings against federal judges in the United States. When terrorist groups reach a threshold size and level of violence, the general response is a united determination to oppose them. the present war is the first front in just such a response.

(more to come in successive articles)

The Roberts Head Fake

[][][]

Hugh Hewitt:

“Time will tell, of course, but for all the reasons already stated, I think it will tell that, once again, President Bush was misunderestimated all the way to the political bank.”

Michael Barone:

“Conservatives have been frustrated that over the past 30 years—in which seven of the nine justices have been appointed by Republican presidents—that mainstream has changed little. The confirmation of John Roberts will move the court a significant distance in their direction.”

William Kristol:

“WITH THE SUPREME COURT PICK of John Roberts, George W. Bush rose to the occasion”

Confirm Them:

“to the extent that any American outside the Washington Beltway contemplated what they wanted in a new Supreme Court justice, it’s a safe bet that they would say: 'the best.'

That’s precisely what President Bush has given us with his nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”


OK, you get the idea. John Roberts has a lot of support from some pretty high-powered Conservatives, including the one that really counts: George W. Bush. All right, I hear the yakking; what about Souter, what about O’Connor, what about Kennedy? Yep, I know about them, but if you look deeper, you will see some key differences.

First off, let’s not forget the conditions each President faced. Reagan and Bush I had to get their nominees past a Democrat-controlled Senate, which meant they had to pick candidates that not only did not show a clear Conservative paper trail, they ought to have something liberals found a little bit attractive. Also, think about it; knowing what we know about Roberts already, is there anyone here who thinks the Left would have allowed a John Roberts to be confirmed by the Senate as it existed in 1983, 1986, or 1989? Dubya knew the kind of conditions the Senate is in right now, and Roberts was selected by Bush because of those conditions. More on that in a moment.

Next, look at who supported the nominees. In the case of Souter, for instance, the voucher came from John Sununu, mainly. Now, Sununu’s not a bad sort compared to some I can think of, but he’s a New England Republican, which in some aspects is about as reasonable a term as calling someone a New England cowboy; a bit silly. In the case of Roberts, his support comes from a lot of serious Red State/Red Meat Republicans. What’s more, everything we can confirm about Roberts tracks with the perception that he is not only Conservative, but serious about it. More to the point, his work reveals a serious Originalist, which is really what the SCOTUS needs.

Now, back to the context. Personally, I believe the 2000 Presidential Election opened up some eyes on the High Court, and while the Justices keep a lot of things to themselves, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out many years from now that the President got wind of a few things, like a rough idea of who might retire. In an earlier post, I speculated about who might retire and why, but I was hardly the first or the boldest predictor of possible openings. It’s not hard, once one realizes just how long the present Justices have been sitting on the SCOTUS, to realize that a general change of cast is not far off, and since the Democrats are increasingly determined to keep the Senate and the White House in GOP custody, Justices might well be scheduling departures sooner rather than later.

With that in mind, one might wonder why Rehnquist did not resign this summer? Why indeed? The man is entitled to his own counsel, to be sure, and it’s certainly possible that vanity plays its part in chasing the record, but the plain fact is, after this summer there will be three more where President Bush is still in office, and with the Senate looking to stay as Red or Redder than it is now (provided Senator Santorum’s recent verbal gaffes don’t become the common lingua franca by Republicans), it’s not unrealistic to examine the conditions a SCOTUS nominee would face in each of those years. Next summer, of course, is right before the Midterm elections, and if Ginsburg is going to jump, that would be the best time, where she can hope for political pressure to put in a moderate as well. I have already said that I suspect Rehnquist plans to go next summer, and will try to talk Ruth Bader into accompanying him on that last parade. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see as many as three (three!) additional Justices step down in the summer of 2008, although I actually expect just 2 more to go then. But 5 to 6 SCOTUS Justices to be appointed by Dubya in the space of 4 summers would absolutely set off the Screaming Slander Monkey contingent, and clearly the best campaign prepares in advance for that. At that time, it won’t matter who Bush nominates, the Left will be dead set against them, and will throw up a complete and total ‘scorched-earth’ policy of denial and attacks. Strange as it may sound, now is really the only chance for a judge like Roberts to get confirmed, as in the high-pressure environment of addressing simultaneous multiple SCOTUS picks, the Right and Left will each demand a pedigree of absolute confidence. The Left will end up getting nuked, no matter what happens, but will definitely play up some sort of scandal lie (a la Anita Hill) to do what damage they can. The best riposte is to throw them off guard. And this is why Roberts was such a smart choice. If Bush had sent up a ‘moderate’, he’s smart enough to know he’d be throwing away an Ace card. If he had sent up a Luttig or Owens, he would have precipitated just what the Donks expected. Instead, he had the chance to make sure of his choice, and when the time was right, toss in a couple head fakes (word is, Judge Jones’ family was together in Washington when the White House called the conference to announce Bush would name his choice - heh) and give ‘em the curveball. Bush took longer than people think to select Roberts, and I suspect he already has the next few choices ready, with regular updates.

So, the Democrats can’t decide whether or not they want to use their one-bullet filibuster gun now or later. And there’s no reason to think, now I consider it, that so long as he knows what he is getting, that President Bush has any reason or motivation to give the Democrats any chance at all to prepare for the next time. It will happen when it happens, and like a certain speech said: “… at a time of our choosing”.

Amanda Twellman-Dieppa Dead from Hodgkin’s Disease

Readers may recall the plight of Amanda Twellman-Dieppa, who fought to gain access to clinical trials for the experimental drug ‘MDX-60’, which was in phase II clinical trials, and was not planning to take additional patients.

The Medarex company graciously added Amanda to their trials, and hope was high for good results. The treatments began on May 25th.

I am saddened to say that, although the drug did not produce any malignant effects, Amanda contracted pneumonia around the first of July, and passed away the evening of July 19. More information on Amanda's final days may be found here.

Jeffrey King wrote what amounts to a brief and poignant obituary, finishing with an appropriate request:

“Please pray for her family, her friends, and her husband Aaron”


May the Lord indeed provide solace and comfort for the family, and for all such patients who fight for the health and life we so often take for granted.



(thanks to ThreeBadFingers for the information)

The Spy Guys

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

If you are reading this in hopes of finding out the latest dirt on the Valerie Wilson/Plame/Joe Wilson/Joe Camel/Karl Rove/Darth Vader angle, you will be disappointed. Sort of, anyway. One thing which has been driving me nuts since this whole thing got running, was the immediate acceptance of the claim that Valerie Plame is, and I quote, an “undercover CIA operative”. Read this carefully, folks – there’s no such thing as an “undercover CIA operative”. Those words were used to make her sound exciting, and are no more grounded in fact than Saddam Hussein’s continuing claims that he is somehow still the rightful President of Iraq. The problem here, is that so many people judge reality by the movies, TV shows, and MainPain Media, that they have lost all real sense of what they’re talking about. So, even if it’s for no one but myself, I’m sorting out who’s who in the world of American spies.

There are fifteen major acknowledged Intelligence agencies and/or organizations in the United States Intelligence Community. They do different things and so hire and train their people in different ways, so for here and now I’m just going to address the Central Intelligence Agency, leaving you with just the quiet reminder that the NSA, DIA, and so on all have different programs and rosters.

So, let’s say you’re in the market for joining an Intelligence Agency, and you’ve settled on the CIA. There are somewhere between 12,000 and 19,000 employees of the Company (as it is known), depending on who you ask. The CIA, like all large companies, uses a standard process for selecting its new hires, and because it is a government office, also forces its applicants to endure the unique and excruciating torture of American Federal Bureaucracy (which may explain why the Communists never got very much success trying to break our guys through duress). And that’s both after and after the recruiters decide whom they want. That’s a point I want to explore further.

Like many corporations, the guy who brings you in from the outside may often have no real decision in where you land, exactly. The CIA likes to hire for three basic classes of employee, plus contractors (whom I will discuss in a moment): Support, Analysis, and Field Officers. What that means in English, is that far and away the largest number of people hired as employees for the CIA will work either at a desk or in a warehouse. That’s because the CIA works to gather, analyze, and report information, especially to and for the President. Officers in the field collect the information, analysts weigh it and report their findings to higher-ups, who package reports for the White House and other agencies. The bulk of the Company, in terms of staffing, resources, and preparation, gets the Field Officers ready with training, briefings, supplies, and support in the field.

Contractors are used by the Company for a number of purposes, including tasks the CIA does not want to be linked to, temporary needs, and for work by people who do not need to have connection to the permanent employees. At its worst, this practice led to contracts with the Mob to try to kill Castro and similar crimes, but also has allowed the Company to operate with a more efficient method. When the Company references Contractors, one of the words that gets used in their talk is ‘operative’. That’s because Contractors can be used in a single operation, but are not field officers. Whether or not Valerie Plame/Wilson was a contractor does not matter for here, because contractors do not have covert protection, nor are they granted special status by the government or by law.

For Valerie Plame/Wilson to have held the sort of protection noted in the press, she would have to have been a field officer, a very specific designation and a distinct minority in the Company. There are, again depending on who you ask, between 3,500 and 6,000 active field officers in the CIA. One reason for the range, is because field officers do not stay active all that long, and they transfer to other divisions of the CIA when they are no longer field officers; a field career of 5 years is long, and so many field officers will become analysts later in their career. From what I see, this appears to track with Ms. Plame/Wilson, especially given her clout to recommend her hubby be sent to Africa. Relatively young field agents have little such influence, and analysts who have never worked anything but a desk also lack that pull. A field officer-turned-analyst, however, would be in a position to call in markers, which is just what Wilson’s Africa trip looks like. And by 2003, remember, Plame/Wilson had already been established as a regular desk-sitter at CIA HQ, making her someone in the field, say, during the Clinton years but not anytime recently. Given the 5-year limit on cover protection, it looks less and less like the leaker broke any laws, no matter who it was.

So, why the frou-for-all? Well, Wilson and Plame/Wilson were both big-time Gore backers, and if anything is clear after the 2000 Presidential Election, it’s that the bigger one was on the Left, the more unhinged one became. I can easily see the Wilson/Plames looking for a way to get even with Dubya, explaining not only Joe Wilson’s lie-fest in 2003 and subsequent book deal, but Valerie Wilson/Plame’s acquiescence to pretending she was a spook in distress, uncovered by that mean old Karl Rove. Setting up enemies was a long-practiced tradition, and even if Valerie was never more than an analyst with connections to important friends, she wanted to play that game very badly. Also, since the CIA earned its reputation long ago as an office willing and eager to play politics to its gain, the Liberal character if the Wilson/Plames was a good fit for the trick intended for Rove, but which now looks likely to hurt no one except Judith Miller.

And diminish, of course, the reputation and security of the real field officers, doing their job while the Wilson/Plames play with cloaks and daggers.

Around the MSM Neighborhood

[[]][[]][[]]

Looking over some of the columns posted on Real Clear Politics this weekend:

* John Podhoretz at the New York Post writes that “these aren't happy political days for George W. Bush”, on what appears to be no better evidence than poll numbers. Permit me to sneer at that; Dubya has always counted his merits on firmer footing, things like addressing real problems and making real changes. What the Media thinks of him has never ranked highly on his scale of concern.

* Amy Sullivan at the Washington Monthly, writes a somewhat lengthy article doubting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House in 2008. At the end of her piece, Sullivan admits, “It's too early for anyone to say with certainty that Hillary Clinton can't win the White House”. She might do well to consider that her analysis of the race, while denying it should be only about Hillary, focused on no other potential Democrat.

* John Deutch (former CIA head) writes in the New York Times, that America’s best strategy in the world is to run away. I thank God every day that such men as Deutch no longer have access to the President’s ear, or make decisions affecting the country’s direction.

* John Tierney in the New York Times writes an amusing and perceptive piece about the brou-haha conjured up by Joe Wilson. The money line reads:

“For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.”
He also quotes Monty Python, but you should read the article to get it right in context.

* Returning to the more common, if less realistic, fare of the MSM, we see a piece by Carol Swain in the Washington Post, who sees in the light of the Senate’s meaningless apology the need for an even bigger apology, one which “would all reap enormous national and international rewards from such a goodwill gesture”. Let that be a warning to all writers to steer clear of prescription drugs before engaging in an editorial.

* Leon de Winter for the New York Times, writes a perceptive piece about the high cost of mindless tolerance, observing that the Netherlands tolerated two forces which have all but destroyed it from within: “the cultural and sexual revolution of the 1960's and 70's and the influx of Muslim workers during those years of prosperity.” De Winter observes that the Netherlands could not prevent their incipient disaster, because there “It was simply not acceptable to discuss problems relating to religion and culture.” The East and West Coast elites would do well to note that warning.

* Howard Fineman at Newsweek writes a predictable screed against his nemesis, indeed the nemesis of all political hacks and liars on the Left: Karl Rove. As usual Fineman’s pretensions die a quick death, daylight being intolerant of nonsense and paranoia.

* John Leo, writing for U.S. News and World Report, observes that “[t]he soft and squishy side of the Hollywood mind” is taking over, ruining films and ignoring History.

* And rounding out the review with some good analysis and common sense, Michael Barone at real Clear Politics writes that Joe Wilson is today’s Titus Oates. As is often the case, those who know history will catch the reference, and those who have dived off the deep end beyond recovery have no interest in history or its consequences.

Culture Declares Itself

//////[][][]\\\
I’m reading through two books right now, and while I am not far enough to give a complete review yet about them, though they are both deserving of your attention and consideration. Those two books are “100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37)” by Bernard Goldberg, and “Our Culture, What’s Left of It” by Thoedore Dalrymple. Both Goldberg and Dalrymple note both general and specific incidents and conditions, and make convincing arguments to support their diagnosis of American Culture.

I want to hold off on a longer review of both books because I am still making my way through each of them. But I am far enough into each to recomend them both, to any student curious to understand how how America’s most vicious domestic vandals can make the claims they do, yet choose to live here as citizens. Dalyrmple explains it well in an essay in his book, which essay is titled “What We Have To Lose”:

“[T]hey were more like ancient barbarians who, having overrun and sacked a civilized city, lived in the ruins, because they were still far better than anything they could build themselves.”

Culture declares itself, indelibly and with distinction.

SCOTUS Speculations

[][][]

The wheels go round and round...

By now it’s common knowledge that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is retiring from the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist is not. Naturally, the rumor mills have hit overdrive, on all sites interested in the High Court, which is to say pretty much everyone.

It occurs to me that a good sense of what to expect, would come from a consideration of what we already know about the Justices. Some of it is bound to be wrong, but in the main we should still get the gist of it.

First, why did O’Connor resign? Her health is certainly not a factor, nor was there any obvious dissatisfaction with her colleagues or the Court’s direction. For all appearances, she seems to be retiring solely because she feels she has done what she wanted, which is fine, except that I don’t buy it.

I am a big fan of the late Roger Zelazny, especially his Chronicles of Amber series. I remember one scene where the family on which the story focuses, and a key dispute where each side has a leader, and the family separates both figuratively and literally according to where they stand. The Court is the same way, led on the Left and Right by Ginsburg and Scalia respectively. Rehnquist is the Chief Justice, but that doesn’t give him the most influence. With all the 5-4 decisions in the past few years, the divide has been fluid and real.

Next up on each team would be Breyer and Souter for the Left, and Thomas and Rehnquist on the Right. That left the final three to swing the calls, Kennedy, Stevens, and of course O’Connor. Those final three most likely think of themselves as Independents in the power balance of the Court, but that doesn’t change their personal tilts. O’Connor, it may be remembered, was a strong Bush supporter in 2000, while Ginsburg was a vocal advocate of Gore, and likely also for Kerry. This suggests to me that O’Connor wanted to give Bush a clear nominee all his own, while Ginsburg will try to hold out to 2009 and 2010 on the hope that a Democrat President will choose her replacement.

This brings us to Rehnquist. If Rehnquist steps down at the same time as O’Connor, expect the RINOs to demand a “balance”, matching a conservative Justice with a “moderate”, meaning weak enough to satisfy the Democrats, as in Souter II. But since Rehnquist says he is not stepping down, then Bush is free to nominate whomever he likes, which hopefully means a Garza or a Brown. Since Bush has not had a nominee before, his nominee will probably pass far more easily than the press realizes, especially with the focus on just one nominee, and since Bush is not going to announce the nominee with any more time than he needs; this is exactly why we have not heard the nominee’s name before - it’s good tactics.

If I had to guess, I have a feeling that Rehnquist will try to tough out the coming session, and will step down next summer. Yes, it will make the Court an issue in the 2006 Elections, but Ginsburg is weaker than she lets on (I suspect), and it is entirely possible that Rehnquist will try to talk her into stepping out with him, which makes it likely that Bush will wait until then to submit Gonzalez, possibly for Chief Justice. The real question is the nominee for the third slot (Ginsberg); will Bush push for a Conservative to replace Ginsberg (who replaced a fairly Conservative Justice in 1993) , or appeal to “moderates” with someone more to their liking (though still likely to be labeled “Hard Right” for political attack value). I’m hoping Bush will play it straight and move the Court to the Originalist lane as much as he can.

Scalia, Breyer, Thomas, Souter, and Kennedy are all in pretty good health and have no plans to go. As for Stevens, I’d expect he’ll do his best to hang on to 2009, in hopes for a Democrat President to follow Bush. If his health allows it, that is.

Driving The Slander-Monkeys From the Temple of Knowledge

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

A couple thousand years ago, an itinerant Rabbi was teaching a message of hope and compassion to the world, not a new message so much as a reminder of the original truth, and a personal lesson by example. It happens, the accounts are written, that this Rabbi came to the Temple in Jerusalem, where he saw merchants exchanging currency for acceptable sorts of coin, and selling various animals for the required sacrifices. It happens, say the stories, that these merchants were not content to perform a necessary service or provide a convenience for pilgrims who did not have the proper accessories for their obeisance to God Almighty; they regularly cheated the people with inferior animals and high fees and dishonest scales. This outraged the Rabbi, who was ordinarily the most peaceful of men, so much so that later when he was murdered, he asked God to forgive his killers. In his rage against this injustice, the Rabbi fashioned a whip out of rope, and he drove the merchants from the temple by force.

This story is an interesting one to me, not only because it tells how Jesus Christ loved Justice, but notes that his actions were not always predictable to the people around him. While Jesus taught a consistent and deep lesson of forgiveness, he also taught about consequences, and the need for Good to oppose Evil.

What does this have to do with a political blog? According to Blogherald, there are now more than 60 million blogs in the world, more than 10 million in the “Anglosphere” (US-Canada-UK-Australia-NZ). I couldn’t find an official count for the number of political blogs, but a quick look on any subject at Technorati shows a continuing explosion there, as well. Lots of opinions, enough to suit any taste. And a lot of them have endured; where the average blog dies out after the initial excitement wears off, there are many political blogs which have survived and grown. Partly, this is due to Dan Rather, whose failed attempt to influence last year’s Presidential Election with forged documents demonstrated the value of all sorts of specialized knowledge websites; the nation learned a new respect for typesetters and military clerks. But also, the continuing prevalence of slander-screaming, lie-flinging dung monkeys shows the deep need for regular sweeps by volunteers in the web world.

In “The Third Wave”, Alvin Toffler explained that the world operates on a basic system of social intercourse, which drives the worth not only of nations but individuals as well. This intercourse is defined by a “wave” of development which drives the character of its identity and growth. The first wave was Agriculture, which greatly improved the production of food and led to the first towns and communities of nations. The second wave was Industry, which greatly improved distribution and trade, significantly improving living standards and driving the natural order through cooperative ventures and alliances. The third wave is Intellectual Property, which opens the door to mutual-gain initiatives and truly symbiotic relationships at almost every conceivable level.

But there are threats to these waves as well. Robber gangs pillaged first-wave towns to take the food they wanted, while monopolies and oligarchies perverted the operation of industrial nations and communities. Today, there are people strongly opposed to the free exchange of ideas and the development of integral associations. What could once be dismissed as Luddites and Flat Earthers, have themselves used the very tools of Intellect to pursue a strategy of conquest against the common good. Rather than correct their views to withstand scholarly scrutiny, they mock scholars to deny them the chance to consider their actions. Rather than adopt constructive and realistic worldviews for their future resolutions, they do their all to smear the lens from gaining a proper context to their intentions and efforts. Rather than cooperate to common gain, they demand the absolute destruction of their enemies, defining as ‘enemy’ anyone who dares to question them or suggest constructive alternatives. They are cunning with words, in the manner of the ‘Newspeak’ and ‘Doublethink’ Orwell warned about more than a half-century ago. They oppose all that must come to bring a better future, and so must be denied the influence they demand, so long as their motives and tactics are destructive and zero-sum. That’s where the blogs come in.

You may notice that in describing these Slander Monkeys, I did not name their political party or any specific identity. This is partly to avoid the distraction of focusing here on one individual or claim, but also because we also carry the responsibility for countering such tactics regardless of who is using them. That is where the MSM collapsed; it no longer can claim to represent the public interest, but each agency and conglomerate does as it pleases, following a self-interest rather than the national priority. I can’t be too harsh on the individuals, I guess, since we all put up with various disappointments in order to continue receiving regular paychecks (itself an issue worth discussing, but for another time), and the slide from committed defender of the truth to Hairspray Flunky can be hard to notice by the person in the descent. Blogs, for the most part, are not only totally controlled by their writer/editor/janitor/programmer, but do not generally provide very much in the way of revenue or influence, so that the blogger is not particularly tempted to sway from his/her original purpose in writing the blog. For good or ill, bloggers tend to maintain their character and integrity. Bad for personal finances, true, but worse for Trolls and Slander Monkeys, because bloggers tend to be quite an idealistic community, determined to shine the light of objective analysis and comparative evidence on just about any claim, and they tend to be rough on posers and rhetorical thugs.

Ideas are more important now than ever before. This is not only because it is so easy to convey an idea around the world, but also because in combination with supporting writers and theorists, an idea can become a movement almost immediately. It is therefore more important than ever before, to sweep away obstacles from the work of honest debate and analysis.

Time for driving the Slander Monkeys from the Temple of Knowledge.

Defending Hollywood?

[][][][][]

Once again, I find myself in that bizarre parallel universe, where I find myself sympathetic to the plight of people who ordinarily should deserve naught but my contempt. Even so, here I go…

One thing which I have seen in many a column and blog, is harsh rebuke for Hollywood for not depicting Arabs and Muslims as terrorists. After all, they say, we all know very well that 99.999999999999% of all the evil done in the world today, is either done by Muslim fanatics, or on the influence and instructions from Karl Rove, depending on your source. Corporate villains and neo-Nazis are just ridiculous caricatures, and it’s well past time to get villains who match the real perpetrators.

Well folks, I have to say I don’t like movies and shows where they try to slam businessmen or the Intelligence community, just because they’ve done it for decades already. But when it comes down to the race and culture of the bad guys, I have to admit that Reality is not really applicable.

I thought about a comprehensive list of movies and the villains chosen, but that would be dry and miss the whole point. So instead, I will just call your attention to 2 movies of note. Both movies involved terrorists operating on American soil, with a determined and heroic movie star to stop them. Both films had big budgets and featured big-time stars, one with Denzel Washington and the other with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both had all the normal ingredients for a big hit, including the necessary big booms (one even had a nuke) and intense dramatic scores. Neither was a bomb, exactly, but neither did very well at the box office for the caliber of stars and directors they carried, either. Both featured Arab terrorists, accurate in dress, appearance, and mannerisms. And no one I have met, to this day, remembers the villains’ names or their plans in the films “The Siege” or “True Lies”. The villains, as movies go, were flops.

Consider, on the other hand, villains portrayed in the films “Die Hard” and “Swordfish”. Were Hans Gruber or Gabriel Shear believable, or representative of any known terrorist group? No. Did the audience care? No. The smooth, urbane delivery of their lines, even as they killed innocent people, made them very appealing to the audience. The audience, after all, did not buy tickets to see a documentary on the characteristics and methods of the modern terrorist cell, but to see slick people look cool for a couple hours, saying and doing things you do not ordinarily see in your regular day. Seriously, does anybody really believe, for example, that if a woman became a hired assassin, as in “La Femme Nikita”, she’d look half as good as Anne Parillaud does, or that anyone can wear designer clothing and look as good after combat as they do before? If the ‘James Bond’ movies taught us anything, it’s that the desire to willingly suspend our disbelief is very strong.

So, the next time you see a villain on TV or the movies, just remember that Hollywood is not selling the truth, just a product to make money. It’s only when someone like CBS or Michael Moore forgets that they’re selling a slick lie, that it’s necessary to call them out.

Contempt of Courtroom

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


Is there anything in America at once so necessary and yet also so useless as a courtroom?

I spent Tuesday sitting in a courtroom. Wasting my day in a courtroom, actually. Without going into details which have nothing to do with this article, and which would violate the reasonable expectation a person has of privacy when they are just an ordinary citizen, my company had occasion to sue a customer who simply stopped paying, and then refused to even talk to us. The customer believed they were not required to pay their debt (incorrect), that they did not have to talk to us when we tried to contact them (correct), that they could refuse to accept the Certified letter (correct), even that they could ignore Sheriff’s deputies serving the Summons (wrong).

This wasn’t the first time in court with this customer. On an earlier occasion, the judge had suggested we arbitrate, and after a couple hours we had hammered out an agreement which seemed fair, giving us full payment eventually and the customer a lot more time. Unfortunately, when the time came for the first scheduled payment, the customer refused to make the payment, again refusing to talk about it with anybody, and the merry-go-round started up again. That was why I was there, sort of. Since I am not a lawyer, I was not privileged to sit at the counsel’s table before the judge, but I had been asked to be there, as a kind of moral support. That’s a long story itself, and not really relevant to the story here.

The real story begins with the fact that this should have been a quick and easy win for us. Although they had been properly served, the Defendant did not show, nor did their attorney. All we needed was to appear before the Judge who would almost certainly grant us a Summary Judgment; the same judge had presided over the first hearing was scheduled to hear this case, and was already none too happy that the Defendant had broken the agreement, and had further resisted being served. All we needed was to show up and show that the Defendant had ignored the Court Summons, and we’d be good to go.

In walked a visiting judge. Oops. A visiting judge changes everything, not the least because we had no way of knowing how he would handle the case. We soon found out and yet we did not know the worst of it.

The visiting judge did not feel that it was necessary to set up the docket in order. That is, he would decide at the end of one case which case he would hear next. As a result, everybody had to sit and wait. I’m sure the judge liked having a packed house, but this also caused problems. As each panel of jurors was seated, people had to move out of rows while the lawyers asked their questions and made their strikes. This might be the moment to mention that, like many other courtrooms, the air conditioning was less than completely effective, and the odor, whether body or that lingering aroma of old public building, gained strength and acridity. The charm of waiting for your case, which actually ended at the security desk where it is now necessary to remove all metal objects, your belt, shoes, and anything else that the machine might decide needs further inspection, had completely died five minutes into the Docket Call.

Because some of the cases involved police officers as witnesses, the Judge then decided that they should go first, in order to free up the officers. If he had said this plainly, we would at least have known we would not have seen our case tried that day, and simply returned at the end for the reset date. But he did not, and so we waited, along with everyone else. I consoled myself somewhat, by observing that since I did not have to wear makeup, I didn’t having to worry about sweat smearing my complexion or putty-colored droplets staining my suit. I was also relieved to confirm that my deodorant works under pressure. But a great chance to finally sort out the mess with our rebellious debtor has to wait for another day, and a whole day was wasted which could have been put to use in the office.

I had time to think about a variety of things while I waited for the slow wheels of Justice to do more than smell bad. This courtroom symbolized so much about the world and nation, it seemed. A number of talented people had no chance to do their work, held back through conditions they could not control, even as dozens of regular people suffered through the same delays. A number of possible solutions were available, but the people who could have put them to use had no desire to even consider them. And this condition is multiplied by the number of courtrooms across the nation, not to even consider the frivolous cases submitted and the absurd maneuvers used by lawyers who knew they could not win on the merits of their case, as well as judges and clerks who impair the court with personal attitudes and bias they carried in from home or prior arguments. Looking at recent rulings, it appears that even Supreme Court Justices are not immune to this prejudice and idiosyncratic. Going to court was never meant to be enjoyable, but the Constitution leads one to suspect the process was meant to be relatively smooth and even-handed; the process over the History of the United States shows that this ideal has always failed miserably in actual practice. Because of the heavy cost in time, work, and money to go to court, bullies of many colors have used the threat of suit to coerce submission from people and groups, and there are persons of great repute (Reverend Jackson, for one notable example) who have made a very comfortable living through the use of legal extortion to fund their lifestyles. The courtroom has become like a secret club, where the unitiated and common people are quickly marked as targets, and lose their money, liberties and rights to canny insiders well-versed in the certain tricks of documents and motions before the bar. This is why the homeowner loses to the developer, and the individual to the corporation; the larger predators have legal staffs prepared, even hungry for this arena, where the rights of ordinary people are not recognized in the practice of litigation. What the Constitution protects in theory, the Court eviscerates in practice. The vicious disinterment of long-held protections, is quickly and automatically followed by the devouring by all who choose their fight using weapons created by the rhetoric of dead languages, and with the absolute abandonment of any principled respect for the Law above appetite. Innocence is quickly raped and destroyed within the stone walls, and if Truth dares to follow in search of her sister, she soon meets the same fate. It is all too appropriate that judges wear black robes, archaic and arcane and unanswerable to people used to daylight. It speaks to the matter that Democrats see no need to change the system which allows for whim to interpret the course of our nation’s very identity and values, while most Republicans recoil at the abuse of power and the revisionist fantasies made fiat upon the land.

It is in that consideration, that I now turn to the fact that our founders gave a third of the power over Government to the courts. Never has the phrase ‘necessary evil’ so aptly applied to a group, nor has ever so small a number of men thought it meet to hold power so long as they please without consultation and moral balance. Anyone can sue an ordinary person for any reason, yet justice is not assured in any case. And yet government, which surely errs in occasion and instance, is inviolate in most cases from accountability, and when action is allowed, it is at such delay and cost that the individuals originally wronged have no hope of resolution in any foreseeable time frame. Where once it was considered meet to grant freedom up to the point where it infringed on another person’s freedom, we now see cities and states deciding acceptable conduct, even in private homes. It is generally illegal not to wear your seat belt, even though such a decision hurts no one else. In some cities, it is now illegal to smoke in your own business, even if the public has no access and it offends no one working there. It is now illegal in some cities for parents to teach their cultural values to their children, if those values are considered unacceptable by the City Council. You can be sued not only for things you might have done, but even now for things you never did, if the court agrees that you might be likely to do them in the future, or if your facility is used by someone who chooses to commit a crime. You can be punished for having a home in an area which the City would like to develop for greater tax revenue, even to the point of losing your home to be replaced by a private business. You can be held responsible for actions taken by people with whom you have never had any contact, if you appear to share similar genetic traits, and your children can be denied access to certain state facilities and schools, if they are not the right color of skin. All of these have been affirmed by court actions at many levels, and there is no process in the works to restrain the courts from these and further arrogance.

I certainly recognize the value and necessity of the court system. There must be recourse to wrong, however poorly the system works, and the very notion of tying judges directly to the political process, with regular replacement by whatever party is in power and no doubt introducing the ubiquitous PACs into things as well, makes my skin crawl. Yet for all the good which is done, it appalls me to see the evil so largely unrecognized, to say nothing of unaddressed. I ask again, therefore: Is there anything in America at once so necessary and yet also so useless as a courtroom?

The Political Lessons of Nakatomi Plaza

***

I became a Bruce Willis fan when I first saw 'Die Hard'. I never saw him in “Moonlighting”, but in the action movie he captured my imagination. Sadly, the other ‘Die Hard’ movies weren’t as good, although I couldn’t help but notice the unspoken battle between Bruce and Hollywood in them.

All three ‘Die Hard’ movies had to deal with terrorists of a sort, and Hollywood addressed them much as they do terrorists today. In ‘Die Hard’, the terrorists turned out to be pretty ordinary thieves, just bolder and more bloody than most. In ‘Die Hard II’, the villains were dealing in drugs, and had a few bad soldiers working for them (I noticed how Hollywood tried to imply that all soldiers lean this way, though even in the movie they were never more than a small number), and in ‘Die Hard III’, the bad guy simply wanted vengeance. Hollywood’s stock answer to terrorists in all three movies was to consider them criminals, who needed to be arrested and brought to trial. But in the actual way the movies played out, more realistic and effective lessons were shown:

[] The terrorists, whether bandits, mercenaries, or simple psychotics, did not obligingly follow the rules. In fact, they made merry mayhem by forcing the authorities to follow rules, while they themselves did just as they pleased;

[] John McClane never agreed to those rules, and while it made him unpopular with the various authorities, he always saved the day (and lots of innocents), by the simple plan of killing the bad guys every chance he got, any way he could.

[] The media in the movies was just as oblivious to the facts as they are in the Real World.

I also recall another lesson from ‘Die Hard’; whichever side has Fred Thompson working for it, comes out on top.

The Coming Fall

[][][]

I was driving home with my daughter Friday afternoon, listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on the radio. I made the mistake of not paying attention to his guest as they discussed the SCOTUS situation. After covering the usual run of who on the High Court besides O’Connor might resign, who Bush should consider, and whom he likes the most, Hugh’s guest pointed out the reason why the Democrats will not like the outcome, no matter what happens; the last meaningful ally of the Democratic Party may well leave them behind, rendering their fate absolute.

During the opening salvoes fired from Right and Left about whom will or should be nominated, it has struck me again how completely hypocritical the Democrats and their press are being, especially when their conduct regarding Clinton’s appointment philosophy is considered. It’s no surprise, to be sure, but the absolute hysteria from the Left, even before a nominee is known, is clearly being generated by a deep-seated fear, one held by all Liberals. The simple explanation can be stated as the last wing in the halls of American Power is changing management, and no matter whom George W. Bush nominates, that shadow will continue to fall on the Left.

Televised hearings regarding Supreme Court nominees began in 1982. Since then, President Reagan named Justice Rehnquist as Chief Justice (he was appointed an Associated Justice by President Nixon in 1972), and appointed Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy as Associate Justices. Judge Robert Bork was viciously slandered during his hearings in 1987, and the Democrats’ tactic of innuendo and character assassination became recognized.

George H.W. Bush appointed Associate Justices Souter and Thomas. The Democrats tried their same slash-and-hate tactics again, but failed in both cases.

President Clinton nominated Judges Ginsberg and Breyer, both of whom sailed through their hearings. Democrats who pretend that “both sides do it” when confronted with their behavior, cannot produce evidence that supports such a lie. In the age of New Media, the clear divide between Republican methods of reviewing the work of a judge, and the Democrats’ established trail of slander and polarized definitions won’t be hidden the way it was in years past.

But to the point; During the days of FDR and LBJ, the Democrats enjoyed heavy majorities in Congress, especially the Senate. This meant that a nominee had to appeal to the Liberal and Union sentiment to be confirmed, and even Republican Presidents knew this. While President Reagan had the charisma to go over the heads of Congress to the American people for a cause or candidate, the beating of Bork by the Left showed the limit to his power. As Democratic control receded in the Senate, it became clear that a more Conservative Judge would get a more Conservative hearing. This is why the Democrats resorted to the filibuster during W’s first term; they had no other effective weapons in their arsenal.

Whatever one thinks of the the ‘Gang of 14’, one effect of the deal they made was that when the Democrats break the deal, as they surely will, the vote on the nominee will be validated that much more effectively. And it is hard to imagine this Senate denying any nominee submitted by Bush, especially with the keen mind of Fred Thompson checking the selection.

The near future is not bright for the Democrats. The House and Senate have been trending Republican for a long time now, and show no signs of turning Left. While a Democrat might be elected President in 2008 or 2012, the increasingly Conservative Senate will not allow another Ginsburg, especially given the behavior of the Democrats in past nominations. Consider how this atmosphere affects the likely career decisions of the remaining Justices. Of the other eight, 2 have been noted for health problems in the past years, and another (Stevens) is 85 years old. Still another is said to be intent on leaving the court while he is still young enough to enjoy his retirement. Bearing in mind that no new Justices have been added to the High Court since 1994, it is not at all unreasonable to believe that President George W. Bush will appoint at least three Justices, and possibly as many as five, before he leaves office. It is entirely possible that even with a disappointment, the Supreme Court after 2008 will be distinctly Originalist. With everything else that has happened in the past eleven years, that would be the worst nightmare in the mind of Democrat strategists.

This fall will be refreshing for the country, but a cold wind indeed for the Left.

The Minstrels and Jesters of Media 2005

[]/\[]

I was watching "60 Minutes II", for no better reason than boredom, and I noticed they were going after Enron again. Ken Lay was the supposed focus, but as I watched, I noticed the show had little interest in the real facts of the case, but were essentially just retelling a story the Liberal network finds comforting; a myth of a world where businessmen are always greedy and only the Old Media reporters shine as knight defenders of the Truth. The usual fare from CBS these days. I noticed during the show as well, that the show presented supposition as fact, and speculation in place of evidence. Fine, as long as you are not fooled into thinking you're getting real information.

That's where the Old Media is these days; unable to defend its positions as real news, many programs simply abandon the pretense and tell whatever stories they would like to believe. When I recall the firestorms of protest when the Tiffany Network tried to slander Ronald Reagan, and again when Dan Rather's attempt to manipulate the Presidential Election with papers he knew (or should have known) were forgeries, I sense the dismay which must have filled the boardroom in New York, as they realized that even their favorite targets were to be denied them.

The New Media is enjoying a growth surge, as blogs and websites of many flavors enjoy the rush of both new creative inspiration and the cusp of trend and fashion. But there is a social order there as well; many of the leading blogs were designed and managed by established names from the Old Media, and many of the most successful blogs focused not so much on information or scholarly analysis, but on various measures of entertainment. A glance at the leading blogs reveal the following breakdown; of the Top 20 blogs by traffic, 8 are Political Commentary, 4 are Gossip, 3 are pure Rants, 2 are News Review, and one each are Parodies, Variety, and about Gadgets. That is, they each have developed a core audience and a style which the readers find entertaining.

Story-telling is not dead, and the bards have simply changed instruments.

The American Way

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

Yesterday, I posted that it was far less likely that a terrorist attack such as we saw in London, would take place in the United States. A number of readers disagreed, weighing in alongside the MSM that only distance and racial demographics have prevented such an attack up to now. I must strongly disagree, to the point of suggesting that the good readers might well need to “unlearn” things they have heard for so long from the mouths of the Stepford Rathers. America is different in many ways, for good or ill, and it’s vitally important to understand that character.

Before the advent of Television, the clear distinction between the American character and other nations could be found in many famous quotes. Some examples:

“It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate – to surmount every difficulty by resolution and contrivance” – Thomas Jefferson

“Two things in America are astonishing: the changeableness of most human behavior and the strange stability of certain principles. Men are constantly on the move, but the spirit of humanity seems almost unmoved.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth” – John Adams

“We have, as all will agree, a free Government, where every man has a right to be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed” – Abraham Lincoln

“Young man, there is America--which at this day serves for little more than to amuse you with stories of savage men and uncouth manners; yet shall, before you taste of death, show itself equal to the whole that commerce which now attracts the envy of the world” – Edmund Burke


Pretty words, but of course others could counter that many nations have such praise. Indeed, if flowery prose were the currency of valid right, France would still be a world power. But I note the quotes by and about Americans, because for good or ill we have an unparalleled effect on the world, in every venue and enterprise. To speak bluntly, we always win in the end. Yes, we have lost wars before, to Canada and to Red Cloud’s Sioux, and in Vietnam, but always we came back later. We made Canada our veritable ward and junior partner in the continent, and the Sioux are extinct today. And Vietnam comes to us these days at our banks and boardrooms, hat in hand to ask for our assistance in their ventures. We obliterated every tribe of Apache and Iroquois and Comanche that dared rise up against us, and so too put down Mexican incursions into territory held by U.S. troops. Right or wrong, our history is one of ruthless victory, an inevitable tide sweeping away all opposition. We crushed the natives on land we wished to take, but we also swept away piracy on the high seas. We established a de facto empire on the North American continent, but have prevailed to make Civil Rights a reality in every place we control, and an issue not to be ignored in every nation who wishes to treat with us.

What does this have to do with Global Terrorism, and the risk to our cities? Lessons are taught in blood and horror, believe these sorts of men, and they themselves listen to instruction by pain. They raised the stakes by attacking our children, and we in turn raise the stakes again by promising the end to their culture. Not the culture of Islam, which threat would incite a true Jihad for the survival of their faith, but the culture of death and thuggery.

Osama bin Laden is proved a fool in the cast of Benito Mussolini, and Musab al-Zarqawi has been shown a fraud in his presumption, not unlike Pol Pot. That is, such men believed, like the fools before them, that the American character could be bullied into subservience, that the murder of our innocents would quell us into still acceptance of their control. It is the founding lie of Wahhabism and Fascist Terrorism, that strength is shown through butchery, that the more obscene the violence the greater and unstoppable the will. Instead, they have found that while there are weak Americans, there are many more who have hidden reserves of ideals and courage, who are not long dismayed by such atrocities, but they shall rise to fight it down. Knowing the threat, Americans are not content merely to avoid it, but seek its destruction and to crush the fathers of such evil. We may pause when led by weak men, but inevitably return to the challenge resolute and determined to make an end of the world’s vipers.

The tale of the last century should have made this clear. Europe could not avoid a useless war on its continent between monarchs who cared more for their pride than for reform to mutual gain; the Americans came in to end that fight, and it behooves notice that none of the participants in World War I who had a monarch going into the war, now has one in the same fashion or authority as they did when they began, but the Americans are now as they were then. When the Fascists rose, the British were steadfast and many allies were brave, but none doubt in fact that it was America which ended the war and remade Europe. When Communism held half the world in sway, it was America to whom the world depended to keep hope alive, and while some leaders proved unsuited to the challenge, others were beyond equal in their ability and moral stamina, setting the example and condition not only for resistance against the Red threat, but also setting the template for future leaders to follow. Now comes the threat of the dissolute order, where petty warlords and gangs of immoral theocrats think to hold sway over a region through sheer intimidation, believing that by abandoning the basic decency of human morality they can impel acceptance of their command. For a time, because Clinton was weak in the mold of Chirac and Schroeder, they were able to grab land and souls for their possession, but it did not last. On September 11, 2001, they attacked an America which did not exist as they believed. We were drowsy to the clarion but not dead, and President Bush was not a man to ignore the needs of the nation or of our responsibility.

The Taliban once held all of Afghanistan under its control, believing that no one could wrest away that rocky distant land, but they were wrong. Not only did the United States remove the Taliban from Afghanistan, but that nation has held free elections in voice of its future, a victory so complete that even the hypocrites on the Left who once opposed it are now silent, lest the truth of our cause and their own cowardice be made even more evident. Saddam Hussein once not only thumbed his nose at the terms of his signed Cease-Fire with American-led forces, but openly and generously funded and supplied over a dozen terrorist organizations. Today, he sits in a cell waiting for his trial, facing the knowledge that his country is free and has elected its own self-Sovereign government. Libya once promised a rain of destruction on America, but has instead been compelled to agree to destroy its WMD programs. Syria has been forced to remove occupying troops from Lebanon, specifically because the people of Lebanon called upon President Bush and America to assist them. Four major terrorist groups which exported hate and violence from the Middle East just four years ago, today no longer exist, their entire membership captured or killed. No other country on the planet does what America does, to fundamentally alter the foundations of power and authority when it acts with decision.

Terrorists select targets for different reasons than military men do. Where a military man seeks to achieve a victory in the war, and compels his tactics to suit the strategy, the terrorist looks only for opportunity, believing that enough pin-pricks will kill the nation he attacks, and that every thrill of violence will demoralize his enemy. He trusts his cause to be better simply because he has been told so, and he does not dare weigh the argument morally or in the context of his own claims. The evidence of past incidents shows the fallcy of such delusion. A weak government may well counsel compliance, even with monsters, rather than take up the hard and heavy sword, but though giants may look like ordinary men while they slumber, when roused they are another sort altogether. The terrorist groups, as much as they hate Americans, now know that there is an unavoidable price for attacking our cities and people. The Islamo-fascists have paid heavily for 9/11, and we are not nearly done. Attacking an American city will only renew focus on why we are at war and stoke the fire of our determination to win the conflict completely. The terrorists are slowly learning the truth of the different peoples they may attack:

Kill a Frenchman, and his government will apologize to you.

Kill an Italian, and he will curse and fight you, but his government will be silent.

Kill a Brit, and the government will kill some of yours.

Kill Americans, and the government may be slow to act, but in the end your group will be obliterated, totally destroyed.

That is the unavoidable lesson, which can be delayed if our leaders are lulled to sleep and if their personal nature be directed to cowardice and expediency, but inevitably we shall return to a leader unafraid to meet the challenge. If we are delayed by a Carter, there will yet be a Reagan. If there is a Clinton who refuses the call, it shall be answered by a Bush. Sooner or later, we will win, and in so doing utterly remove all that these Terrorists count dear. Islam shall hold its proper place in the Middle East, free from the bloody hands of men who can only speak threats and imprecations. And if a nation cannot conduct its affairs without respect for our people, we shall remove that power to be replaced by one which comes from its people. For the way of the terrorist is not the way of the Arab or the Muslim, and the way of the American is never to accept cowardice or submission to murder.

Early Thoughts About the Attacks in London

*+*+*+*+*

The facts are beginning to become clear about what happened today in London. In short, at 9:15 AM British Summer Time, there were four explosions caused by bombs; three in subway tunnels and one on a bus, in the financial district near Liverpool Station at the Aldgate Station, at Edgware Road and King’s Cross in north London, and Russell Square in central London. The bus explosion occurred at Tavistock Square. At this time, at least 41 people are known to be dead, with an unknown number of injured and maimed, although estimates vary from the low (300) to high (900) hundreds. Injuries and damage are consistent with conventional explosives. A previously unknown group claiming affiliation with Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the claim’s credibility has not been established yet, in large part because the claim was vague, lacking any evidence to prove their action, and because the claim was made after knowledge of the events was public.

My initial thoughts include great respect for the people of London, who refuse to be cowed by thuggery and butchers, and I note that the terrorists have tacitly accepted limits to their scope: The obvious target was to influence the G-8 Conference, but the fact that the terrorists chose to settle for civilian targets in London as much as admits they lack the planning and execution capacity they held just a few years ago. As terrible as the loss of these innocents is, it demonstrates the futile thrashing of a dying monster.

May the LORD watch over all His children, bringing aid and recovery to the victims able to receive it, solace and peace to those beyond return, and may His emissaries swiftly bring a terrible retribution to the men who planned and acted in this atrocity.

Christ The Catalyst, pt 2

+++

Continuing with the thought from my last post, if we assume that Jesus is who the NT says He is, and that He did and said what the NT claims, it strikes me that Jesus was very personal in His words and actions. While He sometimes spoke to crowds and a few of His miracles were for many, in the main He spoke one to one, and His miracles, especially His healing, was always at the personal level. That, to me, explains the devotion of the earliest disciples; they not only believed what they were teaching, but had experienced God Himself, one to one.

The Bible tells us God did this from time to time, though we can’t reasonably conclude that God only showed up where Scripture noted the event. Face to face with Adam, and personal contact with Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Elisha – you get the idea. The thing is, every time God makes a personal appearance, He gets results in that person’s life and work.

So the thing about Jesus is, even if you say that the whole Atonement thing is not necessary, it was never about that in the main, anyway. It was about God reaching out to all of us, every last one of us, with a gift of unlimited hope and joy if we will accept it.

You may know from my past articles, that I am one of those who believes that God will offer a universal salvation, indeed already has. Man, having free will, makes the matter a bit murky as to how each specific soul will be resolved, but except for “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, every sin and offense will be forgiven. That being the case, one might naturally wonder what purposes there is for Christians. We are vessels to carry and share the Good News, although some of us are better at the task than others. Further, we are meant to live in the light, so that men will see its goodness. Again, some are better in this venture than others, though that also counts to different gifts from the Father.

So, and this is something of a thought in development, the value of Christianity is the relationship, not the atonement alone.

Christ The Catalyst

====

On another site, a member who is not Christian asked me to explain why, if the notion that all men are sinful and in need of a Savior was taken away, this would not collapse the foundations of Christ upon itself. Upon further thought, I would like to expand both the question and the answer.

The world has certainly changed, culturally, since that strange itinerant preacher made His way among the men and women of 1st-Century Judea, teaching and setting an example still talked about, if at odds, today. Not only because most 1st-world people are far more familiar with alternative religions and philosophies, but because the group condition for Christians has changed, and changed, and changed again. What I mean by that is, what was at first a small and much-persecuted group of believers, whose faith alone kept them intact in the first 200 years of their existence, found itself accepted and then suddenly supported as the favored state religion. From there, Christianity’s leaders soared to new heights of power and wealth, but this tore them away from the common touch of the early Church fathers. By the turn of the Millennium, the Church had stratified to a caste system, which in practical terms means that the average Christian, once again, had to depend on his faith to survive in a world of powers which cared not a whit for him.

This condition changed again as different kingdoms rose and fell, now the Romans, now the Huns, now the Muslims invading from the south, now the Crusade to push them back, then another to “reclaim” the Holy Lands, for purposes of merit only to men born to power. Small wonder that the Church denied individuals the right to own and read their own Bibles; the teachings of Christ found little support in the actions and doctrines of the Holy Roman Empire. This does not mean, by the way, that the Roman Catholic Church was the source or origin of this evil; many European villages depended on their parish priests in many ways, and at the level of the common man, the Church was a very good thing, noble at times. And the truth of the corrupting influence of power and wealth was in place long before the first Christian church.

All these things might well convince non-Christians that indeed there is nothing new under the sun, as for the most part, Christians have not often acted in a distinctly better example to Humanity than people of other beliefs. Also, the inability of the Christian Church as a whole to speak in unity on points of Doctrine does not suggest the Church has perfect wisdom. As a result, there is much confusion about what good it does to be Christian, or even why we choose the Way of Christ. This article attempts to address those points.

Let’s start with God. On the one hand, it appears that we mortal creatures cannot really understand our Immortal Creator. On the other, it seems reasonable to me that our loving Father wants us to know Him as well as we can. Assuming the Bible stories in Genesis are correct, the first humans had direct personal contact with God. Other faiths teach direct contact with God, and some of them I find quite believable. And it makes perfect sense to me. I have never found it reasonable to pray to a go-between for my most intimate needs, nor do I believe I have received holy blessings through a distribution center. Not that I reject priests and ministers; The LORD uses angels, after all, so there is a purpose for agents at different levels, but I begin with the belief that God reaches us directly. If you want to consider the distinction between the perfect Holiness of God, the love which has compassion for each of us, the truth which resides within us at the core, and the freedom we all possess to choose the course of our souls.

One element to God’s will is the composite effect of History. That is, each generation receives its share of blessings, along with its share of trials. It’s impossible, I think, for any human to explain why something particularly good or bad happens to a particular person or group at a particular place or time, but it seems clear to me that if we accept the proposition of a caring Lord, that there would be a purpose beyond the apparent. One critical dimension is the transition from the mortal and temporary, to the eternal and absolute. Trite as it sounds, Death is not the end, nor should a person be weighed solely on what is visible on the surface. The trick comes in finding the deeper meaning, and I do not think God disparages anyone willing to try that road.

So, with all that, what’s the value and plan for Christianity? It comes down to a closer look at the way Christ acted and taught. Jesus did His work for the most part by speaking to people one to one, by teaching case by case, and His miracles were primarily for individuals. Consider His healing - it would have been easier by far for Jesus to heal counties at a time. Instead, He reached out to individuals, whether healing, teaching, or setting the perfect example.

I’m still working on this thought, but it reinforces the precious nature of Christ’s love, to realize that He lived and worked and died and was resurrected for us all. One by one, by plan.

Sermons From Serpents

+++++++

One thing which has puzzled me about public opinion and the War On Terror, is why reasonable people so often seem to buy into lies and hysteria from the Left. Since very few people consider themselves Liberals these days, why would they buy into the Liberal version of Reality?

I went to my parents’ church this morning, and naturally the service was patriotic in theme. It struck me then, when during the organized prayer, the Associate Minister cautioned the congregation that perhaps we should reconsider going into places “with force and destruction, and then wondering why our reputation suffered”. Shortly after that, in a session recognizing Armed Services veterans and their families, the ministers made a point to note the sacrifices and service given in World War 2, in Korea, and in the Gulf War of 1990-1991, but were silent about veterans of the present conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. With or without the intent, the clergy implied that only certain veterans deserved respect and support. During the sermon, discussing the sin of Pride, the minister again made a point to claim that nations and leaders do not do well to act without considering the opinions of others. The Gospel According to Michael Moore, you see.

I do not mean to say that the United Methodist Church may not hold its own opinions on political matters and morality, nor that individual ministers may not speak out when they see what they deem sin in a leader. But I noted there was no balance to this Socialist Gospel; no mention of the millions of people freed in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor of their free elections, no mention of the effects the Bush Doctrine has had on Syria, on Lebanon, on Libya, and on all the rest of the Middle East. No attempt at all to express the matter in the broader context. Of course, the United Methodist Church was also silent when one of their own denomination, President Clinton, admitted to Adultery, even to lying under oath. Not our place to condemn opined the Serpents, no need to embarrass the man. No word of criticism about the foreign policy which left more than a hundred thousand dead in Rwanda, which excused the genocide in Bosnia, and which left dozens of tyrannical regimes unanswered, in power with the tacit approval not only of the Clinton Administration, but also of the Methodists. Lenin from a pulpit, n’cest pas?

There are many fronts in the war to renew American commitment to its ideals. Keeping the players honest, whether they wear a suit or robe, is a major part of that challenge.

The Business and Utility of Opinion Polls

[].
[].
[].

I have written about the validity of National Opinion Polls, as they relate to politics, and a key statement summarizing any poll is this; “it should be understood that a poll is nothing more than the combined effect of its components”.

It’s very important to understand the demographic support, especially the base. During the 2004 campaign, I was aware that while George W. Bush had to work to convince Independents and Undecideds, his base was more solid than Kerry’s, which indicated not only a better share of his party support, but also forecast better Republican turnout than the Democrats, which turned out to be the case.

Back in August, I examined the demographics from past Presidential elections, to observe and note the ones which were the most relevant and effective to the outcome. Singularly effective among the opinion polls in this regard are the ones from the Gallup Organization, which I continue to regard as the most reliable and therefore the most influential poll group.

After the election, the poll focused on other questions than the candidates, and I noticed a shift in how the methodologies were used. The most significant changes were the abandonment of using Registered Voters and people known to have voted in the last election (the post-event version of the “Likely Voter”), with simple count of Adults, and a sometimes chaotic fluctuation in Party Identification.

In late May, I published an article which was critical of the weighting used by the poll groups, especially in terms of party identification. At that time, I noted a Pew analysis indicating that Republicans have nationally achieved a rough parity with Democrats in party identification. This led to an exchange of e-mails and a long telephone call, with an executive at one of the major polling groups. I was asked not to reveal the source’s name or position, or certain details provided for background about the group. The source I spoke with considers bloggers a vital resource for polling’s future, but notes that the controlling interests in polling groups are somewhat suspicious of the standards and professionalism of blogs, and further notes that if it were revealed that one blog had a contact with a specific polling group, other blogs would demand equal access, which would disrupt the polling group’s normal work. Also, it can hardly be denied that while some blogs are consistent and scholarly in their diligence, others can hardly be bothered to check their facts and support their contentions with any sort of rational foundation.

This created a conflict for me, however. In the first place, I have always desired to support my information with a source, ideally a link. In the case of direct interview, the link is not possible, and when a source wishes to remain anonymous, the attribution which would establish the fact is also removed from possibility. In such a case, I must ask the reader not to accept my word implicitly, but to weigh the uncited source in terms of his own judgment, qualifying the matter by reminding the reader to always consider multiple claims before believing too wholly in any one.

But I also had to sort out whether what I was told, was accurate in the general application. Even if what my source said was completely in the group for which he worked, it may be that his group was different in the main from other groups. To consider the matter more fully, I contacted two other sources I know in polling groups. From the results of those discussions, I satisfied my own curiosity about the priorities and restrictions under which polling groups work, and confirmed some similarities and differences.

Polls have existed for far longer than most people realize. They were first recorded in the United States during the campaign for the 1824 Presidential Election, which also was the first to allow Popular Votes. Polls were largely unscientific, however, until after the 1936 Election. The Literary Digest blew their prediction of the election so badly, that some scholars believe that’s why the magazine went out of business. But the new Gallup, Roper, and Crossley polls hit the mark rather closely, and this established that even with a small sample, a poll which used relevant data could be effective in reflecting the national mind.

Polls initially were created for the clients who paid for them. In the case of elections, candidates learned that knowing the areas which needed attention and the groups which could most easily be swayed, were critical to their chances for election. And news groups recognized that in the absence of sources, they could print poll results which demonstrated a demand for change or reform.

With the rise of 24-hour news services and the Internet, Polling claimed a much higher profile. No longer did polls only need to be produced in relation to a coming election or in response to a movement already underway; with demand in constant flow, regular polls became part of the news diet and the appetizer for talk shows nationwide. It’s not commonly noted, but one reason Harry Truman’s win in 1948 over Tom Dewey was such a shock, was because polls were sometimes months apart during that campaign. During the 2000 Campaign, most of the major polls published standings only 3 or 4 days apart in the last month, and in the 2004 Campaign, there were daily polls available from Super Tuesday straight through the Election.

That’s the good news for polling groups; they have a hungry and growing audience. The bad news is, with all that interest, the attention also brings questions about their methodology and its consistency. Polling groups generally try to follow the known demographics, most often basing their weights on the last U.S. Census for gender and racial composition. Weighting is taking the raw results and adjusting them to better reflect the actual balance between men and women and the different races. It is more controversial, when weighting is used to change more fluid elements, such as party identification, or when a poll which was based on Likely Voters or Registered Voters, decides to use random adults instead.

This brings us to the war room of a polling group. There are many theories of polls, some based on the mathematical anaylsis of statistical probability, others developed through analysis of historical evidence. The problem with trends and opinion, however, is that trends and opinions change, and it can be very difficult to note the difference between a momentary slowdown and a true shift in direction, much less to sort out the cause and scale. If you work for a polling group, you want to establish consistent, reliable rules for your polling, not only for the immediate results but to make your name in a growing industry. Where there were once less than a half-dozen polling groups of note, there are now more than thirty polling agencies which publish national releases, not touching the private groups which work only for their clients. This creates real pressure for pollsters to not only be accurate, but also find a way to set themselves apart from their competitors. I suspect this is why John Zogby made his boneheaded statement last year, showing himself an advocate of John Kerry in mid-year in a sequence of moves that ended up shredding his credibility; he was losing market share and became desperate. The reader may recall that Zogby followed up his declaration for Kerry, with the decision to mix his online and telephone respondent pools, and so corrupting the analysis and results for both poll methods. Zogby became to polling what Amy Carter was to Foreign Policy.

The debate about using National Adults in place of Registered or Likely Voters appears to have come down to money. It takes longer and costs more to ask people if they are a Registered Voter, or voted in the last election, and so the polling groups have all pretty much reverted back to just taking a somewhat human voice on the line. I understand the cost but cannot agree to the argument; while all three sources said they don’t believe the use of Adults instead of real Voters changes things, I cannot agree to the notion that a respondent who does not vote, is still somehow a reliable barometer to how voters see an issue, but until I get my own polling agency I will have to accept this condition, since it prevails across the board.

The real fireworks start, when one considers the question of political party identification. The first thing I hear when I raise this question, is that many people in polling do not consider party identification to be a true demographic, or even a salient indicator of support. For instance, the overwhelming majority of voters in Oklahoma consider themselves to be Democrats. Yet they are unyieldingly conservative on most of the issues, and have voted consistently for Republican Presidential candidates. If one considered only Oklahoma and New York voters, one would conclude that Democrats were more conservative than Republicans, but also that the population considered itself more heavily Democrat than Republican in party identification. Also, it is a plain fact that people think differently of their National, State, County and Local officials. Here in Houston for example, the city is weighted such that Democrats, especially liberals, usually win the City races, yet the County is predominantly Republican. That said however, it seems reasonable to me that when people know they are speaking to a national poll, they will identify themselves as they see the national parties.

The issue is complicated by the fact that the raw party identification breakdown changes rapidly, enough to raise the question of whether the variance reflects changes in the methodology. During the debate about the erroneous exit polls by Mitofsky which came out late morning of Election Day, it was revealed that the pollsters methods may well have deterred Conservatives and attracted Liberals; a clear breakdown of party identification would have shown the error much earlier than was later revealed. I do sympathize, however, with the difficulty a polling group has in establishing where a party weight should rest. But to me, that makes it all the more important to keep track of raw party weights, to be able to determine where it’s settling.

One difficulty the modern polls face, is a true evolution in political opinion. When Gallup and Roper came into existence, the Democrats enjoyed popular support under FDR, and the nation largely considered itself Democrat in the main through Truman, then Kennedy, Johnson, even through Carter. Eisenhower and Nixon were no more than a change of pace, and Watergate hurt the Republicans in every demographic sector. The Reagan Revolution convinced pollsters that Ronald Reagan was popular, and the Contract With America in 1994 convinced them that the New Deal was finally wearing out its influence. The close count in the 2000 Election misled pollsters into missing the clear signs of Republican growth, but the 2002 Midterm surprises finally snapped attention towards the undeniable trend. The last campaigns merely confirmed the results from the last 25 years; America is becoming far more Conservative, and the Republicans are now far more representative of most Americans’ opinions than the Democrats. Until the polls understand the numbers in that context, they will be fighting the tide.