Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Shelling Northern Gaza

In chapter 3,486,329 of the Palestinain/Israel battle, we see that nothing has changed.

You may recall a few episodes ago, Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip in a huge gamble on goodwill that they probably knew they would lose, but hoped they wouldn't.

Palestinians have responded by destroying a thriving network of valuable greenhouses that Israel left to them, and firing rockets into Israel.

Israel now wants a buffer zone in Northern Gaza. Palestinians complain that a buffer zone is tantamount to "re-occupation". Well, perhaps they should have thought about that before they fired rockets at Israeli citizens from that area.

When will it end?

It will end after the people of Palestine start holding their brethren even partially responsible for perpetuating their plight and stand between them and their targets.


The Emporer of Anti-Idiots relates his own satori:

[I was once] "young, dumb and full of nothing but “how I wish the world would be more like [insert utopian daydream here]…” he was pulled in by a combination of knowing zilch about how the real world actually works and a deep, abiding desire for a world in which nobody wanted for anything and everybody lived in peace. Naive as all heck, but certainly something that we’d all like to see, no? We’d like to see it, but we also know that it’s just not human nature and we’ve seen the horrible results whenever regimes have tried to make humans fit their mold rather than working with reality.

So I grew up, learned about history and the world in general and realized that no, Virginia, it doesn’t really work the way you’d like it to work. I may rail, rant and rave against the laws of gravity, but I can’t make stuff fall upwards no matter how hard I wish for it and no matter how many rules and regulations I pass. Not only would any such attempt be guaranteed to fail, it would most likely lead to the exact opposite of what I was aiming for, as even the most casual of studies of socialist regimes will prove.

Human beings have free will and coercion will only lead to rebellion. It doesn’t matter where you believe Free Will came from, it just is, in much the same way that water is and a successful socialist economy isn’t.

Once you realize this fundamental fact, that the world is the way it is and that the forces governing it and human actions cannot and will not be denied, you start wondering how to work with the system rather than wasting your time railing against the darkness and digging mass graves for dissenters.

That’s when you realize that you’re not a leftist anymore."

Saturday, December 24, 2005

America was nestled all snug in their beds

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men are willing to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell.

Many of us remember this on Christmas Eve. Thanks to all of you over there.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Clinton Spied, the Times shied

Thanks to the infamous Rottie via his Lieutenant Colonel "Cheapshot" for this tip off --

Clinton Administration Counterterrorism Initiative

Amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968 to constitutionally enhance use of electronic surveillance to fight terrorism. This proposal would: permit any federal felony to be used as a basis for an electronic surveillance order; ease restrictions on the use, in American court proceedings, of information from electronic surveillance conducted by foreign governments; forbid suppression of electronic evidence unless law enforcement acted in bad faith in obtaining the evidence; authorize emergency electronic surveillance in situations involving threats by domestic terrorist organizations, authorize roving wiretaps where it is not practical to specify the number of the phone to be tapped, such as where a target uses multiple pay phones; allow the FBI to obtain records of local telephone calls, without the need for a court order, as they can own obtain records of long-diastase calls; and require telephone companies and/or service providers to preserve evidence until a court order could be obtained. None of these changes would alter the requirement for probable cause prior to engaging in electronic surveillance.

Mighty selective "whistle-blowing" the Times does. How noble.

Bad Americans

Patrick, over at Clarity and Resolve, distilled what many of us think down to a few well-worded lines:

See, here's the thing: I don't really care if people disagree with the policies of this administration—that's healthy for a democracy, and I don't like any number of positions taken by Dubya. But way too many people have taken it far beyond this natural, healthy spirit of political divergence. Too many spiteful ideologues are working hard against the President's obligation and ability to defend our nation from a ruthless medieval enemy whose rulebook is backward and barbaric. (emphasis mine)

It doesn't matter what your intent is and how noble you feel your actions are in the new normal of post-9/11 America; when you sacrifice objectivity—and yes, principles—to shortsighted, vindictive partisanship you are being a bad American. It's disgraceful.

The rest of the post is a good read, too.

John Schmidt (former Clinton Associate Attorney General), who wrote the Chicago Tribune article Patrick quotes, sums his article up thus:

...we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

DHMO Alert -- This should be required reading.

Look out for Dihydrogen Monoxide in the environment WWW.DHMO.ORG (I fixed the link)

By the way, it IS a greenhouse gas, too.

This should be required reading for middle-school to jr-high school students in courses on how clever propagandists can be and how they distort and obfuscate to frame the facts to fit their agenda.

Unfortunately, a lot of propagandists probably don't take care to avoid saying anything that's technically untrue the way it looks like these folks did. Still, it's a beautiful example of how one can create a lie in your mind by speaking nothing but truth.

As entertainment for me this is top notch.

Me, I'm addicted to the stuff. [sip]

Not as simple as it was put

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had a hard time believing that the FISA approval process was as simple and cut and dried as the annointed "expert" on NPR the other morning was saying.

And now I'm reading some stuff that bears that skepticism out in Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps.

The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.

"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."

Well, if something's broke, let's fix it -- but let's keep in mind that it's real hard to stop terrorists with a blindfold on.

Clinton said surveylance without a warrant was OK, too

How do you like these apples?

Where were the howls of protest from the Left then?

Methinks their real agenda is showing. This is not about Civil Liberties. This is about hating Bush.

Mind you, I think these kinds of civil liberties are a serious issue. But like I said... where were the howls?

Tuesday, December 20, 2005


I find it odd that we have courts telling us what teachers can and can't mention in the classroom.

Do I think Public Schools should teach Intelligent Design as fact?


Do I think teachers should be able to mention it as a theory? Well, it IS a theory. All we can say scientifically is that we have lots of evidence that evolution happens. Who is to say what the actual cause is behind genetic mutations. Random chance? Could be. Intelligent tinkering? Well, you can't prove otherwise, that's for sure.

So while I don't think it should be taught as "fact", people can and probably should mention it as a theory that a lot of people hold. I mean, it is possible. But to put a gag order on the subject? Aren't these the same people who are the first to howl about first amendment -- specifically free speech -- rights? Aren't these the same people who talk about the marketplace of ideas? Some people think this. Some people think that. Separate what we know for sure from what we don't. Life mutates. Fact. What causes it? Chemistry? Maybe. Does something direct the chemistry? I don't know. You don't either.

Do I believe in the Intelligent Design Theory? Not really. But I won't rule it out. Why the gag order?

I doubt the ACLU will be defending any teacher's right to say "and some people believe that the mutations are guided by an intelligent being."

Oops. Sorry Mr. Smith. You're fired.

Love your enemies, don't kill them?

Saw a bumpersticker over lunch today. It said
"When Jesus said love your enemies, I'm pretty sure he meant don't kill them."

How beautifully simplistic and naive. In my book, the rules change when your enemy is trying to kill you and/or yours.

Let's give another, more balanced quote:

EcclesiastesChapter 3
  1. There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.
  2. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.
  3. A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.
  4. A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
  5. A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them; a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
  6. A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away.
  7. A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to be silent, and a time to speak.
  8. A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. .
The Byrds put it quite beautifully to music.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays - speech police

I think it would be safe to say that what a lot of us object to is not "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas" -- it's not allowing people to say "Merry Christmas", or people being offended by what is essentially a cultural wish of goodwill toward another.

Tell me Happy Holidays. Tell me Merry Christmas. Tell my Happy Haunaka, Kwanza, Solstice, or keep your mouth shut and don't say anything. Just let people, who mean the OPPOSITE of harm, wish you well, and who cares what the reason is?

Diamond Joe Lieberman

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." -- Joe Lieberman, D-CT

See, not all democrats are treasonous. Some of them get it. What is untrue about what he said?

If you go look at the daily Kos or a dirth of other "progressive" blogs, the moonbat component of the Democratic party is highly upset about this. By the way, it's really clear from reading the KOS that these people are mentally unstable and intellectually extremely shallow.

  • There are calls for Leiberman to march in step or leave the party (maybe option #2?)
  • There is the drumbeat language of "failed policy", "failed war", and "lies, lies, lies" -- even though we've already had this debate and won it. Remember the election last year? Bush didn't win on his Social Security Reform package. But there seems to be this feeling that incessantly repeating the charges makes them true.
  • There is an eerily persistent almost religiously irrational undertone that shows a deeply held belief that Bush and Cheney are evil, evil people on par with Saruman
  • They equate support for winning the war in Iraq with agreeing with the policy that got us there
  • One gets the idea that if you ate the same brand of potato chips that Rush Limbaugh eats, you are evil by association
  • They are generally short on facts and long on opinion and emotion

I mean, you'd think that there was no general election in Iraq a few days ago.

Do Not Wiretap List

Mmm-heh! Pretty funny spoof.

More on the apparently non-FISA spying

I'm going to take one step back on this.

If what the annointed "experts" on NPR this morning said is true, that the FISA act allows instant eavesdropping and retroactive court approval, and that they've only turned down 10 or so out of 1,500 requests since 1978 then perhaps a valid point has been made.

On the other hand, if it is that easy to do and the retro-active provision erases the need to bypass the procedure for expediency, it begs the following question:

What does the administration have to gain by bypassing it? What does it have to lose by using it? It makes me wonder if I'm not hearing the whole story. And perhaps there's a very good reason I'm not hearing the whole story. There is, for instance, the possibility that we know there is an agent with access to the FISA courts -- you know, one who might leak information -- but we don't know who it is. Now that's just a for instance.

I just find it amazingly difficult to believe that if it were as cut and dried as I heard in the NPR report this morning that intentionally bypassing it makes any sense in any context. I can't find a motive.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Right conclusion, wrong arguments

Happens a lot. I, for some stupid reason, flipped on Hannity and Colmes this evening and saw the typical "talk-over-each-other" fest going on... actually, this time it wasn't as bad as some. But one of the guys defending Bush and the intercepts of international calls and emails just couldn't seem to close the deal.

He kept going back to "We are at war" -- which is a good start, but the point he should have been making instead of "that means we have to give up some civil liberties" was this:

We are at war, but not with a country. There is a guerilla war being waged against us, and the enemy has agents in our midst.

The intercepts going on were between people here (not even necessarily citizens) to known terrorist operatives outside of the country. They weren't wiretapping aunt Mae talking to cousin Lou-Lou.

The president authorized spying on people who were talking to our enemies. Dude, I got no problem with that. And the same screeching moonbats that blame Bush for not stopping 9/11 are up in arms about this. How in the holy hell do you expect us to stop people who are infiltrating our own culture, our own towns, and learning to blend in so that one day they can strap on a bomb or an airplane and kill a bunch of us because God wants 'em to? I mean, how do you think intelligence is gathered?

"Get a warrant!"

That can take up to 72 hours, and more people know about it. The bigger the number of people who know, the harder it is to keep them from finding out we're on to them. I don't want Al-Salim's sister-in law who works for the CIA or FBI and types up Agent Smith's paperwork to know that we're listening in on his cousin's plot to nuke Los Angeles. I want us to figure out how he plans on doing it, who else is involved, and how we can nab his ass before he pulls the trigger.

In short, what our supposed supporter said was "we are at war" but went no farther into the circumstances describing this war and how radically different it is from WWII, Vietnam, Korea, WWI or any other war we've fought. The enemy has embedded himself within us, and is using our constitutional protections against us. They are exploiting a flaw in our system. I don't want to hear anybody howling about the minor steps we've taken to shrink that flaw a little bit when Muhammed "Eddie" Assad calls up his buddy Zawahiri in Pakistan. I'm going to assume they might be talking about something besides the aroma of roast lamb.

The press fleetingly acknowledges, usually in soundbyte quotes from the president himself, that these are international intercepts, not QUITE the same as domestic spying, but you never hear the reporter repeat it. The headlines and the overall impression the stories leave is that Big Bad BusHilter is spying on us all.

And I agree with many that the timing of the report is highly suspect. After practically denying that the December 15 vote in Iraq had any real significance, they publish this the very next day after having known about it for a year. Why Dec 16? Because they desparately want to deflect the conversation away from Bush's success and keep the attention on the fact that they think he's a big bad meanie for not pulling out of Iraq on 9/12/01 (yes, we were there, and it was a big part of the reason we were attacked here).

They, the Left, are scared. It appears that Bush has been right about a lot of things, and he's not taking it lying down anymore. With undeniable success of the Iraq mission screaming over their hand-covered microphones, the New York Slimes panicked.

Or... just go read what Michelle has to say about it. She has more time to research this stuff, and she does a great job. Besides, she's much better looking than I am.

The Best Quote from the President's latest speech

"My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them."

- President George W. Bush 12/18/2005

That's about as bluntly as you can put it.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Daniel on Iraqi Voting Day

Go check out Daniel's election day post.

Some cool pictures. I find the one with the line particularly impressive.

A post closer to what I wanted to do, but I didn't have the pictures.

More on Iraqi House Inspectionss (file under "Things Kerry hasn't read")

There is an Iraqi girl in Mosul who blogs, and her mother has a separate blog.

They have been subject to house inspections on more than one occasion, apparently. In these two posts, each talks about the inspection from their poiint of view. Neither sounds terrorized. But read it in their own words.

So this is one of those children (and kids!) and one of those women our troops are "terrorizing". Check out what they have to say about the troops and inspections. Then ask yourself which story jives with Americans (our soldiers are Americans like my good and honorable step-son Brian) that you know. Theirs? Or Kerry's?

Here's the young teenaged girl's:
Days of My Life
Talk about daily life of a teenage girl in Iraq, and days of
suffer and success. My nick name will be sunshine..

and her mother's:

talk about my life as a young mother hoping to do the best
for her children in spite of the life difficulties.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Iraqi Woman Speaks Out to the Anti-War Crowd

Oh, this is too much fun not to publish:

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”
– Iraqi Citizen, voter Betty Dawisha

Obvious (from the screenshot) it was aired on Fox. Doubt you'll see that on CNN, eh? Think she'll be quoted in the Times?

The Death Peanalty

Every time the death peanalty is invoked, the press parades out the usual stream of the outraged.

The common theme seems to be that the murderer (because that's the only offense we dole it out for anymore) is still a human being and the death peanalty is an affront to their human dignity.

Another one comes from people who are "opposed to violence in any form."

To those last people I say - "not in my society." Any society opposed to violence in any form is doomed. Period. If I have to explain to you why that is so, no amount of explaining will do it for you.

To the first point, I believe that a human being can do things to give up his/her human dignity. I believe a human being can forfiet that respect. And I believe everyone should be raised to understand just what those things are, and what will definitely happen to them should they do any of them. Fuzzy rules encourage rule-breakers.

Mind you, I am for keeping the standard of proof high, and the bar for such a crime pretty high as well.

And definitely, anybody guilty of a pattern of such behavior would far surpass that bar. And anyone who "had converted" should walk into the gas chamber voluntarily just to show the world how seriously it should take these things.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

BBC Headline: CIA abduction claims 'credible'

Don't you love these things?

This guy named "Dick Marty", presumably some sort of expert privy to the kind of information it would take to verify something like this, came up with a report in which he says that claims of US/CIA torture are "credible".

The story doesn't question anything he has to say, really, only that he said them and the implication is that he's ... ahem ... credible.

Well, who is this Dick Marty? ah, apparently here's his web page: Dick Marty

Mmm-hmmm... a Swiss senator. What's that party name again? Radical-libéral , you say?

Hey, at least they don't try to hide behind some euphemistic term like "progressive".

A European Radical libéral. Make mine a triple, please.

Is he wrong? I don't know. Is he right? The press doesn't know. But they hope he is. Absent that, they can just spatter his allegations all over the place and weave them in to the BushitlerliedBlooldforOilHaliburton theory.

30,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead? MSM Gets it Wrong Again.

I suspect it's intentional.

The question was:

"Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators?"
The answer was:
"How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq. "

At no point did the President say that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Yet that's what the headlines read. Including NPR's and a zillion others.

Eleventy-jillion meticulous fact-checkers, eh?

Murtha: Our Troops have now become the primary targets of the insurgents

Gomer Pyle: "Well sur-prise, sur-PRISE, sur-prise!"

Imagine this in WWII:

"Our troops have become the primary targets of the Germans, so we should pull out now."

If we're the ones kicking their a**es, one would expect us to become their primary targets. As if this is some new development. At what point in this war were we not their primary targets, Mr. Murtha? But I can't even buy the bit of "duh" Murtha is spewing in the face of all of the civilian deaths the "insurgents" have inflicted and continue to inflict.

Oh, sure, they'll take the odd easy pot shot at our troops. But it's much easier to take out people waiting in line to become policemen and other security forces. They're not interested in military victory.

They're interested in useful idiots like Murtha acting as their mouthpieces.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Echo Chambers

Chris Muir's cartoon for today (Dec 12, 2005) really got me laughing. I'd been talking to a friend recently about the "echo chambers" -- yes, we used that word -- that liberals seem to hang out in and how that leads to their continual babbling of the party mantras even in the face of -- perhaps especially in the face of -- evidence to the contrary.

You know, BushHiltlerLiedHalliburtonAbuGhraibBloodForOilQuagmire ...... that sort of thing.

I guess the Times thinks Liberal blogs are shining examples of open, healthy gardens of diverse opinion.

Of course, when you've pre-defined which opinions are "diverse" and which are not, it makes it all the easier.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Air Marshall Shoots Passenger

I saw this headline last night, and the first thing that ran through my head was -- Left-Wing Press stories on why it shouldn't have happened in



1 ...

And here they are. "He was mentally unstable." "He didn't have his medication." "One passenger claims he didn't hear the man say anything." "No explosives were found."

Look. A guy on a plane says he has a bomb. He does not cooperate when a marshall tells him to put the bag down. Then he runs.

In the comfort zone of not being on the plane and having the bit of knowledge that we do now, that being that there was no bomb and the guy was unstable.... it's easy to say but... but...

But nothin'.

"I have a bomb."

"Put it down."



I have no problem with that.

I'm sorry the man was mentally unstable. I'm sorry he didn't have his medication. But to my mind, there is no question the situation was handled the way it should have been.

Not that it would have been any different if it were otherwise. If it were a man of middle-eastern decent, there would have been questions about racial prejudice.

There is an unfortunately very large group of people who wish that we could just all hold hands and violence would go away.

Killing another human being isn't pretty, and it should never be lightly undertaken. On the other hand, allowing someone to kill a bunch of innocent people is even uglier. We didn't see what the bomb would have done had there been one. All the marshall knew was this guy said he had a bomb. He had to decide then and there -- do I risk the lives of all these people by sitting him down and playing 20 questions with him?
"Do you really have a bomb?"
"What kind is it?"
"What's bothering you today?"
"Are you mentally ill?"
"How is your medication holding out?"

This ain't the movies. This is real life. Nobody with superhuman powers can instantly see where the bomb is and know how to disable it in a flash. There's no telepathic "Counselor Troy" sidekick who can instantly know if the person is lying.

"But the wife was saying 'he`s sick, he`s sick'".

I really do feel badly for her. I can't imagine. That would be awful.

In Al-Queda's training materials, they talk of our Western hesitation as a weakness. And it is. It's a noble weakness to have, but it's still a weakness. Our enemy knows this weakness and utilizes it. Our enemy doesn't have it. Our enemy doesn't stop and think "could this be an innocent civilian I am about to kill?" No Westerners are by definition guilty, and if by chance he kills good Muslims, why they will go straight to heaven. He's doing them a favor. So it doesn't matter.

Now imagine a suicide bomber duo working together to buy that little bit of extra hesitation. "But he's sick!"

KA-BOOM! 140 people dead.

Why didn't they stop it??????

It must be Bush's fault.

Monday, December 05, 2005

Christmas and the Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation

the Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman says...

"We face a better-financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before. [..] Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us."

The chief villains, Foxman said, were the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family; the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund; the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association; and the Family Research Council, based in Washington. "This issue is serious enough for us to develop a strategy, and, clearly, our first task is to win the support of the American public," Mr. Foxman said. "We also need to come together with other Jewish organizations ... and to find allies beyond our community."

On Nov. 19, Mr. Yoffie compared the religious right to Nazis.
"We understand those who believe that the Bible opposes gay marriage, even though we read that text in a very different way," the rabbi said. "We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations."

Lord knows, you couldn't gain an iron grip on power until you banned those pesky gay organizations. Why from there it was an easy skip and a jump to conquest of the European continent.

"Foxman loves to whine about the religious right and how they're destroying religious liberty in America," said Don Feder, president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation. "Is wanting to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance Christianizing America? Is opposition to gay marriage Christianizing America? Is efforts to keep public displays of the Ten Commandments Christianizing America? If so, Moses was a Christianizer."
Or go look what another founding member of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation Jackie Mason has to say about it.

I'd be negligent, of course, if I didn't point out that we should not forget that Hitler ate potato salad. Christians often have potato salad at their church picnics and such. Therefore, any attempt to market potato palad or any of its ingredients is an attempt to Christianize America. Because Christians are Nazis.

Just look at their side-dishes.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Iraqi Campaigns

This from "Iraq the Model"

Aside from what parties put on their posters or say in the speeches they make, the people themselves are also using a portion of the walls to write whatever they like with or against this or that list; one funny line I saw yesterday said something that translates like this:

Vote for Allawi and your wife will buy malawi (heavy bracelets of gold) and vote for the I’tilaf (the united alliance) and you’ll go back to the tlath-talaf (3,000 in reference to the old poor salaries that Saddam paid us).

Nope, no progress in Iraq there. Before, Iraq was a united country. Everybody voted for Saddam Hussein. And I mean everybody. Now look at the mess they're in. They've got competing political parties, campaigns -- I mean ... man. And optimism about economic opportunity? What's that all about?

Oh, that's right. The goal was Communism. My bad.

Welcome Daniel in Brookline

(and IraqTheGoodStuff).

I don't put a lot of links on my "blogroll". There's a reason for that. I think too many are overwhelming, for one thing. A few good links and links to like minds and you can branch out from there.

However -- I think I have adopted Daniel as my blog buddy. Kind of like a "Sister City", only he's not a woman. (not that there's anything wrong with women -- I happen to be a big fan of them.)

Why? Well, it seems to me that his outlook on life is very much like mine. This realization struck home when I read his post-Thanksgiving post . Now that's a well-centered, decent guy.

Besides, he's patted me on the head a couple of times and it gives me the warm-fuzzies. A little small-time blogger like me. Gorsh!

We dig Thanksgiving in our household. Hopefully it will never be replaced with "National Gratitude Day" and have the main course suggestion changed to "Tofu Tofurkey". Not in our house it won't.

The other link I have added to the left (hmmm... maybe I should switch which side I put those links on... ;-) ) is... Iraq, The Good Stuff.

It is actually a new blog of mine. It was inspired by correspondences with my step-son who is in Iraq right now with the 6th CAG unit of the USMC. I'd been thinking about it, and then I read an editorial by Mona Charen. That did it. This stuff has simply got to be shared.

I don't expect it to be an overly active blog, as it isn't supposed to be a political discussion blog -- more of a "hey, looky here!". I welcome suggestions for links to stories of goodwill and progress in Iraq. That is all that will make it onto that blog. Maybe if I get enough it WILL be an active blog. True stories, with a preference to first and second hand stories. I will try my best to keep too many snide comments about what opinions I'm countering to a minimum. But you know... a few slip through. Sorry about that.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

We Shall Never Surrender

I know there are a great many people affected by the orders which we have made who are people affected by the orders which we have made who are passionate enemies of Nazi Germany. I am very sorry from them, but we cannot, under the present circumstances, draw all the distinctions we should like to do. If parachute landings were attempted and fierce nights followed, those unfortunate people would be far better out of the way for their own sake as well as ours.

There is, however, another class for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us powers to put down fifth column activities with the strongest hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correcting of the House without hesitation until we are satisfied and more than satisfied that this malignancy in our midst has been effectually stamped out.

Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940

Them's powerful words. Them's compassionate, yet determined, powerful "Look out, enemies, 'cause we're comin' for ya and we're not gonna stop" words.

I know there are a great many people affected by the orders which we have made who are people affected by the orders which we have made who are passionate enemies of Nazi Germany. I am very sorry from them, but we cannot, under the present circumstances, draw all the distinctions we should like to do.

Replace "Nazi Germany" with "Saddam Hussein", "Al Zarqawi", "Osama Bin Laden" ... and you have a perfectly succinct way of putting it the way any good "Hawk" feels it.

There is, however, another class for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us powers to put down fifth column activities with the strongest hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correcting of the House without hesitation until we are satisfied and more than satisfied that this malignancy in our midst has been effectually stamped out.

Amen, again. Sheenhan. Moore. Soros. ... Pelopsi ....

Imagine the howls of protest if that were in Bush's speech.

Against this adversary there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old.

Ok, so Winston was a bit more eloquent than George. Same idea, though. And he does have to try get it in the attention span of the MTV generation. Which is about long enough for "Bush Lied, thousands died" or "No Blood For Oil".

Provoking vs Encouraging

Suppose you have to take your child to the grocery store to do some shopping. The child wants to go home and watch TV. He throws a tantrum.

The tantrum is an attempt to control your behavior. You have two choices -- you can give the child what he wants, or you can stand firm and refuse until you are finished. If you refuse, the child continues to whine and pout and scream. But you must do your shopping if you want to feed yourself and your child.

If you take the child home immediately, the child has learned an important lesson. Persistence will wear you down and tantrums work!

Standing firm definitely provokes the child, giving in encourages further use of his tactics.

Withdrawal proponents are right when they say that our presence in Iraq provokes the terrorist element. What they don't seem to know, or else they willfully ignore, is the glaring fact that withdrawal before Iraq is stable encourages their tactics. If it works, they will use it, their friends will use it, and others will use it. People tend to use what works. If they can purposely kill civilians -- often in gruesome and shocking ways -- and get what they want, then guess what we can expect more of?

Sure, our presence provokes them. Our retreat would do far worse.