Quote of the day

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States." --Thomas Jefferson

The last two sentences are interesting. If I'm reading them correctly, Jefferson was saying that state governments *could* make laws respecting an establishment of religion. In short, states could have official state religions. Only the federal government could not. This goes back to the phrasing of the First Amendment which starts with "Congress shall make no law...." This restricts this prohibition to the federal government. Others of the first ten amendments are blanket prohibitions. For example, the Second Amendment doesn't say that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress."

Of course, I would say it's a bad thing for *any* government at any level to have an official religion. And I expect that the constitutions of most, if not all, of the states have similar language to the First Amendment (haven't read them all, don't know for sure).

Some Democrats are unpatriotic

So says Orson Scott Card, himself a Democrat.

The Campaign of Hate and Fear

Some choice excerpts:

But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.

You hear about this all the time from the right, that the media is actively working to undermine the administration and bring about a Democrat win in 2004. To hear it from a Democrat only gives it additional weight.

But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.

In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.

Anyone who persists in comparing Iraq to Vietnam, or calling it a "quagmire" is just parroting a line that is demonstrably false.

It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape.

This brings to mind the famous quote: "It's the economy, stupid!" Actually, it can be shown that presidents have a lot less real control over the economy than most people think they do. Yet that doesn't stop the detractors of the current administration. Though, to be honest, it doesn't stop the detractors of the Clinton administration from blaming him for the recession either.

The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.

This is the cold hard truth. I hate to see our men and women in uniform pay the ultimate price. But we must make sure that the price is worth paying. To do less, to cut and run, would be to render their sacrifices meaningless.

And the final paragraph:

And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.

I really do need to read more of Mr. Card's books and stories.

Like we didn't see this coming

Rep. Jim McDermott, who gained notoriety for his visit to Baghdad in 2002 where he said that President Bush would mislead the public to justify an invasion, had some comments about the capture of Saddam Hussein. Predictably, he is questioning the "timing" of the capture.

There is a phrase that I've been seeing a lot of recently. It is "drink the Kool-Aid" and various variants thereof. This is a reference to the 1978 Jonestown mass-suicide where they drank Kool-Aid (or some other similar drink) containing cyanide. The page linked above defines this term as:

v. To become a firm believer in something; to accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly.

In the current context, the argument or philosophy is that of the extreme Left who loathe President Bush with such a passion that they will say and do absolutely anything, including advocating the death of our troops and our failure in Iraq, in order to remove him from office.

I hereby declare that Jim McDermott has drunk the Kool-Aid. Or, it may be better to say that he drank it some time back and is now actively serving it up.

And, although this is not as current, Howard Dean has drunk deeply of the pitcher himself. And see my previous post on how Dennis Kucinich used the names of our honored dead for his own political gain, especially given that the first statement of the video is an outright lie.

Of all the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, the only one I have any respect for is Joe Lieberman. He actually gets it. Unfortunately, Dean and the others have pulled the Democrat Party so far to the left that Lieberman doesn't have a chance, especially not after Gore's endorsement of Dean over his former running mate.

Dogs, guns, and cops

A woman in Arizona was mauled and killed by three pitbulls owned by a neighbor.

Response in fatal dog mauling case questioned

This one article brings up several issues for me.

• Once again, the cops usually can't protect you at the time you are in danger. It took an hour and ten minutes for a sheriff's deputy to get there and, by that time, it was already far too late. It doesn't matter if your assailant is human or animal, a gun is still the most effective form of personal defense that currently exists.


• What is it with people who own animals like this? What do they get out of it? On the way to work yesterday, I was sitting at an intersection where I watched a man and his dog cross the street. The dog looked kind of like a pit bull, but I don't think it was, the head wasn't shaped right. It had bobbed ears and a pair as big as mine hanging down between his legs. I watched this guy and his non-neutered dog walk by and wondered why he had that particular dog. If I had to guess, I'd say a big reason was machismo. He had this very "masculine" dog because he wanted to show the world how manly he is, or compensate for a sense of inadequacy in that department. Oh, I'm sure the dog is friendly and he cares about it, but this particular type of dog provides him with something he wouldn't get from a small dog or a cat. Contrast that with the reasons Ali and I have our cat. We don't have him to show off and impress people. We have him because he's a sweet little guy who brings pleasure and a sense of fulfillment to our lives. It's our relationship with Calvin that's important. What other people think about him is not important. (Of course we want people to like him, but that's not a necessary factor.) This, of course, is not to say that he doesn't have the right to have that dog. However, in the case of this article, the dogs in question were actual pit bulls, which are known to be potentially dangerous. Which brings me to my next point.


• The woman whose dogs killed the victim should be charged, tried, and sent to jail. She is responsible for the actions of her dogs, even more so than the actions of her children should she have any. It's her responsibility to control the dogs and she let them get away. It's like having a trio of guns that can move around and shoot people on their own. This, by extension, makes these dogs far more dangerous than any actual gun. I don't know if she should be charged with murder, but at least manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Publicity stunt?

If you believe President Bush's visit to Iraq for Thanksgiving was just a glorified photo op, read this and then ask yourself if you still believe it.

Email from Participant at President Bush's Thanksgiving

Of course it was an opportunatity to have some good pictures taken. But I don't believe that's why he went. I believe he went because he genuinely cares about the troops that are serving in Iraq, and everywhere else. Like it says in the linked post, he spent 17 hours in the air, each way, to fly into the most dangerous airport in the world and spend a couple of hours with the troops.

I don't agree with everything the President has done (though in my case it's because he hasn't acted as enough of a conservative on certain issues) but, when it comes to acknowledging those to whom we owe our freedom, the man gets it.

Quote of the day

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... [I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." --Albert Gallatin

This includes the Second Amendment. Those who think that amendment guarantees only a collective right (i.e. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), simply haven't read the other writings of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights, or deliberately choose to ignore them.

*Update* The quote above was incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. The quote is actually from Albert Gallatin, Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury. I have made the correction.

Pacifism and responsibility

A short essay on how pacifism (as defined by the author) is equal to the abdication of personal responsibility.

Pacifism and Personal Responsibility

One of the main reasons I carry a concealed pistol when I can is because it is the ultimate act of personal responsibility. I am taking my safety into my own hands and not depending on others to protect me. This is not to say that I deliberately go looking for a situation in which I will need to use my gun, quite the opposite actually. The knowledge that I have the capability to take a life by performing a series of uncomplicated actions ending with a simple movement of my right forefinger leads me to be more cautious and work even harder to avoid that type of situation.

But if it comes down to it, if I or someone else is being threatened with physical harm or death, I fully intend to draw my weapon, aim it, and, if necessary, pull the trigger. I used the word "intend" deliberately. I recognize that I've never done it before, so I can't say with 100% surety that I will be able to do it if and when the time comes. I hope I never have to find out.

Ultimately, the only person responsible for my safety is me. The police increase the safety of the population as a whole by serving as a deterrent to crime, and by capturing criminals. However, they can only capture criminals after the crime has been comitted. Only rarely are the police on hand to prevent the crime in the first place. As I've said before, the police have no legal obligation to prevent you from being the victim of a crime. This has been upheld time after time in court cases throughout the years. Only if you have a "special relationship" with the police (i.e. you're in protective custody) do they have such a responsibility.

If you don't want to carry or own a gun, that is your right. I don't have a problem with that as long as you don't try to take away my right to do so.

Natalie Maines speaks out

See the full article here.

This is a pretty short article, I'll excerpt some points and give my comments.

"I think people were misled and I think people are fighting a war that they didn't know they were going to be fighting," Maines said Friday in a television interview. "And I think they were misled by people who should have been asking questions and weren't."

This is more like it. She's being sincere and polite and not making disparaging comments about anyone.

The country stars faced criticism and even death threats after Maines said she and her bandmates were ashamed that President Bush was from Texas. She made the remark in London shortly before the war began.

If you think someone has made a stupid or incorrect statement, then criticism is perfectly acceptable. Death threats are not, and are in fact criminal acts last I heard.

As for the backlash, she said, "We like making music and we'll continue to do that whether people buy it or not."

Damn straight. Criticism of your dissent stifles it only if you let it. You just need to realize that free speech doesn't mean that you are free from any consequences of what you say. You accept those consequences like an adult. Responding to your critics with reasoned arguments is good. Childish antics like wearing a shirt with "F.U.T.K" on it is not (though it's still your right to do so). It looks like Ms. Maines is figuring that out and I'm glad to see it.

A couple of game reviews

Here are reviews of three computer games that I've played or am in the middle of playing.

Call of Duty

This is the latest WWII first-person shooter action game, from many of the same people who created the excellent Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. The similarities are obvious. I wouldn't say this game is revolutionary, but it is evolutionary. The game's tagline says "In the war that changed the world, no one fought alone." Almost all of the missions in this game involve you working with other, computer-controlled characters to achieve your objectives. The computer won't complete your mission for you, there are things you must do or else they won't get done, but your computer teammates do help you out quite a bit. Also, you play as three different characters, one American, one British, and one Russian.

The game was actually shorter than I thought it would be. I completed it in a week. As I usually did, I played it on the easiest difficulty level and didn't have any problem getting through it without resorting to cheat codes or walkthroughs. I would say the centerpiece of the game was the Battle of Stalingrad. It was this game's equivalent of the assault on Omaha Beach that was in Medal of Honor. If you've seen the movie Enemy at the Gates, about the duel between snipers in Stalingrad, this mission will be very familiar. It starts out with you on a boat crossing the Volga River into Stalingrad, being strafed by German fighter planes and shelled by German artillery.

I haven't played much of the multiplayer game yet, I'll probably do so soon. What I did play seemed comparable to Medal of Honor.

The levels are very well done and highly detailed, and the teamwork component is a nice change from the one man mowing down his enemies style of play you usually find. The game engine is pretty state of the art so you'll need a reasonably beefy machine to run it. My box is pretty hot so I can run it at high resolution with all the goodies turned on. The sounds are very well done, the guns are properly loud. There's also a neat effect that happens if an explosion goes off near you, such as from a tank shell. The game slows down, sounds get very muffled, and the visual display gets blurry and sorta psychedelic. You also get knocked off your feet and have to stand back up. This lasts about 5 or 6 seconds and then everything returns to normal.

I recommend this game, although with the brevity of the single-person campaign, I'd wait until the price comes down some or it's on sale.

Aliens vs. Predator 2

I haven't gotten very far in this one yet. I have a hard time playing it. Not because the game isn't good, but because it's nerve wracking. They have done an excellent job of recreating the suspenseful atmosphere of the movies, especially the second one. You never know when an alien is going to jump you and try to tear you a new one.

The game is actually three games. I think the events intertwine but I haven't gotten far enough to know for sure yet. There are three campaigns, you play as a Colonial Marine, an Alien, and as a Predator. I've played partway through the Marines campaign and have briefly tried the Alien and Predator campaigns. When playing as the Alien, you start as a facehugger and try to find someone to implant. You then follow the lifecycle of the Alien. As the Predator, you can cloak, and can use enhanced vision modes. I'm told you can also rip the spines out of your victims (yeah!). And, as the Marine, it's much like the second movie, with the weapons lovingly recreated including the pulse rifle and the smart gun.

As with most games, most of the gameplay is pretty much solo action, though there have been a couple missions for the Marine where you have some fire support from an APC. The levels are well done and detailed. It's pretty eerie to come across a couple of skinned corpses hanging upside down. Of course, you as the player know this is the work of a Predator (though at the point I've reached so far I've yet to see one directly, just Aliens).

The engine is the latest incarnation of the Lithtech engine from Monolith, the same engine used on No One Lives Forever 2. The Lithtech engine started out several years ago as a project called DirectEngine, which Monolith was doing for Microsoft. As I understand it, the idea was to make a general-purpose 3-D game engine that companies could use to make games. Microsoft decided not to continue with the project so Monolith continued on their own. The engine is pretty good, supporting many of the latest Direct3D features. One of the places it really shines is in the detail quality of the textures.

I do intend to complete the game, but I can only take so much before I just get exhausted from the suspense. That's the mark of a well-done game, though, and I highly recommend it.

Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

One of the most highly anticipated games of the year, this game takes up after the first game ended. Max thought it was over, but it wasn't. I'm part way through the game and I'm loving every minute of it. The bullet-time physics have been modified somewhat and it makes it more useful and fun. The story is engaging, if somewhat overly melodramatic. But that's the point, it is noir after all.

This sequel continues the use of the "graphic novel" cutscenes, although some of the non-interactive action is rendered by the engine. The voice acting is pretty good, especially that for Max, who is voiced by the same actor as in the first game. I'm not sure but I think at least some of the other characters are played by the same voice actors as before as well.

Max Payne 2 uses the new, state of the art, ragdoll physics which basically means that bad guys, when they die, flop around realistically based on a model of how it would work in real life, as opposed to a set death animation. Also, many of the objects that exist in Max's world react realistically to being kicked or shot. For example, you can have a metal shelf with boxes and other stuff stacked on it. If you blow a bad buy back into it, it tips over and all the stuff falls off.

The levels have been lovingly crafted, which probably explains why the game, as some have commented, is somewhat short. The game is simply beautiful to look at. The characters move more realistically than I've ever seen and the facial expressions and movements are pretty good. The previews I've seen of Half Life 2 indicate that it will be even better but, for now, Max Payne 2 is probably the best looking game out there.

I definitely recommend this game although, again given the reported brevity, wait until it's on sale or the price comes down.

The 9th Circuit Strikes Again

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a wrongful death suit against the gun industry. Read about it here.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAU61BA9ND.html

There is no question in my mind that this lawsuit is without merit. This is like suing an auto manufacturer for wrongful death if someone uses a car to run somebody over. Although the death of one person and the injuries to others is tragic, the responsibility lies with the man who pulled the trigger. The gun industry is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. These companies did not do anything illegal. They are not culpable.

From the article:

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy. In addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

Excuse me? Since when is making more of something that can be sold a crime? It happens all the time. This makes it sound like they handed out surplus guns on the street to whoever walked up and held out their hands, or that the gun dealers deliberately sold surplus guns to non-legal buyers. If that's the case, then a crime has been committed, but that did not happen. As far as the bit about an underground gun market, that's a pretty incredible claim. Given the scrutiny that the gun industry is under all the time, I find it fantastically unlikely that this is the case. If there is strong proof of this, don't you think we'd have heard about it by now? Don't you think it would have been all over the news?

This is, in my opinion, an attempt by trial lawyers and the anti-gun movement working in concert to attack the lawful gun industry. The lawyers want the money. The anti-gun movement wants to kill the industry since they haven't been able to ban guns.

Historical accuracy vs. commercialism

This is kind of a tough one.

Legislators Protest Beer Logos on Museum Exhibit

The short version is that a well-known acrobatic aircraft, which is currently painted in a red-and-white color scheme with Bud Light logos, is to be displayed in the Smithsonian's new aviation museum at Dulles Airport. Several members of Congress have objected to this claiming that it's inappropriate and will influence underage people to drink beer.

My first reaction on hearing about this was that, since the sponsorship of Anheuser-Busch helped make the existence of this aircraft possible, then it's entirely appropriate that this be reflected in the display. However, upon reading further, I found out that the guy who built the plane and flew it in competition did so himself. The plane was originally painted blue and yellow. It was only after he retired from competition and started performing at airshows that Anheuser-Busch came on as a sponsor and the plane was repainted.

The argument can be made that either paint scheme is historically accurate. However, I think I'm going to come down on the side of saying that the plane should be left as is. It's in the state it was in when it was retired and in which it has spent most of its life (it was built in or before 1975 and was repainted in 1983). And, although A-B wasn't involved in the construction of the plane, they did help make it possible for it to continue as an exhibition aircraft at airshows. Corporate sponsorship in sports, especially motor sports, is a fact of life in this country and repainting the plane its original colors, or simply covering the logos, isn't going to change that. Most people will realize that this does not consitute an endorsement of Bud Light by the museum, or vice versa, and parents should be explaining to their children about the dangers of underage drinking anyway. However, if they want to do something, I would have no problem with there being a disclaimer on the display stating that the museum isn't endorsing Bud Light or vice versa.

Political linkage

Mark Steyn writes in the Telegraph:

If you're so inclined, you can spend the week listening to long speeches by George Galloway and Harold Pinter. Or you can cut to the chase and get the message from Maulana Inyadullah. In late September 2001 Mr Inyadullah was holed up in Peshawar awaiting the call to arms against the Great Satan and offered this pithy soundbite to the Telegraph's David Blair:

"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death."

That's it in a nutshell - or in a nut's hell. And, like Mr Inyadullah, if it's Pepsi or death, the fellows on the streets of London this week choose death - at least for the Iraqis. If it's a choice between letting some carbonated-beverage crony of Dick Cheney get a piece of the Nasariyah soft-drinks market or allowing Saddam to go on feeding his subjects feet-first into the industrial shredder for another decade or three, then the "peace" activists will take the lesser of two evils - ie, crank up the shredder. Better yet, end UN sanctions so Saddam can replace the older, less reliable shredders, the ones with too many bits of bone tissue jammed in the cogs.

Read the entire article here:
It's 'peace' psychosis in a nut's hell

An Iraqi who is enjoying his new freedom to say what he wants has some words for the world that allowed Saddam to terrorize the Iraqi people for three decades:
You owe us an apology

QandO goes through the so-called "resume" of George W. Bush that has been circulating recently, which claims to show how he's abysmally unqualified to be president, and takes it apart piece by piece:
Resume of George W. Bush

What's interesting about this piece is that he fully admits that he can't make a comprehensive rebuttal of all the points in the "resume." As he writes:

I will make no attempt to give a comprehensive rebuttal, for now, because I simply don't know every answer and don't have time to research all of them. I do know enough to deal with many, and you are welcome to fill in the blanks. If you know more, I will post it.....

If the situation was reversed, would the author make that concession? I don't know.

Another rebuttal of the "resume" can be found here (note: it's a pdf file so you'll need Acrobat Reader):
The Truth About "The Resume"

In both of the above documents, I'd like to draw your attention to the refutation of the meme that Bush "went AWOL" from the Texas Air National Guard.

And, finally (for now), the news that you're probably not hearing about on the major news stations and sites (except for Fox News, of course). The Weekly Standard reports that:

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Read the entire article here:
Case Closed

I will admit that I'm not completely convinced of the accuracy of this report. It simply sounds too good to be true. I will reserve judgement on it until and unless I hear more.

Getting out

GeekWithA.45 writes an amazing essay about why he's finally leaving New Jersey.

New Jersey Voters, Redux

Fortunately, Washington State, even the rather liberal Seattle area, is not so bad that I feel the need to move away. I really hope it never gets to that point because I love it here, not least because I love working for this company. As far as gun rights go, Washington is pretty high on the list. I would say only Vermont and Alaska are higher (at least as far as I know), since they don't require a license to carry a concealed pistol. Washington does, but you only need to fulfill certain objective criteria and they have to give you one. There is no training requirement as many states have. (Please note that I do not advocate carrying a concealed pistol without having at least some training in the use of a firearm. However, requiring training, or even a license for that matter, to exercise a right means it's no longer a right, but a privilege. Driving on public roads is a privilege, hence you need a license. Owning and bearing arms is a right.)

However, the government of this state is controlled by the Democrat party, and both of our senators are Democrats. This is reflected in high sales taxes and (in my opinion) high property taxes. We have no state income tax but the idea is brought up every so often and there's always the chance it will come into being. Our licensing fees for cars were once among the highest, until the voters made it abundantly clear that that should no longer be the case. To their credit, the governor and legislature followed the will of the people even though the initiative which mandated lower fees was ruled unconstitutional and void after it passed. Attempts at broader gun restrictions crop up from time to time but haven't gone anywhere, probably due to the more conservative rural population.

But it's not as bad as, say California. And I hope it never gets that bad because I don't want to feel that I have to leave because of political reality. I hope I'm never pushed to the point that GeekWithA.45 was eventually pushed to.

Telegraphing punches (or not)

Stephen Den Beste's latest starts out talking about the browser war and the Java war and ties it all into the current real war.

Telegraphing your punches

After the lead in where he discusses the failure of Netscape and Sun, he ties it into his view of the US's strategy in the war:

Surprise is a major advantage. It doesn't last forever, but for a critical period tactical surprise can be the difference between victory and defeat. And strategic surprise operates over a period of years; it's always a mistake to let someone know that in a couple of years you expect to be gunning for them. That was the mistake Sun and Netscape made.

In the current war the US is fighting the long term strategy is, and I now think always was, to bring about democratic and liberal reform in most of the major Arab governments. After the attack on NYC and Washington in September of 2001, and after it became clear that al Qaeda was responsible, it was obvious that the Taliban were in the crosshairs and with few friends and no important patrons had no chance of survival. I think it wasn't too difficult for anyone to figure out that Saddam would be next, though it wasn't anything like as clear that those plans couldn't be derailed.

Some of the things that the president and his administration have done (especially Colin Powell and the State Department) have confused me. Things like playing up to the Saudi monarchy when there exists considerable evidence that it is not at all the ally it has been perceived to be. As Stephen writes:

Some have argued that the current war is actually a Saudi Civil War which they exported. As Dan Darling put it:

For the last 14 years, there has been something of a gentleman's agreement between House Saud and al-Qaeda: the latter will not target the former, in exchange for the Saudi government turning a blind eye towards al-Qaeda's activities in the Kingdom.

Those activities included fund raising and recruiting, and even turning a blind eye towards the occasional attack inside Saudi Arabia itself, which the government blamed on foreign liquor smugglers. It was also part of a larger devil's agreement that the House of Saud had long had with the Wahhabis that the Sauds would let the Wahhabists operate unhindered and let them persecute heretics and enforce "proper behavior". In exchange the Wahhabis would ignore the decadent lifestyles of the Saud Princes (who, for instance, reportedly import huge amounts of Scotch Whiskey) and let them continue to rule the nation and to skim off a large part of the national income for their own use.

Many accuse President Bush of not being very smart. However, I've been wondering for some time if he really is a lot smarter than he appears, or at least the people that help him make decisions are. I've certainly been hoping that that is the case. If what Stephen says is true, then my hope is justified:

Yet President Bush seemed to spend a lot of time cozying up to the Sauds, even inviting a group of high level Sauds to visit the Texas ranch. For that he's been criticized roundly, with veiled intimations by some that it's (whisper it) all about oil.

Actually, it was all about not telegraphing punches. It was all about not letting the Sauds, and other autocratic Arab leaders in the region many of whom were "allies", know that our long term plans required that they either drastically reform their own nations or be deposed. Had they understood the long term plan and its implications, they would have banded together and actively opposed us, representing a serious impediment and possibly making victory impossible.

As he has shown repeatedly, Bush doesn't cave in to political expediency and criticism. And it looks like he once again waited it out until the time is right:

Over the last few months the US has been colder towards the Sauds. We haven't demanded that they step down, but we're asking for more in the way of concrete action. And with the most recent attack of a couple of days ago, it's become clear that the militants in Saudi Arabia are beginning to actively work to depose the Sauds themselves. The tacit truce with al Qaeda is over, and the Sauds are going to be forced to choose sides at long last, and to fight the civil war they've been trying to avoid for the last few decades. If they do that, we might help them. But they no longer get a pass; there's no "special relationship" any longer, no more blind eye turned their direction.

It's good that it's out in the open now. It's good that it's now formal policy of the government. And it's good that Bush was in no hurry to announce it; it's good that he was willing to wait until that announcement would not do more harm than good. It's good that he wasn't willing to compromise execution of the strategy just to relieve political pressure and defuse criticism.

These excerpts, as usual, only give the flavor of his writing, but I recommend you go read the article in its entirety.

Race

An excellent essay on race over at VRWC, Inc. by James Finch.

Click here.

And now the female perspective

Kim Du Toit's essay, The Pussification of the Western Male, has caused quite a firestorm in (here's the catchword of the day, folks) the blogosphere. The responses range from "Right on!" to "You're a knuckle dragging neanderthal." However, the most revealing comments, I think, are those from the woman who knows Kim most intimately, his wife Connie. She supports him 100 percent, but don't tell her that she must have "let Kim write what he did" or that she is completely subservient to him. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Her comments can be found here and here.

The Governator

For the first time in California, and only the second time in the history of the United States, a state governor has been recalled. Gray Davis will be removed from office and will be replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Democrats who supported Davis have tried to paint this recall as a power grab by the Republicans. They claimed that Republicans were exploiting a loophole to undo the will of the people when the elected Davis for his second term. The problem with that is that there is no loophole. The process whereby the governor is recalled is spelled out very clearly and that process was followed correctly. If that's a loophole, it sure is a whopping big one.

There are some very important numbers to go with this. These are from this page on MSNBC, the numbers may change as the night goes on. Individual candidate percentages weren't given so I calculated them based on total reported votes.

• On the question of whether or not to recall Davis, 56% voted yes.


• On who should replace him, 47% voted for Arnold, 29% for Bustamante, and 12% for McClintock.


• This means that 59% voted for the top two Republican candidates.


• A turnout of 60% appears likely. This is a large percentage when talking about elections.

If the vote on whether to recall Davis was reversed, I believe the Democrats would be using words like "landslide" and "mandate from the people" to describe the victory. Similarly so if the recall had passed but Bustamante were elected to replace Davis. They would be right. So will Republicans be if they use the same words.

Do I think that Arnold will make a good governor? I think he'll be no worse than Davis, and probably better. He is actually fairly far to the left for a Republican. This may have been part of why he won so convincingly, he appealed to a broad base, both for his name recognition and for his political views.

In my opinion, the big winner was the Republican party as a whole. The most important number, to me, is the third one in my list. A full 59% of voters voted for the top two Republican candidates. Although only one of them can win, it shows that a convincing majority of voters did not want another Democrat in office. It's huge when you consider that this is in California.

It is also a convincing message that this isn't a right-wing power grab, or a loophole, but the will of the people.

Now and then

Read this: Listen to them now and see what they said then. The quotes on that page came from this page: Weapons of Mass Destruction. I linked to the first page so that people could read the comments, both supportive and not, that others have left.

I note this one in particular:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Note the *specific* reference to al Qaeda.

Since it's related to this, I would also like to take this opportunity to refer to a previous post of mine in my LiveJournal in which I linked to a summation of what the administration knew, what it alleged, and what it has found out since. An anonymous commenter left a comment and I responded to it. Since the commenter was anonymous, my response was not sent to him or her in email (unless LiveJournal has a way of doing that). So, in case he or she, or anyone else, missed my response, here it is with the original comment:

Commenter:

No links to Iraq or Saddam Hussein and Sept 11

"No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.

A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam probably was involved. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday, "I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

My response:

Nowhere in that article does it say that Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks. All it says is that there was a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. The only time September 11 is mentioned is in the following:

No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

That assertion should be seen in the context of Atta's curious stop-off in Prague the previous spring, as he traveled to the United States. Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but did not have a valid visa and was denied entry. He returned to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and took a bus back to Prague. One day later, he left for the United States.

Despite the Czech government's confirmation of the Atta-al Ani meeting, the Bush administration dropped it as evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection in September 2002. Far from hyping this episode, administration officials refrained from citing it as the debate over the Iraq war heated up in Congress, in the country, and at the U.N.

Just because Hussein wasn't involved in the planning and execution of the September 11 attacks doesn't mean he didn't have contact with and supported al Qaeda. I can be friends with someone, even give them money, and have nothing to do with most of the actions they undertake.

Over there

Front Line Voices has officially launched. It is a website, basically a blog, that will feature letters from those serving in Iraq and other places overseas. From their introduction page:

There is no editing or commentary by those who run this site, and we will print any letter or story submitted by a legitimate source who has served overseas. Our only goal is to offer you the opportunity to read these stories and to find out what the reality is.

I highly recommend you check it out.

Power

Bill Whittle's latest essay, Power, has been posted. A couple of choice paragraphs:

History is crystal clear on one point, and that is that power – the exercise of raw military and political force – is the only effective cure for dictators and fascists, whatever flag they fly. It is not only morally justified to confront such evil; it is immoral not to do so.

...

We played the European game in the Philippines and stole a bit of empire. But we didn’t have the taste for it; more likely, didn’t have the stomach to do what was needed to keep it. We fought side by side with the Filipinos during World War II, and spent blood and lives regaining those islands. Then, on the 4th of July, 1946, we did what we should have done four decades earlier. We handed them back their country, as we have handed back every country and territory we have ever conquered with our globe-spanning power, and done it willingly, not as a parting shot after rebellion and failure. We shall soon enough do it with Iraq, once it awakens from its thirty year nightmare and gets back on its feet. It too, like the Philippines, is a nation we broke a promise to, and also one that we owe its freedom and independence by way of atonement.

Go read it. Now. Then read it again.

What's in a name? Plenty.

Think Bush is Hitler and the Republicans are Nazis? This post at Fraters Libertas, among other things, paints a not unreasonable picture of what the world would be like if that were truly the case.

Oh, and just so you know, the full official name of the Ba'ath party, the one Saddam belonged to, is the Arab National Socialist Party. And how is "National Socialist" usually abbreviated? Yep.

Market forces

When I first heard about this, I thought it was just another case of a company getting wise and doing the right thing. But as I thought more about it, I realized that this is a perfect example of how the market takes care of itself, if left alone.

There's a new computer game coming out called Call of Duty. It's yet another WWII first-person shooter but it looks promising. It's being published by Activision and, as with many computer games these days, they planned to release a free demo of the game. However, the decision was made to make the demo available initially only to people who subscribe to GameSpy's FilePlanet download service. After the exclusivity period was over, it would then be available to everyone.

For those not familiar with FilePlanet, if you pay a subscription you get access to reserved, high-speed servers and don't have to wait in line. If you don't subscribe, you can still download files from them, but you are subject to waiting in line if the free servers are full up. This way, instead of having everybody download at once, resulting in slow download speeds for everyone and possible timeouts, a limited number of people can download at once but they all get fast, reliable downloads. Every now and then some content is made available only to subscribers, though it's usually for a certain period of time after which it's put on the free servers as well.

Why did Activision decide to do this? It was almost certainly because of money. The agreement between Activision and GameSpy was probably that GameSpy would pay Activision to host the file provided Activision didn't let anyone else do so, and GameSpy would hopefully get more subscriptions from some of the people who wanted the file.

Then an interesting thing happened. The market reacted, and did so very strongly.

Several other gaming sites that host demos for games tried to get Activision to let them host the demo but Activision turned them down. As a result, these sites declared in an open letter to Activision that the would not host the demo even after the exclusivity period was over. I didn't read much of the online discussion but what I did read indicated that a lot of people might simply not buy the game at all because of this.

Activision got the message in a big way. Their response was to release the demo freely to everyone and also to release it two days early. Why the sudden turnaround? First of all, it's entirely possible that management realized it was "the right thing to do." After all, a free demo is supposed to be, well, free. It's the hook, the first taste that whets the appetite for the entire game when it ships. Obviously it works as a marketing tactic given how prevalent it is in the industry. Activision also must have realized that they could potentially lose a lot of sales of this game over this controversy, more than enough to make up for whatever income they were getting from their deal with GameSpy. So it was also a sound business decision. The upshot? Everybody wins. Well, except maybe GameSpy which won't get as many new FilePlanet subscriptions as it might have under the original deal. The important thing is that the market spoke and the company responded for all the right reasons. The market worked and no outside regulation or other interference (read: government) was involved.

And that's the way it's supposed to be.