I are dumb

On the way to work this morning, I was listening to the local classic rock station's morning show. They were talking about a tape they had aired at some earlier time, which consisted of snippets of Bush's speeches spliced together to form a satirical and humorous result. One caller, a liberal and opponent of Bush, made the classic comment which defines the Left (which I'm paraphrasing):

Conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

This is nothing new, but it bears repeating. The Left, quite simply, consider themselves superior in intellect to everyone else. If we would just acknowledge this obvious fact, and do what they tell us to do, then all the world's problems will be solved and we'll be living in a paradise on earth.

And this leads to a wondrous contradiction. You see, the paradise the Left wants to create is a *Socialist* paradise. It would be a classless society where everyone is equal (regardless of their merit). Except for the elite leadership, of course. After all, the rest of us are so stupid that we can't take care of ourselves without help from our benevolent masters and the overarching government that they run. (For an extrapolation of this to an extreme case, I refer you to the wonderful short story by Kurt Vonnegut, "Harrison Bergeron.")

In short, they want a classless society where they are the ruling class. Make sense?

Yes, it's a gross simplification, but that doesn't make the point invalid.

I don't consider liberals to be less intelligent than I am. Naive, perhaps, and prone to let emotion rule their thoughts, but not stupid. You see, there's a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is what you know and your capability of learning new things. Wisdom is the ability to use your intelligence effectively. That's not to say that you can't be wise and a liberal. One of the smartest people I know, who has a great deal of real world wisdom, is rather liberal in his political views and we have had many interesting conversations. He definitely keeps me on my toes.

I consider myself a conservative/libertarian. For those that believe that conservatives are less intelligent, I have a couple of responses:

• I am 35 years old (today's my birthday), I have a degree in Math/Computer Science, I work for a major software company making good money, I own a house, a car (2002 Subaru 2.5 RS), and a motorcycle (2001 Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad, a big bike), and I pay for it all out of my own salary as I'm not married. Would a stupid person have that kind of success? Would anyone have that kind of success in the Socialist utopia?


• Ever notice how, the older someone is, the more likely they are to be conservative? If we posit that with age comes wisdom, this implies that, the wiser you are, the more likely you are to be conservative.


• Would a stupid person be able to assemble as complex, yet grammatically correct, a sentence as the previous one, not to mention the first sentence of my first response above?

Chapter 2 of Bill Whittle's latest work

Odds are, if you came here knowing what to expect, you know of Bill Whittle.

Either way, go forth and read.

Another view

As an update to my earlier post about politically-motivated violence, here's another account of the events. Dave Neiwert characterized it as supporters of Bush infiltrating an anti-Bush rally. However, it appears that wasn't the case:

I showed up a little late, and the police already had barriers seperating the Bush and anti-Bush sides. By the time I made it around to the Bush side, though, several people with Where's my job? and Boston Hates Bush signs had already shouldered their way over. It was still ok for awhile. The pro Bush folks stood and chanted, the anti-Bush folks screamed at us and displayed their Fuck Bush signs.

I snapped a few pictures, then about 10 minutes after I arrived I was no longer able to. The anti-Bush side came over and started getting physical. The pushed, shoved, and ripped up signs. They put megaphones in people's ears and shouted obcsenities. The viciously insulted a group of young ladies with Bush signs. I can't really describe it other than to say I was extremely proud to be standing in the Bush camp at the time.

So what we have here is a clearly demarcated boundary between the areas for each group and it's the anti-Bush crowd that did the infiltrating, not the other way around.

Note, also, the character of the signs carried by some in the anti-Bush crowd. This is characteristic of that group. You just don't see that kind of vitriol in the signs of the pro-Bush camp. Instead, you get much more clever signs like these.

Equal voice

After providing his opinions of Kofi Annan and the BBC's coverage of the death of Sheikh Yassin, Banagor recounts a conversation he recently had during which he asked a very pointed question:

A few more things: two nights ago, I was having dinner with some people from Europe and I was engaged in a conversation with a French girl. Nice as she was, she obviously disagreed with me on certain issues involving the War on Terror.

Naturally, after some lengthy debate, we got around to the issue of the United Nations. She thought that we should listen to all parties equally well and that everyone in the world should have a say in everyone's affairs.

I put to her a simple question: "If the Nazis were around today, would you agree that they should have an equal voice in the United Nations as well?"

What would your answer be? I know what mine is. I refer you to a previous post.

Violence from the left and the right

Over at Dave Neiwert's blog, Orcinus, is this post which compares and contrasts two incidents of violence that happened recently. The first is described in this excerpt:

Now comes a fairly clear-cut case of a politically inspired assault by right-wingers on a gay man in Atlanta -- in fact, it appears they drove all the way from at least Kansas to commit the crime.

The assault -- which included raping the man with a sawed-off broomstick and holding a knife up to his scrotum and threatening to cut it off -- was in apparent retaliation for a LiveJournal post in which the victim, an Atlanta artist, depicted (through the wonders of Photoshop) George W. Bush as a Grand Dragon at a Klan rally. Using information they gathered from the Web, they stalked him and brutalized him into unconsiousness, leaving him for dead in an alley.

If the permalink doesn't work, just look for a post titled "A political hate crime." The link to the picture currently won't work as the owner of the LiveJournal account hosting it is setting his posts to friends-only due to harrassment. I've seen the picture, though, and it's pretty much as it's described. Rather artistically done, in fact.

The other incident of violence was reported by blogger Matt Margolis where he was, in his words, "roughed up" at a Bush fund raiser in Boston. Matt himself writes about the event in his post titled, "The Margolis Incident."

It all happened very fast – but at the same time, seemed to happen in slow motion. I remember being with everyone cheering for Bush, and the union worker had been engaging us, and Aaron had also exchanged some words with him, then the guy just jumped down and charged at Aaron. He took a swing at him (missing his face by a hair – knocking off his glasses) and then everything just exploded. I went right for that guy and jumped at him, getting a few punches in before I got tackled (presumably by another union worker), and got thrown to the ground. I ended up getting my face slammed down and held to the ground. I believe someone got him off of me and I got back up as the altercation was broken up.

Dave links to Glenn Reynolds' post about the subject as well and has this to say about it:

Over at Instapundit, Mr. Reynolds is predictably exercised about the supposed harbingers of left-wing violence emanating from an incident in Boston in which a bunch of Freepers and a right-wing blogger were roughed up by union types.

Glenn cites, of course, all three of the posts he could find that supported the violence -- while ignoring the voluminous denunciations of the violence by other liberals.

Okay, now that the linking and excerpting are out of the way, let me insert my own 0.00000002 megabucks:

• I don't care whether your beliefs are the same as mine or not, if you engage in violent behavior over those beliefs you are simply a thug and I denounce your behavior. You do not act in my name and don't even try to tell me otherwise.


• The first incident is clearly of greater magnitude than the second. I won't pretend that there is any kind of moral equivalence here. An altercation where someone gets a bit scraped and bruised is nowhere near as heinous as the deliberate stalking, maiming, and sexual assault of someone, regardless of motivation.


• And, though it shouldn't have to be said, this country is based on free speech. In both cases, the victims were engaging in constitutionally protected speech. I disagree with the person who created that picture (I'll leave researching the real history of the KKK, the Republicans, and the Democrats as an exercise for the reader) but he had every right to create it and display it. If you disagree with something, don't look at it or listen to it. Or else counter it with your own well-reasoned argument.

I also want to address something else that Dave writes about, namely this:

This is the kind of case where a federal hate-crimes bill would make a real difference. It clearly involves the interstate commission of a crime, but unfortunately, those kinds of cases are typically only enforced under the bias-crime provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which covers only race, ethnicity and religion as bias categories. The FBI is constrained by federal law from involving itself in this case as things stand.

I understand the desire to punish hate crimes more severely than those with other motivations. However, I have a real problem with the concept because it is punishing people not just for what they did, but for what they were thinking. The way I see it, this is one step toward the thought police, newspeak, and all that other 1984-style oppression. I believe that people should be judged on their actions, not their thoughts. You can't stop people from hating through legislation.

Love/hate relationship

Joe Kelly sums up succinctly my own feelings about President Bush:

I love George Bush for his tax cuts and his foreign policy.

But, my adoration stops there.

The events of 9/11 have shown that this nation can sustain and quickly recover from a massive terrorist attack. But, we will never recover from the expansion of power, spending and entitlement programs that have been instituted under the Bush Administration.

He quotes extensively from this article in the Philadelphia Enquirer (you may be prompted to register), and the first two paragraphs he quotes tell the tale:

A lot of conservatives, weaned on Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, had long dreamed of the day when a Republican president, backed by Republican majorities in both congressional chambers, would finally fulfill the GOP's small- government credo by slashing federal expenditures and doing away with the liberal welfare state. Just nine years ago, Gingrich's Contract with America promised "the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money."

So they didn't expect that George W. Bush would morph into FDR, expanding the size of government with New Deal gusto, pressuring Congress to spend lavishly on new programs with no way to pay the tab - and prompting them to complain recently, at a Washington conservative confab, that the hated Bill Clinton was a skinflint by comparison. The grousing got so bad that one attendee, New Jersey political consultant Rick Shaftan, even declared, "A lot of people here don't care if Bush wins or not."

So, once again it comes down to voting for the candidate I dislike the least. I cannot in good conscience vote for Kerry. He will grow government as rapidly as Bush is doing, if not more so, as well as raising taxes. Some theorize that a Republican-controlled Congress would fight a Democrat president's attempts at spending increases while going along with a Republican President like they have been with Bush. This is given as a reason why electing Kerry might actually be beneficial. This assumes that Republican members of Congress would put this sort of party politics above doing what would be most likely to get them reelected, which I doubt.

So, assuming that Kerry and Bush would grow the government by similar amounts if elected, the main differences as I seem them are:

• Kerry would raise taxes while Bush would not. It is hoped that no increase in revenue would put downward pressure on spending but it is certain that increases in revenue would not apply such pressure.


• Kerry would return to the days of treating terror attacks as law enforcement issues, appeasing terrorists and their state sponsors, and basically going back to failed policies which would result in more attacks on the US and its people. In short, electing Kerry would send much the same signal as Spain's election of a Socialist government.


• Kerry has a record of saying whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear at any given time. Bush, at least, says what he means and sticks with it.

I don't pretend to be a political expert, I just call it as I see it, try to keep an open mind, and refine or change my opinions as new information becomes available. For now, though, I have to say that my intention is to hold my nose and vote for Bush this November. The only way that Kerry could be the lesser of two evils is if he was running against Cthulhu.

Age and responsibility

Generally speaking, in this country, we consider that children are not fully responsible for their actions. Instead, their parents are responsible for them. For example, if a child breaks a window, the parent usually pays for it. Once a person reaches a certain age, they are then considered old enough to be responsible for at least some things, eventually becoming completely responsible for themselves. It doesn't happen all at once, and it depends on the state. For example, in my home state of Washington, you can get your driver's license at 16 if you've taken a drivers' education course. Otherwise, you have to wait until you're 18. As I recall, it's the same for a motorcycle endorsement; you can get it before you're 18 provided you've taken a course. In my case, I took drivers' ed when I was 17 and got my license immediately after. A few days after my 18th birthday, I illegally rode my motorcycle to school, and afterward rode down to the location where the test was being administered. I passed the riding and written tests and legally rode the motorcycle home. I imagine if I'd been stopped by a police officer on the way down, he would have accepted my story that I was on the way to the test. I would guess that it happens often.

So now you have your driver's license, and maybe your motorcycle endorsement. You turn 18 years old and now you can smoke and vote. You can enlist in the military and bear arms for your country. But you can't drink alcohol in this state. Some states allow you to; some limit you to beverages with a maximum alcohol content until you turn 21. And, at least in Washington, you can't get your concealed pistol license until 21.

Responsibility is doled out piecemeal and there doesn't seem to be any consistent rationale for why this is so. Generally speaking, you are considered an adult at 18 and can leave the house and be considered responsible for your own finances, taxes, etc. Depending on the situation, you can do this earlier, but 18 is the age at which our society thinks you should take this step. I did a bit of searching and I came across this post to a weblog which includes this paragraph:

The line we cross when we turn 18 is in many ways invisible. We are still in high school or college, we still are accountable to our parents, we still don't really have an independent, steady source of income. In other ways, however, it is profound. We are now responsible for everything we do, legally. We have no legal compulsion to follow any family edicts. We can move unhindered of our own volition, from state to state, or even out of the country. We can engage in taboo acts that were previously banned — smoking, pornography, gambling, fireworks. Perhaps most of all, we can be compelled to pick up a gun and defend our country, to the death if need be.

In societies and cultures of the past, and some of the present I'm sure, there was a more definite demarcation between childhood and adulthood. The age varied, and it may not have been a fixed age, in which case it was up to the person and/or some authority to determine when he or she was ready. There were ceremonies that accompanied it to mark the occasion. They've been called "coming of age," "rites of passage," and other names. In the Star Trek universe, the Klingon race has the "Age of Ascension." The Jewish Bar Mitzvah (for boys) and Bat Mitzvah (for girls) are examples, although they don't represent a full assumption of adult responsibilities. I remember watching a documentary some years back about a tribe, in South or Central America as I recall, which had a ceremony that consisted of climbing a tall tower and jumping off with a vine tied around your ankles. The idea was that the vine would stretch and snap as you reached the ground, slowing you down enough before it broke that you didn't get hurt. This was shortly before the sport of bungee jumping came onto the scene and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the inspiration.

In our society, it seems that the most common ceremony that accompanies the transition to full adulthood is the first trip to a bar or other place to drink the first legal alcoholic beverage. That's what I did on my 21st birthday and, to be honest, it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. For men, the only ceremony of sorts that is nationally recognized is registering with selective service at 18. (Whether or not women should be required to register as well is a topic for another post.) But that's just filling out and signing a form; there is no attendant celebration (assuming that it's something that anyone would actually want to celebrate).

Perhaps we should institute some sort of formal ceremony to mark the passage to full adult responsibilities. It seems to me like a good idea. The trick would be determining how, if at all, it would fit into the legal framework. Would it vary from state to state or would it be national? And would it make a difference? The whole point of this is that there are a lot of people out there that are considered adults that don't really take responsibility for themselves. People that still live with their parents at the age of 30 or more. The question is whether a formal recognition of adulthood, along with a formal and complete transferring of responsibility would make a difference. I can't answer that, but it's certainly something to think about.

Hanson distills it down to its pure form

Once again, Victor Davis Hanson says it succinctly yet completely.

We Are Finishing the War

It's chock-full-o good bits. Here are a few:

Al Qaeda's message to Europe — which they hate even more than the United States, because it is not only wealthy but soft and weak as well — is that of every mythical monster who promises his trembling prey that with proper flattery he can be gobbled down last.

The appeasement of terrorists, most recently by Spain, will not make them any safer in the long term. The case is quite the opposite. Though it may buy them a reprieve, in the end they will be targeted again and again until they submit completely.

What is our enemies' ultimate agenda? Judge them by what they say and then do: Any who champion women are targeted. Those who are Jews should die. Expressing tolerance for other religions is a capital crime. Secular law and government are a betrayal. Apostasy from Islam justifies murder. Hypocrisy does not matter — whether that means using a hated Western computer or flocking to a despised Western capital.

Why is it that so many don't just take the terrorists at their word? When Hamas says that they will not rest until Isreal ceases to exist and the Jews are dead, why don't we believe them?

While Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pontificate about losing the war on terror, al Qaeda is nearly finished. What we have been seeing lately are its tentacles flapping about in search of prey, after the head has been smashed — still for a time lethal, but without lasting strength. We should remember that perhaps the bloodiest month for Americans in the European theater of World War II was not during 1943 and 1944 amid the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, or Normandy, but rather in January 1945, a mere five months before the close of the war, when GIs fought back the last bitter German offensive.

We are at war, period. Treating it as a law enforcement issue, as Kerry and the Democrats would if they were in control, will have the same results as it had in the past. September 11 was a result, in part, of the failure to realize that our enemies had truly declared war on us. While we sought out, arrested, and tried those who had carried out previous attacks, the enemy that they served was continuing to plot. The outcome of those plans could not have been more clear.

But perhaps the worst development for the fundamentalists has been a radical change of attitude in the United States. No longer do we say to autocrats "pump oil, and keep out communists — and do what you want with your own people."

Only now that this change has occurred are we seeing real progress. The pre 9/11 status quo was simply slow death.

Before closing, Hanson addresses some of the things that need to be changed here at home:

Finally, for the duration, to sustain both our military power and foreign largess, we also must look to ourselves inasmuch as we are running vast trade deficits, along with unsustainable budget shortfalls, and are stuck in an entitlement craze where government payouts bring not gratitude but shrill demands for even more subsidies. Our borders are porous and yet we are paralyzed and afraid to enforce our own laws — even as 12 million illegal aliens inside the United States cannot be identified or even be referred to as illegal.

Our educational system is increasingly therapeutic and turning out too many poorly educated youth who have not inherited the tradition of American expertise and competence and cannot in the immediate future ensure our privileged position as the world's most affluent consumer society. The Chinese, Europeans, South Koreans, and Japanese are all lending us money for consumption. But they do so only in the trust that our legal system, stability, and competence will continue to justify such debts, which can only be paid back on the expectation that America can sustain its global civilizing role and lead the world in technological innovation and capital formation.

Post-UN

Via The GeekWithA.45 comes this article at Reason Online:

Imagine a better Washington. Imagine a conservative Republican administration working hand in glove with liberal congressional Democrats on a foreign-policy initiative designed to strengthen the United Nations while simultaneously increasing America's clout there. Imagine both parties and both branches bringing this initiative to fruition smoothly and unfussily, during an election year. Say, this year. Say, right now.

Pinch yourself. It is happening.

Since 1996, a handful of foreign-policy wonks have been kicking around the idea of a "democracy caucus" at the U.N. Two administrations, first Bill Clinton's and then George W. Bush's, took quiet but significant steps in that direction. Now, according to Bush administration officials, the concept will be test-flown at the six-week meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights that began on Monday in Geneva.

I've been thinking for a while now that what we need now is not the United Nations but something like the United Democracies. This may be the first step toward that very thing. More:

The United Nations' credibility and effectiveness are tattered, a fact that is not news to Americans. According to polling by the Gallup Organization, 60 percent of Americans rate the U.N. as doing a "poor job in trying to solve the problems it has had to face." The reasons for disenchantment go deeper than last year's tiff over the Iraq war. The most fundamental is that the United Nations is built on an obsolete premise: that countries governed by their people and countries governed by thugs, thieves, or tyrants should meet on equal terms, one vote each.

When I read that paragraph, my initial reaction was to think that the premise was not just obsolete. In hindsight, it was fundamentally flawed. However, in the next paragraph it says:

In 1945, when the U.N. was born, most of the world was non-democratic, and so a "league of democracies" would have been a rump group. Today, however, more than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies.

So saying the premise is obsolete may indeed be accurate. The rest of the paragraph makes a point that should be obvious to anyone:

Today it is absurd for Burma to vote as the moral and legal equivalent of Belgium; more absurd for Cuba and Zimbabwe to be members in good standing of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; and more absurd still for Libya to chair that commission, as it did last year.

The article goes on to describe the history of how this has come about and also notes that this proposal is enjoying wide bipartisan support:

Partisanship is nowhere to be seen. The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, supports the idea, and, said Lantos, "There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, although I haven't talked to him about it, that John Kerry will be just as enthusiastic."

It's looking very likely that the "democracy caucus" in the UN will become a reality, and soon. But even better is the possibility of something even greater coming out of this. As the article states:

But consider the long-term potential. By the time the Community of Democracies becomes strong enough to act coherently inside the U.N., it will also be strong enough to act coherently outside the U.N. It will contain most of the world's countries, including most of the strong ones. It will be unencumbered by the vetoes of tin-pot tyrannies. As it gains confidence and skill, it will attract money and authority. It may sprout an aid budget, a relief program, a peacekeeping arm, perhaps treaty powers.

In other words, the Community of Democracies may begin as a voice within the U.N. but go on to become a competitor to the U.N. Perhaps—one can dream—it may someday be the U.N.'s successor.

Ultimately, what would be nice is if this successor the UN comes to include all nations as members. It's by no means certain that it will happen, and it's a long way off even if it does. But we can dream, can't we?

Reaction to the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin

As you've probably heard, helicopters of the Isreali Defense Force carried out a rocket attack which resulted in the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of the Palistinian terrorist organization, Hamas. There has been a wave of condemnation of this act from various foreign leaders and, naturally, Hamas has vowed revenge against Isreal.

It's being characterized as an assassination. I disagree. Hamas is at war with Isreal. They don't want peace, they don't want a Palestinian state, they want the destruction of Isreal and the deaths of all Jews. Therefore, the leader of Isreal's enemy was a legitimate military target just as any general would be. Vowing revenge and saying they will retaliate is essentially meaningless since they would carry out whatever attacks they could even if Yassin were still alive.

Yassin was the "spiritual leader" of Hamas, which is the reason some are giving for their condemnation. Whereas in the US we differentiate between our spiritual and military leaders, in the world of radical Islam there is no such distinction. Yassin personally ordered the deaths of hundreds of Isrealis and is every bit as responsible for their deaths as the terrorists who carried out those orders. Besides, Hamas would gladly blow up all the synagogues and kill all the rabbis they could if given the opportunity. It's a true double-standard and they probably don't even realize it exists.

Banagor has a couple of choice rants on the subject, which are what inspired me to write the above:
Saruman in Hell
Responding to the Assholes

Poland gets it

Via Matt Blackfive and Jennifer Martinez comes this article. Excerpt:

President Aleksander Kwasniewski reassured President Bush today that Polish troops will stay in Iraq "as long as needed," a day after suggesting they might leave months early.

In a phone call from Bush, Kwasniewski also brought up his remark Thursday that he was "misled" by intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

He said "misunderstandings" about his remarks should be discounted because Poland's alliance with the United States was strong, his national security adviser Marek Siwiec said.

"We will be in Iraq as long as needed to achieve the intended goals, plus one day longer," Kwasniewski told Bush, according to Siwiec.

The White House has been distributing a statement from Kwasniewski's office which said, in part:

"Poland will not withdraw from Iraq until the mission of stabilization is successfully accomplished and counts on effective cooperation with the United States, Great Britain, Spain and other NATO and U.N. member states," the statement said.

"Any demonstration of weakness in view of terrorist attacks undermines the foundations of democracy, nations' security and world peace," it said.

This shows true understanding of the conflict we find ourselves in. The terrorists assume we will be weak and decadant. The US has surprised them by acting totally opposite to their expectations. Spain, on the hand, has not. Poland's leadership has shown that they know that weakness in the face of the enemy will only invite further and greater attacks until you have given them everything they want. They know what it's like to live under a totalitarian regime. They've demonstrated that they're not going back.

The T word

Also via Kim du Toit comes this article. Some excerpts:

Susan Lindauer, a former Democratic Party congressional staffer, journalist, and current anti-war activist has been accused of spying for Iraq. The FBI arrested her March 11.

This is just the latest in a pattern of "anti-war activists" being involved in espionage activities for Iraq. British MP George Galloway has been accused of accepting bribes from Saddam Hussein to promote anti-war activities in the UK. Defense attorney and "peace" activist Lynne Stewart has been arrested for transmitting information between her terrorist client and his murderous organization.

...

Perhaps the most damning allegation, and illustrative of the genuine purposes of many of the purported "anti-war activists," is that Lindauer is alleged to be involved with arranging to provide assistance to Iraqi insurgent groups. These same groups are killing American soldiers in Iraq. It is a testimony to how diabolical and ruthless some of the "anti-war" activists are. They are using these casualties to criticize the Bush administration and his policies and call for the troops to return to the US -- all the while contributing to these casualties. (emphasis in original)

If this isn't treason, plain and simple, I don't know what is. There are many examples of this sort of behavior, but we seem reluctant to call it what it is. Why is that? Is it because treason is considered so heinous that we're hesitant to label anyone a traitor without overwhelmingly damning evidence? Is it because treason is considered an antiquated concept in this new age of post-nationalism? Or is it something else?

All I know is this woman, if she is guilty of the charges against here, has comitted treason against the United States and she should be punished accordingly.

Just a man doing the best he can

The irascible Kim du Toit, freshly returned from his trip to Europe, tells the story of Jimmy. Here's a taste:

Jimmy's just an ordinary-looking guy: average height, grey-haired, with a slightly olive complexion. He has a wonderful smile, and is a host extraordinaire, generous to a fault. You can see that by the fact that people like him flock to his restaurant, people just like him, and drink endless cups of tea, smoke cigarettes, and speak in quiet, relaxed tones.

Jimmy is an Iraqi Kurd. In 1980 he and his brother were arrested in Baghdad, along with nearly two hundred others. Jimmy was "interrogated", then pressured to work for Saddam Hussein's regime. If he accepted this work, as a terrorist and saboteur in foreign countries, he would be freed. (As a Kurd, he was "expendable" to Saddam.) If he didn't agree to do this, he and his brother would be tortured until they died, or until he changed his mind.

Go read the whole thing and then come back.

This just goes to show that, against the backdrop of world-changing events, there are always individuals who are trying to cope with the changes as best they can. When we talk about the large-scale picture, like the invasion of Iraq or the apparent capitulation of Spain, we tend to lose sight of the individuals which collectively make up this milieu. There are people out there who are evil, there's no doubt about it. But for each one of them, there are many like Jimmy who are good people and who are just trying to make it through to the other side. We must not forget this.

New Toy!

Since I was getting tired of manually updating my Blogger template every time I wanted to make a change to my blogroll, I went ahead and signed up with Blogrolling and it's now managing the list. So, let's see, I'm using the following external tools for this site:

HaloScan
Site Meter
Blogrolling

Any more out there that I should be using? :-)

Changes to comments and trackback

I went ahead and created a new account on HaloScan using my nickname rather than what I was using before. Unfortunately, there was no way to transfer existing comments and trackbacks to the new account but the loss isn't great. There were only a few comments and only two trackbacks.

So what does it really mean?

So here is the sitch as I see it. Spain is now under the control of a Socialist government. They will almost certainly pull the 1300 Spanish troops out of Iraq on or before June 30 because control of Iraq is not going to be handed over to the UN. As far as our efforts in Iraq are concerned, the effect will be minor. That 1300 is a small percentage of the total number of troops over there and the rest can easily take up the slack.

As far as our efforts in the global war against terrorists and their supporters the effect has the potential to be much larger. Recent posts of mine, and of others across the Web, have been full of doom and gloom predictions as a result of this. Many of these are worst-case scenarios. However, I do think it's likely that the results of the elections in Spain will embolden the terrorists and that they will try to influence elections in other countries in a similar fashion. Great Britain and the US especially are at greater risk because of this. We had them on the run. Now they're staging a comeback.

Just to make it clear, I don't think that all Spaniards, as individuals, are cowardly or stupid. However, in my opinion, the electorate of Spain in the aggregate has reacted fearfully and without thinking through the consequences of its actions. It's understandable that, only a few days after the worst terrorist attack to hit their country the people were confused and fearful. The terrorists could not have timed it any better if they'd tried. As this post by Glen Johnstone points out:

This was not a sober calculation on the part of Spanish voters that Aznar had failed to protect them from the forces of terror. Nor was it a demonstration that Spaniards fail to grasp the significance of the threats arrayed against them.

It was an emotional decision in the wake of unspeakable tragedy.

Glen goes on to make a very good observation:

What someone like me takes away from this is not that Spaniards don't take seriously the threat of terror, but that they misunderstand the implications of a less than stalwart approach in dealing with it.

Voting the way Al Qaeda would have preferred will not quench the terrorists' desire for fundamentalist change. It will only whet their appetite more.

This, then, will be the ultimate legacy of the Spanish election. We must ensure that this legacy is short-lived. Should there be attacks in Great Britain, the US, or any other of our allies in this war, we must recognize them for what they are: attempts to influence us to give the terrorists what they want. They already got it once, and that's one time too many.

There is a non-zero probability that this terrorist victory won't lead to more attempts. But I'm certainly not going to bet on it.

Den Beste on Spain

Steve Den Beste sums it up beautifully. I present his post in its entirety:

The people of Spain marched in the streets on Friday.

Then they crawled on their knees into their voting booths on Sunday.

He has more to say in this followup post:

I confess I had entertained hope. I had hoped that they might realize that the groups which planned this attack are not interested in participating in international conferences – except, perhaps, by contributing explosive devices to them. When the people of Spain marched on Friday, I had hoped they felt the kind of steel resolve towards their enemies that most Americans felt after 9/11, a cold determination to make their enemies rue the day. When the Socialists got elected, I had hoped that their new Prime Minister designate, who had previously promised to disengage Spain from the coalition, might decide that the situation had changed and that his previous promise could no longer be fulfilled.

I guess I expected too much.

...

After 9/11, there was an outpouring of sympathy from Europe for the US. Most of that sympathy was, shall we say, magnanimous condescension. "See? This is what you get for being unilateral and for not shafting the Israelis. But now it's gotten serious, and it should be clear to you dumb cowboys that we Europeans were really right all along. We thus graciously hold out our hands to you: we will be most happy to have you realize the error of your ways, apologize, make amends, and to join us in postmodern bliss where all disagreements can be solved with diplomacy and bribery."

After about three weeks, once it became abundantly clear that Americans weren't asking themselves why they were hated, but rather intended to go out and find and kill all those involved in the attack, the sympathy largely dissipated and the criticism and carping began. It's never let up since.

Beginning on Friday, there was a similar outpouring of sympathy from Europe addressed to Spain. But unlike the stupid Americans, the Spanish understood their part in the morality play and didn't blow their lines: they repudiated their previous policy and changed sides. Spain will now align with the French in opposition to the US.

Taking a break: The Machines

I have ridden motorcycles since I was less than ten years of age. Here is a list of the motorcycles I've ridden more than once or twice:

• Honda QA50 - Mini-bike with donut tires, don't know the year, probably late 60's.


• 1975 Yamaha YZ 80 - It may have been a '73, can't remember for sure, it was a small dirt bike.


• A couple of Honda ATC's circa 1983. One a 110 and the other a 185s.


• 1973 Suzuki GT750 - My father's bike and the first big road bike I rode. I didn't even have my driver's license at the time.


• 1977 Kawasaki KZ650 - My father bought this for me used, my first road bike. I took the motorcycle endorsement riding test on it.


• 1986 Kawasaki Vulcan 750 - The first bike I bought for myself, it was used but in near showroom condition. My father now owns it and still rides it.


• 1995 Suzuki Intruder 1400 - My first big-bore V-twin bike and my first brand-new bike. I still had the Vulcan 750 at the time as well.


• 1986 Honda Goldwing 1200 - I bought this for a long road trip my father and I took back in 1999. The Intruder just wasn't cut out for long trips. After I got it, I sold the Vulcan 750 to my father since three bikes was just too many.


• 2001 Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad Fi 1500 - The bike I currently ride. I traded the Goldwing in for it and I've since given the Intruder 1400 to my brother.

As for cars, here are the cars I've owned myself. I'm not including those vehicles owned by my parents that they let me drive:

• 1980 Honda Civic - I paid 700 bucks for this car and definitely got my money's worth. Other than routine maintenance and a couple of minor repairs, I never had any trouble with it, although it did burn oil. Ultimately the muffler fell off and I decided it was time for...


• 1990 Geo Storm - Bought used at a dealership, I traded the Civic in for it. It was a fun car to drive and it had a moonroof and tinted windows. I'm just glad I never got in an accident.


• 1997 Subaru Outback Sport - Another used car, I bought it in 1999. I didn't trade the Geo in for it, instead I sold the Storm directly to someone else. Great car, very reliable. Last year I traded it in for my current car, a...


• 2002 Subaru Impreza 2.5RS - I would have liked to get a WRX, but I figured that the extra expense of buying one, maintaining one (turbocharged engine), and insuring one would be more than I wanted to spend. So I got the next best thing. Used but with less than 10,000 miles on it and in excellent condition. Practically new.

I don't see myself buying another car or motorcycle for the next few years at least. Next up, an airplane! (Yeah, right.)

Shared grief

I join with Rusty Shackleford in mourning for all those who will likely be killed now that the Spanish people have collectively shown that terrorists can get what they want by murdering people. MSNBC reports:

“I have said clearly in recent months that, unless there is a change — in that the United Nations take control and the occupiers give up political control — the Spanish troops will come back, and the limit for their presence there is June 30,” Zapatero said at a news conference.

He described Spain’s decision to commit peacekeepers to Iraq as “an error.”

Well, then, I guess we'll just have to get along without them. Poland has already offered to take over the responsibilities of Spanish troops should they be called home.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week”: “I don’t think the case has been made that this will cause Spain to step back from the war on terrorism.”

This won't cause Spain to step back. It's a sign that they already have.

It may turn out that this won't lead to further attacks. But I don't think we can afford to take that chance. This was a win for terror, plain and simple. It can't help but embolden them further.

Yes, it is a day of mourning indeed. Let us make sure it is not a day of defeat as well.

Lessons from Spain

Here's a simple thought-experiment. You want something. You do something in an attempt to get it. It works. You want more. What do you do?

The logical response would be: You do the same thing as you did before.

In this case, it was the terrorists who wanted something. What they wanted was capitulation. What they did was the bombings in Madrid. It worked, the Socialists are now in power and Spain will be withdrawing its troops from Iraq and will implement the strategy of appeasement.

The terrorists won't be satisfied, though. They want more of what they just got, namely favorable results from a national election. What will they do?

In less than eight months, the people of the United States of America will elect the man who will lead this country for the next four years. Who do you think the terrorists want to be elected? What do you think they will do to ensure they get the result they want? This election is vastly more important to the war against terrorists and their supporters than the election in Spain was. Take a few seconds to think about it.

The people of Spain have every right to elect who they want but, if they think they've made the world a safer place as a result of their choice, they're wrong. They gave the terrorists what they wanted, which will only encourage them to do the same thing again. By their actions, the people of Spain have made the free world *less* safe, not more. Thanks a lot.

As Mike said in this post:

The people of Spain, in spite of the Aznar government’s previous support for America’s WoT, prefer weakness and capitulation to strength and courage in a difficult fight. They have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind, and they deserve to; this was probably the biggest victory al Qaeda has achieved since 9/11. Think of the lesson to be drawn from this: that by setting off a few bombs, the terrorists can now chart the course that a free election in a democratic country - which countries they loathe above all else - will follow. I’d be willing to bet that they’re even now cooking up something similar for us this year, if they weren’t already. And they probably were, in fact. They have only one problem.

This ain’t Europe, and Americans ain’t Europeans, and thank God for that. No matter how many journalists, movie stars, college professors, and vapid urbanites might loudly wish we were more like the Europeans, there are still way too many of us out here in flyover country who would rather die on our feet than live one moment on our knees. We know by now - and those of us who didn’t know it before have learned it since 9/11 - that our media can’t be trusted; that many of our institutions have been undermined and corrupted by spineless and self-seeking politicians from both parties, but mostly by the Democrats’ love for the ever-expanding Nanny State; that the Left’s vision for how we should be governed is neither workable nor innocuous; that the 60’s, far from the rose-tinted view still irremediably held by liberals of a hopeful struggle for an egalitarian and nonviolent utopia, was in fact a decade characterized primarily by vanity, selfishness, and wastrel nihilism; that there is nothing whatever wrong with the unilateral pursuit by America of America’s own best interests.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that the result of that election is not what I fear it will be. Time will tell if my hope is justified. Let's just say that October is going to be a tense month.

Update: McQ at QandO writes on the election in Spain:

My guess is they actually believe this will buy them “peace.” I can only imagine then, that on the whole, the Spanish electorate is as ignorant of the history of appeasers as are many in the US. In fact, giving in may, if anything, put them at the bottom of the list of targets for a while, but nothing more.

The Spanish may be assured of one thing though ... their capitulation doesn’t remove them from the list by any stretch. Should they again need a ‘nudge’ because of actions which may be deemed by 3/11's masterminds as a direct threat to them, Spaniards can expect terrorists to violently and overwhelmingly remind them who they REALLY belong too now ... that they now dance to only one tune ... the terrorist’s.

I like to think that the same thing won't happen here, even if there is a large-scale terrorist attack before the election. I like to think that the people of this country won't roll over on their backs and present their bellies to the terrorist's teeth and claws. I like to think that, should there be another attack on the scale of what happened in Madrid, or worse, that it would only strengthen our resolve to stamp out the source and make sure it can't happen again. I like to think a lot of things. I'm hopeful, but I'm not going to make the mistake of assuming the worst won't happen.

Quote of the day

"American liberalism has transformed itself into the L-word, a curse to be avoided even by some of its foremost champions, such as John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. But the poison is not in the word, the poison is in the meaning that lurks behind the word. In modern America, liberal is progressive is globalist is socialist. They all represent precisely the same freedom-hating concept, constructed on the notion that all rights spring from government, that the government's primary roles include: a) providing for the needs of its people, b) serving as a referee between competing group interests, c) acting as God, High Priest and Supreme Judge in bringing cosmic justice to society, and that all property belongs collectively to society through the agency of the government." --Vox Day

Via The Federalist

Lileks on Spain

Presented without comment except to say, once again, that I can only dream of writing like he does:

I’m writing about Spain tonight for the Newhouse column, so I won’t discuss it here, except to repeat what I wrote in the LGF comment section: you can take the nation out of old Europe, but you can’t take the old Europe out of the nation.

Vote against the party that maddened the terrorists, so the terrorists will leave you alone for a while – brilliant. It’s like sitting on a cooler of raw meat with tigers prowling around, and deciding to put down your rifle so you can throw some steaks at the tigers. If you throw hard enough, they won’t come back.

At least Spain knows what’s expected of them now. If they remove the Socialists from power some day, they can expect a few bombs here and there to remind them of their place.

Click!

While reading Neal Boortz's Nuze this morning (that link will work tomorrow, for now just click here), I encountered this:

When it comes to terrorism there is clearly a difference between the way those who vote Republican and those who vote Democrat feel. We have a new Gallup poll out. The poll was taken during the first week in March. Voters were asked which issue they thought was more important in the election, economics or terrorism?

Combining all voters, 65% thought the economy was the most important issue. Only 26% said that the most important issue was terrorism. The figures are different when you consider party affiliation. Republican voters put terrorism ahead by 48 to 46%. That's bad enough ... but it's far worse for Democratic voters. Only 10% of Democrats said terrorism would be the number one issue.

Then the question was phrased differently. Gallup asked: "If you had to choose, which of the following presidential candidates would you be more likely to vote for --- a candidate who would do a good job on the economy, or a candidate who would do a good job protecting the country from terrorism?"

The economy won by 51% to 42%. For Democrats, however, the split was 72% to 25%. Republicans went for the president who would protect us from terrorism by 62 to 32%.

As I read this I was thinking that, even though the war against terrorists and their supporters is very important, the economy is important as well. After all, the economy is something that affects us all on a daily basis and will never stop doing so. I was thinking that a president who had both as priorities would be best. Then I read this and the lightbulb went on:

The differences are stark and disturbing, and it all comes down to your view of the role of government. If you feel that the primary responsibility of the federal government is national defense -- keeping our country and our people safe from foreign aggression then you are more likely to vote Republican. If, on the other hand, you feel that the primary responsibility of government is to take care of you economically .. to make sure you have a job, and to inoculate you from the harsh consequences of laziness and poor decision making .. you'll vote Democratic.

Duh! You'd think I'd have figured this out by now. I've known for some time that the president doesn't have nearly the effect on the economy that a lot of people think he does. But it wasn't until just now that I understood that shepherding the economy isn't even in his job description. So what is his job? For the answer, we go to the source. From the Constitution of the United States of America:

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Where does it say anything about the economy? That's right, nowhere. However, take a look at the first sentence of Section 3 where it says, "such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." I would say this authorizes the president to send budgets to the Congress for approval. But it's Congress that has the final say, as it should be.

Just goes to show that I still have a lot left to learn. I hope I never stop learning.

Adiós España

The people of Spain have made their wishes known. The center-right Popular Party has been swept from power, and replaced with the Socialist Party. MSNBC also reports on this turn of events.

It definitely appears that the Spanish people have just voted themselves out of the war against terrorists and their supporters. From this Reuters article:

The Socialists have pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the U.N. does not take control by June 30 when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. Opinion polls showed as many as 90 percent of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war.

(Just a side note: Observe the title of the Reuters article, "Socialists Score Spectacular Spanish Election Win." Doesn't that seem just a tad celebratory? Compare with the title of the Fox News article, "Socialists Declare Victory in Spanish Elections.")

The reasons given by those voting for the Socialists? From the Fox News article:

Many voters said Thursday's bombings, which killed 200 people and wounded 1,500, was a decisive factor, along with the government's much-criticized handling of the initial investigation.

"The Popular Party has made me lose faith in politics," said Juan Rigola, 23, a biologist in Barcelona. "It deserves to lose and to see the Spanish people turn against them."

Critics accused the government, which had trumpeted its crackdown on ETA, of manipulating the investigation for political gain. That struck a chord with voters.

"I didn't intend to vote, but changed my mind," said Javi Martin, 30, who works for a TV station in Madrid. "And not because of the attacks, but because of the responsibility of the Popular Party. They gave out information drop by drop. It would have benefited them if it were ETA."

Here's the kicker, though:

Some voters were angry at outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (search), accusing him of making Spain a target for Islamic extremists because of his support for the Iraq war, despite the opposition of most Spaniards. Aznar sent 1,300 Spanish troops to Iraq after the conflict and 11 have died.

My prediction is that Spain will, indeed, pull its troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. They will return to a strategy of appeasement. What they don't realize is that it doesn't matter. The terrorists and their supporters cannot be appeased. They may buy themselves some time but, in the end, it will make no difference.

And, of course, there are all the other fun things that will come with a Socialist governmnet: higher taxes, increased government spending, increased government intrusion and control of business and everyday life, reduced economic growth, abrogation of personal responsibility, the politics of victimhood, focus on equality of results instead of equality of opportunity, the list goes on and on.

The war has come to Spain, just as it came to the US. And I fear that Spain has just surrendered. When Al Qaeda attacked the US on September 11, 2001, they figured that the US would cave in and run away. They were wrong. Assuming it is Al Qaeda, or an affiliated group - and it's looking more and more likely - it looks like they've tried the same strategy in Spain. And this time the strategy is working.

Farewell Spain. Sorry to see you go. Perhaps we'll meet again someday; I certainly hope so.

Update: Allah himself has something to say about this.
Update 2: Emperor Misha I weighs in and does so in his own inimitable way. He has more to say here.

Steve H. at Little Tiny Lies is very direct with his comments. Excerpts:

We are right. Spain is wrong. Not just Spain, but the Spanish themselves. Voting to give the terrorists what they demanded was cowardly and shameful. In a world where appeasement is policy, any imbecile who can make a bomb can give orders to nations. For decades, France has been such a nation. Now Spain has joined her.

...

If Spain had stood by our side, and if the rest of Europe had shown a little solidarity and courage, we might have a world where terrorism was gradually dying out. A world where terrorism was so costly to the terrorists and so pointless that they would give it up. But the Spanish just threw gasoline on the fire. Spain is now ruled from a tiny cave somewhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and her rulers will be encouraged to see how many other countries they can take over.

And be sure to read Mark Steyn's article which is right on target:

The question then is what does a nation have to do to avoid being targeted by the Islamists. Canada refused to take part in the war on Iraq, but whoever makes Osama's audio tapes these days still named the disinclined dominion as one of al-Qa'ida's enemies. Ireland did no more than allow American aircraft to continue their practice of refuelling at Shannon but that was enough for Robert Fisk to volunteer them for a list of potential Islamist targets.

...

If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

John Henke at QandO provides his take on the situation:

Whether the Spanish people were opposing Aznar's actions in the war on terror, frightened because of a single bombing, or a combination of the two....the fact is that it appears that the terrorism affected public policy in the favor of Al Qaeda.

And that's bad - very bad - for the United States.

Think about this: If Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda-sympathetic groups, believe they can cow a people into favorable voting, then you can absolutely expect further terrorism. If Al Qaeda genuinely does have a preference about a US election, then a terrorist attack prior to the election may be inevitable. Even just a small one.

After all, it worked in Spain.

Pop quiz

Someone wants to kill you. He's killed others and now he's coming for you. He cannot be reasoned with. He refuses to be dissuaded by any entreaties, by any bribes, by anything at all. You are an affront to his universe and he will not tolerate your continued existence. Nobody else will lift a finger to stop him. He absolutely will not stop until you are dead, or until he is. What do you do?

The free people of this planet face such a threat. A subset of those who acribe to the faith of Islam want everyone else either dead or subjugated. They believe their god has told them they are supposed to be ruling the world. The fact that they are not, the fact that they are failures in just about every meaning of the word, simply cannot be their own fault because their god says it isn't. We who have proved so successful at resisting their attempts at subjugation and destruction must be allied with the devil. That is the only acceptable explanation. Therefore we must be destroyed utterly, enslaved, or forcibly converted to their religion. And there is one group of us who have the effontry to live in the area of the world they largely inhabit. This cannot stand. There is no alternative but to keey trying to push that group into the sea forever.

They have already hurt us several times, but they have so far not succeeded in their goals. They are still out there and they will not stop. What do we do? Do we just hunker down and wait for the next attack, hoping that we can stop it in time and, if we don't, that it doesn't kill too many of us? Do we try to appease those who refuse to be appeased, and thereby show them that we will not try to stop them, making them bold and encouraging them to ever deadlier attacks? Or do we take the fight to them and make it so that they cannot attack us again? Do we eliminate their sources of money and other aid? Do we try to get them to recognize their failure and that this course will bring only more failure and, ultimately, death? What do we do?

Right now, we are answering that question. This November, the people of this country will make a decision that will determine whether we continue on the same course, or turn around and head the other way. I know which way I will choose. What will you do?

---

Inspiration for this came from reading:
This post by Mike at Cold Fury and this very good (and long) post by Al Maviva on the choices that we face in November and what choice he will make.

Update: Laura of Oddly Normal touches upon this in this post. Excerpt:

To raise the possibility that Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, and the rest, could possibly have any motivation other than the legitimate grievances of their people against the western world is to engage in an atrocious act of racism, on this view -- by definition, they are peace-loving, and to question this is to question their very humanity, and indeed, the humanity of their people. There is no possibility at all that these two and their followers could be indulging in the same xenophobia, intolerance, bloodlust, and irrationality that have marked the entirety of human history. Therefore, the right way to deal with the terrorism would be to assuage their grievances and make them happy. That would work, I think -- are you prepared to convert to an austere incarnation of Islam and, effectively, be enslaved? Because that's what it would take. I'm sure as hell not. Listen to the people! Listen to bin Laden and the Finsbury Park mosque: they don't just want Israel to return to the ummah, they want Spain and Hungary and Austria and Russia and France and America, too. Throwing Israel to the wolves and acquiescing to their immediate demands will not stop them.

There's much more than just this though and I recommend you read it all. Hat tip to Misha.

I am not worthy

Once again, James Lileks writes like I could only dream of doing. In today's Bleat, he addresses the bombings in Madrid, Spain. I will excerpt some here but you simply must go and read the rest.

I thought at first it must be Al Qaeda, given the significance of Spain to these horrid farkwits; the whole “tragedy of Andalusia” thing figures large in their menu of grievances. You think: that was half a millennia ago. Move on. But it’s not as if they are stuck in past history. There is no such thing as history for these people. There is simply a condition that must be changed. The world must submit. The aberration of the Reconquista must be reversed. These are obvious truths. They will come to pass. If you oppose these truths, you oppose God. Look at this great hall, full of the proud and the profane, intent on their wordly lives; if only they knew their sins, they would clamor to take your place and push the button themselves.

It is not what we've done, it is simply what we are. We are free, and they can't allow that. They must rule the world because their God tells them so. Anything else is simply unacceptable.

To some, the act of "resistance" has such a romantic pull they cannot possibly renounce the use of flamboyant violence - until they find themselves in a train station on an average weekday morning, ears ringing, eyes clouded, looking down at their shirt, wondering why it's so red all of a sudden.

What these people who oppose our efforts to stamp out terrorism and reform the society that breeds it don't seem to get is that the terrorists would just as happily kill them as anyone else. In their eyes, we're all acceptable targets and worthy only of death.

Could be ETA. Could be AQ. Could be, as some have said, that this was the opening of the the Islamacist’s front in Europe.

But it's all a front. If there’s a man sitting on a park bench reading about Buddhism: it’s a front. If there’s a woman at the mall with her head uncovered, it’s a front. If there’s a little girl in a school learning about the periodic table, it’s a front. If there’s two women in a park holding hands and sneaking a smooch, it’s a front. If there’s a guy in a room posting to his website his arguments for atheism, it’s a front. If you’re reading your child a story whose hero is a clever pig, you’re living on the edge of the front. If the appointed hour comes and the call to prayer doesn’t drift from the spiky towers, it’s a front.

The last line in the post is the best of all. Now go.

Update: FrankJ over at IMAO turns off the funny and writes a short, direct post about the bombings.

Spain had some huge allies in us, Britain, and others, and justice will be coming like a bat out of hell for those responsible. Do little, pathetic terroists think they really can intimidate us. Do they think their attacks will do anything other than make us more resolved in killing the bastards?

The more they attack us, the more they cement our resolve to stomp them out and make sure that no others will arise in their place.

Yes, I'm overweight, and it's my own damn fault

Serenity has a great post regarding the recent passage by the House of a bill that would ban lawsuits against the food industry that blam them for Americans' increasing obesity.

It comes down to the exact same issue behind the recently defeated Senate bill 1805 (which had previously passed in the House), which would have banned lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers when their non-defective, legally-sold products were used in crimes. That issue is personal responsibility.

In this country, there is a movement toward the abrogation of personal responsibility. People don't want to be responsible for their own mistakes or wrongdoing so they look for someone else to blame. Increasingly, this is finding expression in the form of lawsuits against those that did no wrong. The fact that it might net them some money in addition to placing the blame elsewhere is an additional incentive. This movement is being propagated in large part by the Democratic Left. Trial lawyers, seeing the chance to reap huge payoffs from large-scale class action lawsuits (like that against the tobacco industry*) are also supporting these types of lawsuits.

To paraphrase Jeff Snyder in his book "Nation of Cowards," the Left wants to make the concept of personal responsibility *irrelevant*. Instead of punishing people for wrongdoing, they want to make it impossible to do wrong in the first place.

Think about this for a minute. If someone steals my car and uses it to run over a bunch of people, who is responsible? Am I responsible because I didn't take greater precautions to secure my car? Is the dealer and/or manufacturer responsible because they didn't include additional theft-prevention devices and features? Of course not. Even if we were, how much more would we have to do to prevent theft in order for us not to be responsible? The correct answer to the original question is, of course, the person who stole the car.

It's the same way with guns. If someone steals my gun and shoots someone with it, he is the responsible party. I'm not responsible ** and neither is the dealer or the manufacturer. Now, if the gun is defective and, as a result, goes off accidentally and shoots someone, then the manufacturer bears some of the blame. And the recent legislation would *not* have banned lawsuits in such cases. It was completely disengenuous for its opponents to say that it granted immunity to the gun industry from all lawsuits.

And now we come to this new legislation. I support it, just as I supported S. 1805, but I'd actually rather see a more general law that covers the general case of all legal, non-defective, lawfully-sold products. As the title of this post says, I am overweight. I admit it. And I take full responsibility for it. I could eat less, eat a more healthy diet, and exercise more. I've made the choice to eat what I've eaten and to live the lifestyle I have. There's nobody to blame but me.

* I consider the lawsuits against the tobacco industry to be different for this reason: The tobacco industry deliberately covered up the mounting scientific evidence that smoking was harmful and, quite frankly, lied to the public. They engaged in fraud and should therefore have been held accountable.

** The argument can be made with some justification that I would be responsible if I left my gun lying around where someone could easily take it. Unlike a car, a gun is something that can be easily picked up. I would expect to take some of the blame if I were to leave it laying on the sidewalk, for example, and someone came along and took it. If it's in my home, though, even if it's not locked in a safe but simply stored in a bedside drawer, someone would still have to enter my home, find it, and steal it and, therefore, they would be entirely to blame.

A proposal to counter the terrorist nuclear threat

I'm not saying this is the way to go, and I'm sure that it wouldn't happen anyway, but here's something I thought of to counter the potential for a terrorist nuclear device being detonated in a US city.

The US makes it known that if a nuclear device is detonated in a US city, we will wait one day and then destroy Medina with a nuclear strike. If another nuclear device goes off after that, we will wait one day and then destroy Mecca.

Would this work? I don't know but it's interesting to think about. Mecca and Medina are the two most holy cities of Islam. Will Islamic terrorists risk the destruction of these two cities? They wouldn't care about the inhabitants; those killed would all become instant martyrs after all. But the cities themselves and the holy sites they contain would be destroyed, and would be rendered dangerously radioactive for some time. The loss would be irreplaceable.

Of course, like I said, I can't imagine this policy actually being enacted. After all, it would enrage all Muslims everywhere, not just those that condone and/or support terrorists. It would doubtless be denounced by most, if not all, other nations in the world and the UN. There are other reasons, not least of which is that it just isn't in the character of the US to do something like this. It makes for an interesting thought experiment, though.

Not surprising

Via his Dread Majesty, Emperor Darth Misha I, comes this article about the latest mass bombing in Madrid Spain.

When I first heard about it, I wondered if there were any ties to Islamic terrorists such as Al-Qaeda. The news reports didn't say so, all they said was that it was attributed to Basque separatist group, ETA. Now, however, it appears that Al-Qaeda was involved after all:

The Spanish government initially blamed the Basque separatist group ETA, but began to think again after police found detonators and an Arabic-language audio tape of Koranic verses in a suspect van near where the bombed trains originated.

Soon afterwards, a message from a group calling itself the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri and issued in the name of al-Qaeda claimed that a "death squad" had penetrated "one of the pillars of the crusade alliance, Spain" as an act of revenge for Spain’s support for the war in Iraq. If true, it would be the first attack on the European mainland by Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.

"This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America’s ally in its war against Islam," the statement said.

Assuming this is true, and I consider it likely that it is, it just goes to show that it's not just us; it's the entire free world they're at war with. Now will come the test of Spain's resolve. Will they continue to fight with us against the terrorists and their state sponsors? Or will this shock them into reversing course as so many want us to do? Time will tell but I sincerely hope it is the former.

More on this is available at Little Green Footballs, here, here, here, here, and here.

My non-gaming rig

I hold a Washington State concealed pistol license and I carry a concealed pistol when I can. Some may wonder what I carry and why. Here's the answer.

I currently have two pistols. My first one is a Glock model 19 chambered for the 9x19mm round, also known as 9mm Parabellum or simply 9mm. I chose the Glock brand for the following reasons:

• It's a simple design and is fantastically reliable


• It's very easy to field-strip and clean


• It has no external safety switch, you just draw, aim, and pull the trigger


• It's effectively a double-action pistol so all trigger pulls are the same *


• It has three safety mechanisms which are only disengaged by pulling the trigger so it's a very safe gun **


• Glock's customer service is reputed to be among the best in the business

I chose the model 19 for the following reasons:

• It's relatively small and concealable (it is the middle size of the three 9mm pistols Glock offers)


• The ammo is ubiquitous and practice ammo is relatively inexpensive


• I can use +p and +p+ law-enforcement-grade defensive ammo since the gun can easily handle the increased chamber pressures


• It has manageable recoil

I thought about getting a Glock 23, which is the same gun but in .40 caliber. However, I decided to go with the 9mm as it had a more manageable recoil and was less expensive to shoot. Being able to aim accurately and to afford to practice are more important than the increased power, especially when it comes to your first gun.

My second gun, which is what I usually carry now is a Glock model 26. It is also chambered for the 9mm round but is the smallest of the three sizes. It is therefore lighter and more concealable. It has a shorter grip so managing recoil is not as easy as with the 19, but now that I've had more experience shooting it has become easier to do so.

As time goes by, I may move up to something more powerful. The new 45 G.A.P. (for Glock Auto Pistol) looks interesting. For those unfamiliar with it, it's a new round and chambering developed by Glock so that they can have a pistol with the same ballistics as the venerable .45 ACP but in a shorter round. This is so that they can use frames with the standard grip size. Currently, the Glock 21 (full size .45 ACP) and Glock 30 (compact .45 ACP) have relatively large grips that some people find difficult to wrap their hands around. The Glock 36 is better as it uses a single-stack magazine but the grip is still larger from front to back than most of Glock's other guns.

* Although the firing pin is under some tension, it's not enough for the gun to fire should it be released unexpectedly. Pulling the trigger applies greater tension to the firing pin spring prior to releasing it.
** The three safeties are: 1) The trigger safety, which is a small tab that is depressed when you curl your finger around the trigger. Unless it's depressed, the trigger can't move backward. 2) The firing pin block safety which prevents the firing pin from moving forward unless it is depressed by the trigger bar as you pull the trigger. 3) The drop safety, which prevents the sear plate (the part of the trigger bar that pulls back the firing pin) from dropping down and releasing the firing pin until it has reached the rearmost position at which point it drops down and the firing pin is released to fire the round. The gun can be dropped from a considerable height onto solid concrete and it won't fire. There is one drawback, though, and that is that the gun can be accidentally fired if something pulls the trigger. Generally, this only happens if you have your finger on the trigger while holstering the gun, which you should never do anyway.

Using 9/11 images in campaign ads

Matt Blackfive has posted on why he believes the use of some 9/11 footage in George Bush's campaign ads is different from Dennis Kucinich using the names of those killed in Iraq in his ads.

For the record, I don't think he's being two-faced.

My own opinion essentially mirrors Blackfive's, and those of most of the other bloggers whose posts I've come across. Stated succinctly, my opinion is this: Bush is not using this footage in a negative attack ad, which is what Kucinich's ad was. Also, the second or two of footage is only a small part of the ad, not the entire focus of it. He's simply pointing out that this event happened and that it is one of the many things we've had to deal with in the last few years. He's not placing the blame for it on anybody.

Lileks on Kerry

Read the whole thing here. Some excerpts:

So Teresa Heinz-Kerry passes out buttons that say “Asses of Evil,” with pictures of Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Ashcroft on them. There you have it: the President of the United States is an Evil Ass. I’d love for someone to put this question to Kerry in the debate: Senator Kerry, your wife handed out buttons that called the President an Evil Ass. Do you believe he is Evil, an Ass, or both? And if I may follow up, I’d like to ask if you can possibly imagine Laura Bush doing that. Thank you.

...

Look, people, it’s one thing to drink the Kool-Aid, but it’s another to pee it into Dixie Cups and pass it around. I can understand people getting passionate about Howard Dean – when you’re in your 20s and aflame with Justice and Revolution, your cockles are stoked by someone who seems to mirror your own enthusiasm. But Kerry? It reminds me of the cover in ’84 after the Democrat convention: it had a picture of Dukakis, looking confident and secure. The cover said “THE DUKE.” It played right to the emotions of his supporters: we are not entirely unenthusiastic of his candidacy, Reagan is insane, and our guy has a great nickname that makes us feel cool when we say it! Landslide loss.

From this article at SFGate.com:

John Kerry is determined not to lose Florida's 27 electoral votes in a swamp of recounts and recriminations this fall, vowing to mount an early legal challenge in any district that might repeat the problems that bedeviled Democratic supporters in 2000.

...

Responding to a voter who asked, "What can you do to prevent them from stealing the election again?", Kerry, a lawyer and former Massachusetts prosecutor, said his campaign was assembling a legal team to examine districts that had problems.

"Districts with problems" in this case being defined as, "districts where Kerry is not winning." Here's more:

"We're going to pre-check it, we're going to have the legal team in place. ... We're going to take injunctions where necessary ahead of time. We'll pre-challenge if necessary," the four-term Massachusetts senator said.

I'm looking forward to seeing just which districts this occurs in. How much you wanna bet it happens in every district where Bush has a close lead, if not every district that Bush is winning regardless of the spread?

The Iraqi interim Constitution

Here's a link to the full text of the new Iraqi Constitution.

I've been skimming over it, but I've found a couple items that I don't particularly care for:

Article 7.

A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.

I understand that this is a concession to the religious leaders of Iraq. I do note that the phrase "during the transititional period" is present which makes me feel a bit better about this. I'll wait and see what the final Constitution says.

Article 14.

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.

This smacks of socialism to me. I don't argue with the right to security but the others give me pause. There are those who argue that everyone should have the right to education, health care, and social security in this country, rights which currently are not enumerated in the US Constitution, but I don't think they are the business of the federal government.

Article 17.

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.

As a staunch supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms I don't like this one bit. It doesn't prohibit private ownership of arms, but it does severely regulate it and a right that requires a license to exercise is not a right, but a privilege.

I haven't read the whole thing yet so there may be more things to point out. Also, this is just the transitional constitution, which is only in force until the final constitution is drafted and enacted. And it may be considerably different, hopefully more like ours.

I do want to point out something that I do like:

Article 23.

The enumeration of the foregoing rights must not be interpreted to mean that they are the only rights enjoyed by the Iraqi people. They enjoy all the rights that befit a free people possessed of their human dignity, including the rights stipulated in international treaties and agreements, other instruments of international law that Iraq has signed and to which it has acceded, and others that are deemed binding upon it, and in the law of nations. Non-Iraqis within Iraq shall enjoy all human rights not inconsistent with their status as non-citizens.

The sentence is death

John Allen Mohammed, who along with Lee Boyd Malvo was convicted of the DC sniper shootings, has been sentenced to death. Circuit Judge LeRoy Millette Jr. agreed with the jury's recommendation and sentenced Mohammed to die for the murder of Dean Harold Meyers at a gas station near Manassas.

In general, I support the death penalty as long as it is used sparingly. In this case, I believe the sentence is justified. Naturally, the lawyers for the defense have tried to spare Mohammed's life and rightly so. That's their job and they would be derelict in their duty to their client if they did not. Here's what one had to say:

“We do a disservice to our children when we kill,” wrote defense lawyers Jonathan Shapiro and Peter Greenspun. “Whether sanctioned by the state or not, killing is killing. And when the news goes out that John Muhammad was killed with the blessing of the court, the prosecutors, the legislature and the governor, children come to understand that killing is an acceptable thing.”

First of all, I think this is somewhat patronizing to children. They're not stupid. They may not know certain things but that doesn't mean they won't understand if such things are explained to them. If we explain the difference between murder and legal execution, they'll get it.

I do not celebrate when a convicted murderer is executed. I think people that stand outside the prisons waving signs and cheering when an execution is carried out have it all wrong. The execution of a citizen is one of the gravest and most serious act a society can carry out, possibly even more so than going to war. But I believe that the crimes John Allen Mohammed committed are so heinous that he has shown himself unfit for continued existence in a civilized society. Therefore, he must be forever removed from society. I don't really even consider it punishment but more like excision of a tumor. If there were a prison colony somewhere that we could drop him into where he could fend for himself and live or die on his own with no possibility of escape, I might advocate that but no such place exists anymore on this planet. It's possible that he might be reformed, but I don't think we can take the chance. And the alternative is life in prison anyway, which provides the possibility of escape, not to mention the requirement that society pay for his continued existence.

Some will say that, since we as a society failed him and allowed him to become what he is, we should bear the responsibility of providing for him. I disagree. While I do think society can have an influence on your decisions and actions, ultimately you are responsible for your own acts. There are certain exceptions such as people with certain types of tumors or brain damage but those exceptions are not present in this case. Mohammed acted of his own free will. He made the specific decision to do what he did. Therefore he, not society, must bear the responsibility of those actions.

It's Friday, so it's time for Hanson

A taste:

The United States is waking up from a serious malady. Once upon a time state-supported terrorism was seen as a criminal problem, not war, requiring yellow police tape, not GPS bombs. Afghanistan was turned into an anti-American terrorist base. Saddam Hussein required never-ending patrols to "box" him in. Osama bin Laden was too "hot" to be apprehended when offered up by potential captors. Pakistan and North Korea went nuclear — the greatest failure of many of the Clinton administration. Iran and Libya bought arsenals with impunity. Yasser Arafat systematically destroyed twenty years of economic progress on the West Bank and violated every accord he signed. Anti-Americanism grew in Europe without rejoinder or consequences. Saudi Arabia expected protection while our own female soldiers on patrol there hid their faces and arms — and promised not to drive. Terrorist funds flowed freely throughout the globe, as anti-Semitism and Islamicist-inspired hatred of Israel became the new pillar of trendy left-wing thought. All that has at least been recognized, checked, and is well on the way to being stopped.

Go. Drink deep.

Quote of the day

Kerry, the meticulously coiffed inheritance-welfare playboy, professes to be an Everyday Joe, a populist man of the people. Kerry, the Vietnam "war hero" who shamelessly surrounds himself with a "band of brothers" at every campaign stop, once cuddled with Hanoi Jane Fonda and has since opposed nearly every defense- and intelligence-spending program during his Senate tenure. Kerry, the self-described moderate whose rise to political power began under the tutelage of Teddy Kennedy, was recently named "Most Liberal Senator" by the National Journal, with a composite score of 96.5. All told, John Kerry's representation of his record -- his life, in fact -- leaves one longing for a Democrat candidate with the unimpeachable honesty of Bill Clinton. Indeed, Friend of The Federalist James Taranto recently dubbed Senator Kerry "Dukakis without the integrity." -The Federalist

Big Brother is coming

Via TheGeekWithA.45:

On the surface, this sounds like a good idea.

The Pinellas school system is ready to approve a new technology that uses student fingerprints to keep track of who is riding school buses.

Beginning in the fall, the fingerprint system would identify students as they board and leave. The goal is to ensure they are getting on the right bus and getting off at the right stop.

There will also be a GPS unit in the system, which will allow the district to track where the buses are, where they've been, and how long it is taking to drive the routes. However, the potential for abuse of the fingerprint system is significant, not to mention the implications of any tracking system of this kind:

"This is probably a really good idea, but in my mind it was just this terrible feeling, like they're watching my kids wherever they go," said Nancy McKibben, mother of three teenagers at Palm Harbor University High School and president of the school's PTSA.

Critics say programs of this nature raise significant privacy concerns and teach students at a young age to accept what amounts to a "Big Brother" surveillance society.

"We are conditioning these children to understand that they have no personal space, no personal privacy," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Technology and Liberty.

When I read the last paragraph in this next excerpt, my first impression was to go "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

[Michelle Bianco] thinks a fingerprint system would be a good idea. Not only would it prevent children from getting lost, she said she has no qualms about her children's privacy being compromised.

"I wouldn't be concerned about a privacy issue, because I know the School Board is very concerned about not letting anyone get hold of that information," she said.

On second thought, the board probably is very concerned. However, that concern has the potential to be overridden for any number of reasons. Not least of which is:

Superintendent Howard Hinesely said the district also plans to apply for a federal Homeland Security grant that could reimburse some of the cost.