Amendment XVII

The original text of the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 3, states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The major effect, of course, was to change how Senators were chosen. Whereas before the amendment was ratified, Senators were chosen by the legislative bodies of the states, they are now elected by popular vote in each state.

This isn't the first time I've heard this proposed but Georgia Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat, is proposing that the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed.

Miller, who is retiring in January, was first appointed to his post in 2000 after the death of Paul Coverdell. He said Wednesday that rescinding the 17th Amendment, which declared that senators should be elected, would increase the power of state governments and reduce the influence of Washington special interests.

"The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic," Miller said on the Senate floor. "It is the system that stinks. And it's only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists."

Not surprising coming from a Democrat who, by his words and actions, has shown himself to be more conservative than many Republicans:

Miller has ruffled the feathers of Democratic colleagues before. Though elected as a Democrat, he has endorsed President Bush for re-election, sided with Republicans on virtually every key issue and written a best-selling book in which he accuses his party of being out of touch with Southern voters.

Originally, the Senate and the House were supposed to be roughly analogous to the British House of Lords and House of Commons, respectively. Of course, there were to be no heriditary titles in the United States. Instead:

The Constitution called for voters to directly elect members to the U.S. House but empowered state legislatures to pick senators. The aim was to create a bicameral Congress that sought to balance not only the influence of small and large states but also the influence of state and federal governments.

This goes back to the concept of the US as a loose confederation of states, where the states would be the primary geopolitical units, not the nation. The Federal government had strictly limited powers; the bulk of governance would be up to the state governments.

As Kim says of the effects of the Seventeenth Amendment:

Thus Senators became little more than House Reps., but with longer terms of office.

It's also why the Federal government has grown so much -- the interests of the states are no longer represented by a restraining arm of the federal legislature.

And yes, I know that the whole process had become corrupt, hence the ratification of the 17th in the first place.

But its replacement hasn't worked out much better.

More on Tillman

Spoons thinks a fitting tribute to the memory of Pat Tillman is to name the Arizona Cardinals' new stadium after him.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I think it's a great idea to recognize his sacrifice in this way. On the other hand, Pat himself didn't want any special treatment or attention. Certainly naming a stadium after him would qualify as such. What about all the other soldiers that gave their lives? Pat Tillman wasn't doing anything more than they were doing; they were all serving their country. It seems to me that recognizing him in this way somehow diminishes the importance of the sacrifice made by all those others.

Perhaps a better tribute would be to give the stadium a name that recognizes the sacrifice made by all the members of our armed forces that have given their lives in this war.

An American

Pat Tillman was serving as an Army Ranger in Afghanistan when he was killed in a firefight. While he isn't the first, and likely won't be the last, he is receiving special mention because he was a professional football player for the Arizona Cardinals before joining the Army. He turned down a 3.6 million dollar contract with the Cardinals in order to serve his country as a soldier.

Here in America, our atheletes are venerated almost as gods. For some, the amount of money they make is the mark of their prestige. There is no practical difference between making 5 million and 10 million dollars. In either case, you'll be able to afford the best of everything.

And Pat Tillman gave it all up because he believed in something bigger than football and his salary. I'm no fan of John McCain but I have to agree with him here:

"There is in Pat Tillman's example, in his unexpected choice of duty to his country over the riches and other comforts of celebrity, and in his humility, such an inspiration to all of us to reclaim the essential public-spiritedness of Americans that many of us, in low moments, had worried was no longer our common distinguishing trait," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a statement.

This isn't the first time he's shown his true colors either:

Layden said that Tillman was exceptionally loyal. Before making the decision to join the Army, he turned down a more lucrative contract with the St. Louis Rams because he wanted to continue playing for the team that gave him his NFL start — the Cardinals.

As a resident of the Pacific Northwest, I think back to the examples set by Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez. Both of their baseball careers were made with the Seattle Mariners and both left the team for what I would consider less than noble reasons. Griffey claimed he wanted to be closer to his family. A-Rod left simply for a bigger paycheck. The Mariners are better off without them if you ask me. I'd rather have players like Edgar Martinez and Jay Buhner (who retired a couple years ago).

According to the article on MSNBC.com:

According to Army officials at the time, Pat Tillman wanted no special treatment, wanted no special attention, but wanted to be considered just one of the soldiers doing his duty for his country.

Pat Tillman did not receive any special treatment. He could have continued to receive such treatment as a pro football player but he choose to serve. In the end, he gave his life doing his duty to his country as a member of that most special and deservedly celebrated brother- and sisterhood: American Soldiers. And that is how he should be remembered.

Oh and I don't want to die for you
But if dyin's asked of me
I'll bear that cross with honor
'Cause freedom don't come free

I'm an American soldier, an American
Beside my brothers and my sisters
I will proudly take a stand
When Liberty's in jeopardy
I will always do what's right
I'm out here on the front lines
Sleep in peace tonight
American soldier
I'm an American
--American Soldier, Toby Keith

Appeasement

First, we have this:

THE Bush administration fully expects al-Qa'ida to attempt a big terrorist attack in the US between now and November's presidential election, according to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

This should be no surprise to the five or so people who've been reading this blog. Spain has shown that terrorism can work by electing a Socialist government that is pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq. This is simply positive reinforcement of behavior so it only makes sense that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will continue to do what has been shown to work in the past. Of course, this country is not Spain. In my opinion, there's a better than even chance that, should a major terrorist attack succeed in this country leading up to November 2, the result will be the opposite of what the terrorists want. What they want, of course, is President John Forbes Kerry.

Having said that, I would now like to direct your attention to this article by the inestimable Victor Davis Hanson. It's a long one, but it's well worth reading all the way through.

Fruits of Appeasement

It's so full of good paragraphs that it's hard to pick out just one or two but I'll try:

The twentieth century should have taught the citizens of liberal democracies the catastrophic consequences of placating tyrants. British and French restraint over the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the absorption of the Czech Sudetenland, and the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia did not win gratitude but rather Hitler’s contempt for their weakness. Fifty million dead, the Holocaust, and the near destruction of European civilization were the wages of “appeasement”—a term that early-1930s liberals proudly embraced as far more enlightened than the old idea of “deterrence” and “military readiness."

...

This nonjudgmentalism—essentially a form of nihilism—deemed everything from Sudanese female circumcision to honor killings on the West Bank merely “different” rather than odious. Anyone who has taught freshmen at a state university can sense the fuzzy thinking of our undergraduates: most come to us prepped in high schools not to make “value judgments” about “other” peoples who are often “victims” of American “oppression.” Thus, before female-hating psychopath Mohamed Atta piloted a jet into the World Trade Center, neither Western intellectuals nor their students would have taken him to task for what he said or condemned him as hypocritical for his parasitical existence on Western society. Instead, without logic but with plenty of romance, they would more likely have excused him as a victim of globalization or of the biases of American foreign policy. They would have deconstructed Atta’s promotion of anti-Semitic, misogynist, Western-hating thought, as well as his conspiracies with Third World criminals, as anything but a danger and a pathology to be remedied by deportation or incarceration.

...

If the Clintonian brand of appeasement reflected both a deep-seated tolerance for Middle Eastern extremism and a reluctance to wake comfortable Americans up to the danger of a looming war, he was not the only one naive about the threat of Islamic fascism. Especially culpable was the Democratic Party at large, whose post-Vietnam foreign policy could not sanction the use of American armed force to protect national interests but only to accomplish purely humanitarian ends as in the interventions in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia.

Right now the Democrats hate Bush so much that they're willing to overlook the fact that the downfall of Saddam Hussein put an end to a regime based on fear, torture, and murder. By itself, this is a good thing. But, because it serves the strategic interests of the United States, and especially because it was done by the hated Bushitler, it is unacceptable. The only good use of our military is for purely humanitarian purposes, and then only if a Democrat is in the White House.

Google me

Although I haven't actively worked for this outcome, this blog is the number one result on Google for the search term "Techno Geek." Pretty cool, if I do say so myself.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

Odds are, if you're reading this, you know about the death of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who was the leader of Hamas before his car was struck by Israeli missles, presumably fired from IDF helicopters. No link since it should have been all over the news site of your choice. Hamas, naturally, has vowed revenge. Here's a hypothetical conversation between me and the new Hamas leadership (NHL):

Me: Now that Rantisi is dead. What will you do?
NHL: We will attack Israel until all the Jews are dead and the Zionist entity no longer exists. All of Palestine will belong to the Palestinians.
Me: What would you be doing if Rantisi had not been killed:
NHL: Under his leadership, we would be attacking Israel until all the Jews are dead and the Zionist entity no longer exists. All of Palestine will belong to the Palestinians.

Uh huh.

Many of the news stories are calling it an assassination. Nope. Hamas is at war with Israel and Rantisi was it's commanding officer. Therefore he was a legitimate military target, just as Japanese General Isoroku Yamamoto was during WWII and just as Saddam Hussein was during the invasion of Iraq. The fact that Rantisi was a murderer as well as a commander only makes his death even more justifiable.

Thoughts on tort reform

Joe Kelly has some thoughts about a woman suing Coors Brewing Company after her nineteen year-old son was killed in a drunk-driving accident. This reminded me of a conversation I had last week where I speculated on tort reform and what a loser-pays system might look like.

Currently, if you bring a lawsuit against someone, as this woman is doing, the defendant must pay legal expenses even if he, she, or it (in the case of corporations) wins the case. This allows for abuse of the system in various ways. For example, if you want a company to stop doing something, you can sue them and they may stop because it would cost them more to defend against the suit then they're willing to pay in order to go ahead with their plans. Or you can file a suit expecting that the defendant will settle, again because it would cost less than to defend against the suit. The case mentioned above will likely turn out this way if it is not dismissed outright.

There are two reforms that I can think of that would significantly reduce this type of abuse.

1. Laws that prohibit lawsuits where the defendant is clearly not responsible for the misuse of their products. Two examples of such legislation already exist. The first would have provided protection to the firearms industry against lawsuits arising from criminal misuse of their products. If the gun was sold legally and was not defective, then lawsuits against the manufacturer and/or dealer would not be allowed to continue. They could still be filed but then they would be evaluated against certain objective criteria and then dismissed if it did not meet them. In cases of defective products or negligence, the case would be allowed to continue. Many opponents of this legislation claimed that it would grant immunity from lawsuits to the firearms industry. These people are flat-out lying, or are simply ignorant. The legislation passed the House in its original form but was so heavily amended in the Senate (extension of the assault-weapons ban and other amendments that were blatantly unconstitutional were tacked on by Senator Feinstein and her fellow gun-confiscation proponents) that the primary sponsor of the bill called for its defeat because it was too badly corrupted to be allowed to pass. It was voted down but may show up again next year. The second is, as far as I know, still pending and would provide similar protection to the fast-food industry.
   
   It's unfortunate that we need such legislation in the first place. However, if we are going to do it, I'd prefer to see a law that addresses the general case instead of focusing on particular industries.



2. A loser-pays system. If you bring a lawsuit against someone, and you lose, you pay all the legal costs of the defendant as well as your own. It would make it more likely that a defendant would defend against the suit instead of settle as they would have little or nothing to lose. The law could require that the plaintiff put up a bond of a certain amount which would be forfeit in case they lose. Should the costs be less than the bond, the plaintiff would get back the difference. Should the costs be more, they would be billed for the difference.
   
   In addition, I speculate that legal firms might change how they handle such cases. First of all, they would be less likely to take a case if they're not reasonably sure they can win. Second, they may offer, as part of their service, to pay in case they lose, or a form of insurance could be offered that does the same thing. This would add to the costs borne by the plaintiff in case they win but would protect them against a potentially crushing cost should they lose. In any case, the defendant would be spared potentially crushing legal costs to defend the case in the event they win.

Milestone

According to Sitemeter, this blog has surpassed a whopping 500 visits since I set it up to track them last December.

Well, at least my writing skills are improving.

Interestingly enough, a lot of the visits are coming from search engines rather than links on other sites. I wonder what the percentage of such visits are for the more popular blogs.

Racism really does exist

Vanderleun , a Democrat and the author of this post at the American Digest, writes:

Question: When is it permissible in the United States to call a distinguished African-American an "Uncle Tom?"
Answer: When he's a Republican and you're a Democrat.

This is in response to a recent post by Soj at The Daily Kos where he makes blatantly racist remarks about Secretary of State Colin Powell. It reminds me of the statements made a while back by Harry Belafonte about Powell where he "compared the secretary of state to a plantation slave who moves into the slave owner's house and says only things that will please his master."

He then goes on to tell why he's going to vote for George W. Bush this coming November. I found this to be a particularly chilling paragraph:

Bush-Hate, racism, calls for the death of Republican cabinet members, snide innuendo, joy at the death of Americans in Iraq, the endless political thumbsucking of the 911 Commission, and there's more on the way, much more. It's a tired, sick and crazed political party that is so greedy and hungry for power that it will do anything, including selling this country down the drain, to get it back. I'll have no more to do with it. I'm not the only one.

I know that there are a lot of Democrats/liberals out there that are perfectly sane, reasonable people. They have strongly-held opinions and, if they disagree with the current president and his administration, will be able to tell you why using calm words and well-structured arguments. I count several of them among my friends. Sadly, these people aren't the ones running the party. The party that is in power needs a loyal opposition to keep it on its toes and to call bullshit when necessary. The problem is that the Democrats, at least the ones calling the shots, aren't calling bullshit; they're flinging it and piling it on deep.

Hat tip to Mike at Cold Fury.

Apology accepted, Captain Needa....

John Hawkins writes what's been on my mind the past couple of days:

Maybe I just don't remember it, but I don't recall any demands for Clinton to apologize for the first WTC attack, for the Oklahoma City bombing, for the Khobar Towers bombings, for our African embassy bombings, for turning down Sudan's offer to hand over Bin Laden in 1996, for the US Cole bombing, etc, etc, etc.

In hindsight, there were things that the administration could have done that might have prevented or lessened the magnitude of 9/11. But demanding that Bush personally apologize for it, especially when Clinton was never asked to do the same for attacks that happened during his tenure, is a double standard that's just beyond the pale.

And keep in mind that an incoming president inherits the various governmnet agencies from the previous administration. Change in bureacracies doesn't happen overnight so the argument can be made that, if Bush bears personal responsibility, then Clinton bears some as well for leaving Bush the agencies in the state he did. Just as Bush Sr. left the agencies to Clinton and inherited them from Reagan.

Hawkins says later in the post:

But Al-Qaeda's not running for office in November and Bush is. Besides, the whole idea that Bush should apologize fits in perfectly with the Democratic approach to the war on terrorism. They'd rather promote the false idea that we can win on defense, that we can prevent attacks solely by beefing up our internal security. So if something goes wrong, if an attack gets through, that means WE must have screwed up and we'll just have to spend more money and give the government more power to deal with the problem. That allows Democrats to sit back, like Clinton did and Kerry plans to do, and pretend that we're taking significant steps against terrorism while actually doing very little of significance.

The terrorists are the ones to blame. Not us, not Bush, not Clinton, but those who planned and carried out the attacks.

Google email and privacy concerns

California State Senator Liz Figueroa is drafting legislation that will block Google's announced free email service, Gmail. This would, of course, only affect California. Other states and/or the federal government may address the issue if this legislation passes.

The concern is over Gmail's proposed advertising practices which include scanning a user's incoming email and then inserting targeted ads into the email (presumably at the end of the text) based on words found in the email. This goes beyond what other "free" email services like Hotmail and Yahoo do when they insert ads for the service into a user's outgoing email. On the other hand, they will also be offering far more storage space (a gigabyte per user) than any of the other services offer for their no-charge accounts.

My current opinion on this issue consists of two parts:

1. As long as the users are notified prominently and clearly that this is going to happen, and they specifically agree to it, I don't have a problem with Google doing this in exchange for offering this service which otherwise has no cost to the user.


2. I will never use Gmail.

This also brings up an interesting scenario. What kind of ads will be inserted into spam emails which are already ads?

Put up or shut up

Victor Davis Hanson nails it yet again on his blog. For now, the article is on the front page. Once it's archived, click the Archives link and then click Private Papers link, then click "Finish It or Forget It."

The people running this war know it's a war yet they still do some things that make us question that knowledge. As Victor writes:

There is a lesson in the saga of Sadr here that we really must relearn about this entire war. The United States, because it is militarily powerful and humane in the way that it exercises that force, usually can pretty much do what it wishes in this war against terrorists. In every single engagement since October 2001 it has not merely defeated but obliterated jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only check on its power has been self induced: out of a misplaced sense of clemency it has often ceased prematurely the punishment it has inflicted on enemies—at Tora Bora, in the Sunni Triangle, during the looting of Baghdad, and now perhaps at Fallujah—and relented to enter into peace parleys, reconciliation, and reconstruction too early.

He goes on to list some of the things that we've been doing during this war and question the assumption that they're things we should be doing.

I personally don't advocate engaging in unrestricted warfare. That is not appropriate to the goals we are trying to accomplish. But I think Victor has a good point in that we may be going too far in the other direction.

Traitors in our midst

I often see bumper stickers and signs in the windows of cars that say "Dissent is Patriotic." I agree with this, provided that you are dissenting because you think the current path the country is taking is not in its best interests. If you think a different course is the best one for the US and its people, then you have a right, even a duty, to speak out and advocate your views.

But does there come a point where your words and actions cross the line from protected speech to treason? Take a look at these pictures from the April 10 rally in San Francisco and tell me. (Thanks to Mike, Charles, and Michelle for the link).

The message is clear. Many of these people are advocating the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq. They are supporting and encouraging our enemies. They want the US to lose, to fail, to die. Is that treason?

The supreme irony of these people is that, if the US really were as they believe it is, they would not be able to say what they are saying. They would be either dead or vanished. The fact that they are not is prima facie proof that they are wrong.

Mike has this to say:

These people are not just antiwar; they’re not just on the other side. They’re not just stupid, or misguided, or eccentric or well-meaning or “just kids” or any of the thousand other dodges we employ to avoid acknowledging the appalling truth. These people are the enemy - just another tentacle on the body of the beast that would sooner see us destroyed than accommodated or compromised with. I don’t have any practical suggestions on the best way of hacking this particular tentacle off, but we’d better start thinking about it. Because sooner or later, the impulse to treason on the part of these detestable mouth-breathers is going to have to be reckoned with just as surely - and quite possibly just as harshly - as the impulse to murder on the part of anybody sitting in Gitmo right now has been. They might well be simply dupes, useful fools - but does their blind ignorance make them any less of a threat to victory?

Michelle's post addresses these pictures as well as an article by Ted Rall. She says something that I've been saying for some time:

Back to Ted Rall.

Read and understand: They hate us simply because we're there. Leave, and the hatred goes away. If you doubt that, visit Hanoi as a tourist.

I no longer give Rall the benefit of the doubt and call him misguided or naive. Now, he's just an idiot. A blind, foolish idiot.

The don't hate us just because we are there. They hated us before this. Way before this. And "they" are not just Iraqi insurgents. They are Iranians and Syrians and members of the UBL fan club. They are followers of Hamas and Arafat. They are worshipers of the culture of death, whose goal is one thing: to convert the world to their religion, thereby making everyone in the world subservient to them, to their ideals, to their power.

Treason is a federal crime that is specifically defined in the Constitution. It is one of the few federal crimes for which one possible penalty is death. Do I think that these people deserve death? No. Do I think they should be arrested and punished in some way? No. We must tread very carefully when it comes to matters of speech and we must always err on the side of caution. These people have not yet crossed the line to active aid and support of our enemies (i.e. providing them with money or other material support, or acting on their orders). Certainly if they cross that line then they should be arrested and tried.

And it is just this restraint which proves that they are completely wrong.

The failure of affirmative action

This is a sort of followup to my previous post.

Carl Cohen reviews and comments on the book Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study by Thomas Sowell. According to Mr. Cohen:

Affirmative Action Around the World is exactly what its title announces: an empirical study of what the consequences really are, and really have been, in the five major nations in which "affirmative action"—the term now commonly used to denote ethnic preferences—has been long ensconced: India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and the United States.

I haven't read the book but Mr. Cohen provides a good summary. Here is what I consider the most important section:

One thread runs through all four of these case histories. We are often invited to suppose, almost as an axiom, that every ethnic group is possessed of equal talent with every other and will therefore, if given equal chances, perform with equivalent competence. Disparate numbers by group (in employment or education) are taken to be a sure sign of oppression, and proportionality thus becomes the unquestioned standard of fair play. This thinking is the product of an egalitarianism ungrounded in empirical inquiry.

The reality, driven home by Sowell’s excruciating reports, is very different. In fact, for a host of reasons, some of which we know and some of which we do not know, some of which spring from malign oppression and many of which do not, ethnic and racial groups behave differently, perform differently, learn differently, and exhibit greatly different talents and temperaments. That is not crude stereotyping; it is plain fact. Justice will not be done if this fact is denied or goes unrecognized. In giving us this great lesson with the aid of overwhelming evidence and a scrupulously dispassionate mind, Thomas Sowell is our finest teacher.

I think a big problem with race relations today is the steadfast refusal to recognize that there *are* differences. I would say the differences are mostly, if not completely, cultural. In short, it doesn't matter what your genes are, but rather the culture in which you grow up. Culture and genetic race go hand in hand. It's not an exact mapping but it is true in general.

This leads to the question of whether or not one culture is inferior to another. I would say that, if you apply certain standards, the answer is yes. This is what we're dealing with in the Middle East right now. That subset of Arab/Islamic culture that produces terrorism is inferior to the cultures of the West, they know it, and they're trying to deal with it in the only way they know how: do their best to destroy us. This war is a war of cultures but it is a war nonetheless.

As for race relations in this country, specifically when it comes to Blacks (isn't there a better word than "Black" or "African-American?"), I think part of the problem is that so-called Black leaders (like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) perpetuate the culture of victimhood and entitlement. The irony is that if they were to succeed in their mission, they would be out of a job. So, it's in their best interests to keep that culture of victimhood in place. That way they maintain their power base and their political influence.

I think that Affirmative Action in this country is an attempt to put a Band-Aid over the underlying cultural problem, rather than treating it. Or a better analogy might be that it is like treating the symptoms with addictive drugs. It may help in the short run, but in the long run it will only make things worse because they become dependent on it.

I'm only starting to form concrete opinions on this subject so I'll give you fair warning: my views may change in the future. If you disagree with the above, please please please let me know and provide an argument for your position. I don't know if anyone can be truly objective on this point as everyone is a member of some race. Me especially as I'm about as white as it gets (mostly German and Dutch).

Straight talk about race

I don't consider myself a racist. I recognize in myself that I had some prejudice when I was young and I've been doing my best to purge myself of it ever since. And, admittedly, the people I've known have been by far mostly of European descent, with a good number of Asians in the mix. I've known a few black people, but not many. Most of those have been normal, everyday folks and I very quickly stop noticing that the color of their skin differs from my own.

There was one exception, though. During the early '90's, I took a year off from college to work in the product support department of the company I currently work for. It was a "cooperative education" program which some college would give credit for. Mine didn't, but the experience was still worth it. One of my coworkers was also in the coop program, and from the same school although I hadn't met him before. He was a young black man who I'll refer to as "C." C was smart, friendly, funny, and seemed like an all-around good guy. However, I eventually discovered something that he was doing that I could not, in good conscience, approve of as it was against the law.

There was a chain of retail software stores in this area that has since gone out of business (they sort of still exist in an online-only form). At the time, they had a very liberal software return policy. They would take back any software that you had purchased there, even if you had opened the package, in return for store credit. What C would do is buy software, copy the diskettes (CD-ROM drives were a luxury item at that time and nobody had burners anyway), photocopy the documentation, and then return the software for store credit. He would then use that credit to purchase another title and repeat the process.

In addition to that, he simply wasn't a very conscientious support technician, often taking the lazy way out when it came to solving callers' problems. The coop program was for nine months. Some of us had it extended to 12 months. Others, like myself, were invited to stay for an additional three months as temp workers. It came as no surprise to me that C was not invited to stay longer.

All I could think at the time was, "Way to perpetuate the stereotype, dude."

Here was a smart, capable guy who had a chance to rise above the common stereotype held about people with his skin color and he blew it. Instead, he engaged in theft and was lazy on the job.

In the end, though, it didn't matter that he was black. He was responsible for the choices he made and the consequences of those choices. His skin color didn't make him do what he did. It was the content of his character that made the difference and that's what he was ultimately judged on. Exactly as it should be.

The inspiration for this was a couple of posts I've read in the past couple of days. The first is by the ever-irascible Kim du Toit where he talks about why prices at stores in minority neighborhoods tend to be higher. The reason is increased levels of theft. The second is by Mike at Cold Fury where he comments on Kim's post and expands it out with experiences of his own.

No sanctuary

I haven't seen any major news coverage on this development so far but I'll keep looking. The short story is that a group of insurgents in Fallujah holed up inside a mosque, from which they were launching attacks on US Marines. Well the Marines decided they'd had quite enough, thank you, and proceeded to reduce the mosque to rubble.

It's about time we stopped pussyfooting around about this. If you seek peaceful sanctuary in a mosque, that's one thing. If you go there and turn it into a base for attacking our forces, it stops being a sanctuary and becomes a legitimate military target. From the article:

The head of the Marines First Division, General James Mattis, defended the attack, warning if rebels used places of worship in their war against US forces, his troops would not hesitate to strike them at sacred sites.

"If they barricade themselves inside a mosque, we are not going to care about the mosque anymore than they do," Mattis said.

Neal Boortz had this on his Nuze page today:

The U.S. Marines attacked a second mosque in Fallujah, after it became clear that the insurgents were hiding out there as well (no doubt practicing the peaceful religion of Islam by firing at our troops.) The chief military spokesman in Iraq said that the Geneva convention protects the mosque, but the insurgents nullified that by attacking from there. Too bad for them...at least they won't have to worry about transporting the body for the viewing.

Editorial cartoonists Cox and Forkum (where I found the link to the article) sum it up nicely in their latest cartoon.

This represents a paradigm shift in how we carry out combat operations in Iraq. During the combat in Afghanistan, I remember watching video shot from an AC-130 gunship where they were laying waste to an enemy compound. The firepower that aircraft is able to put out is simply devastating (among other weapons, it carries a 105mm howitzer). Yet, when one of the enemy ran into a mosque that was in the compound, the commander could be heard quite clearly ordering the gunners to avoid hitting it. In that case, the guy was running to get away from the rain of destruction coming down from above. If a group of them had run in there and started firing anti-aircraft guns at the gunship, they may have pulled back rather than fire on the mosque. Now, if something like that happens, the mosque is fair game, and rightly so. As Neal Boortz said:

These radicals and their private armies need to be killed. There is no chance for peace, freedom and stability for the Iraqi people until they are. If they gather in a mosque to make the job easier ... say thanks and pull the trigger.

It has come to my attention that an anti-semitic group has Google-bombed the word "Jew" to point to their site. For those unfamiliar with the term, it means exploiting Google's search term association algorithm so that, when searching for a particular word or phrase, the desired site at or near the top of the list of results.

To counter this, an attempt is being made to "counter-bomb" the word and point it the Wikipedia definition of Jew. Therefore, I will link to the site thusly, Jew.

If you wish to do the same, just copy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew">Jew</a> and paste it into your blogging client of choice. At the time of this writing, it's up to number 3.

Standing

I was going to close the previous post with this but decided it should stand alone.

Some would say that the fact that I never served in the military means that I don't have standing to comment on whether this war is worth the lives of those soldiers who have died, and will die in the future. Well, all who read what I write are entitled to their opinion and they can give whatever weight to my words that they deem is deserved. In my opinion, what we are doing is necessary for the safety and security of, not just the US, but the entire free world. That is the primary reason but the way we are doing it, by attempting to reform and democratise Arab/Islamic culture and societies, is a desirable goal in its own right. "Freedom isn't free" is cliche but, like many cliches, it's the simple truth. I am saddened by every death that takes place in Iraq but I believe that the outcome we are striving toward is worth fighting for. That's not to say that we should simply accept these deaths as the price of war. We should question why they happen and work to minimize them as much as possible. But to pull back, leaving the job unfinished, would be to render the sacrifice of those who have been injured and those who have died utterly meaningless. Many have decried what they perceive as the lack of an "exit strategy." Our exit strategy is to finish the job.

More on the Kos controversy

Michael Friedman has updates to his original post which report that more advertisers have stopped running their ads on Daily Kos, and at least one new one has joined up (at least that's how it sounds) because of the controversy. As Michael writes:

UPDATE: Jeff Seemann, Ohio 16th District, is advertising and it looks like he won't be a push over:

The Jeff Seemann for Congress campaign recently learned of the controversy brewing regarding www.dailykos.com

Blogs like Daily Kos are some of the best byproducts of the country we live in....a country that cherishes its' right to speak freely. Weblogs and other independent forms of expression are extremely important today because they allow for everyone's voice to be heard.

We were saddened to hear that three advertisers pulled their ads on the site because of the remarks posted on the blog. The comments may be controversial, but they are just as relevant. The ability to allow comments like those read on Daily Kos is a testament to the virtues this country was founded on, especially the right to free speech.

Our campaign has decided that because of the recent events we will step in and advertise on www.dailykos.com. We have made this decision for two reasons:

1) We firmly believe in the First Amendment and everyone's right to say whatever he or she chooses on their own website.

2) We refuse to allow our campaign to be bullied by the right wing like they bullied Kos' previous advertisers.

We entered this campaign for Congress based on courage and the desire to stand up to the Republicans who are destroying our country with huge deficits, unjustified wars, and a blatant disregard for Americans and the challenges they face in their daily lives.

We understand that the decision to launch this advertising campaign will attract attention, both positive and negative. We will make no statement regarding the actual content of Kos' controversial statement, but we will always stand up for his right to dissent. Furthermore, we are campaigning to return this country to a Democratic majority in Congress and we will not allow our message to be written or altered by our opposition.

But I notice that Seeman doesn't reprint Kos's statement. Let's hang "Screw them" around his neck and see how long it takes him to run!

Seeman is running against Ralph Regula. If you are an Ohio resident please start bringing Kos's vile comment to the attention of local media.

Seeman has every right to advertise on the sites of his choice. I respect him for making a stand, though I disagree with the stand he's making and echo Michael's request.

In noting that Jane Mitakides has pulled her ads, Michael comments that it was done with a "typical mealy mouthed politician's statement:"

Thank you to all who have contacted us to alert us to the unfortunate statements made on The Daily Kos regarding the deaths of the American contractors in Iraq.

Many of you know that I come from a family with deep military roots, and I have been dedicated to supporting our troops and our veterans my entire life. I also believe that whenever a life is lost to violence - American or Bosnian, Somalian or Hutu, Palestinian, Israeli or Iraqi - mankind is diminished.

We have made the decision to remove our advertising from that website, to assure that there is no confusion about my position on this matter. But I want to be clear on one point: this decision is not because of any "pressure" I have received. It is a personal decision, and one I have not made lightly.

In the past, Kos has provided a valuable forum for Democrats, for the sharing of issues and information, and I believe "blogs" such as these will continue become a real force in political communications.

Again, thank you for your e-mail, and for your interest in this very important race.

Sincerely,
Jane Mitakides

Interestingly, I disagree and here's why. Many on the left, not least among them Kos himself, are crying "censorship" over this effort to inform his advertisers of his statement, questioning whether or not they support it, and encouraging them to distance themselves from him if they do not. This is, of course, pure bunk. Censorship comes from government. All Michael and others are doing is informing the advertisers of the comment, in case they aren't already aware of it, and they are making their own decisions whether or not to continue advertising. If the situation were reversed, the left would certainly not hold back from trying to get the conservative blogger's advertisers to dump him. Remember folks, it's only censorship if it's happening to someone on the left. Otherwise it's free speech. Michael Friedman comments on it in this post:

Does anyone remember the flak Bob Barr and Trent Lott took for his relationship with the Council of Conservative Citizens? The C of CC is a talking shop - they talk and they do political advocacy. Kind of like the users on the Daily Kos. Is it any more unfair to target politicians associated with Kos than it was for the left to target politicians associated with the C of CC? I don't see why it should be.

And this is the point I think Mitakides is trying to make with her statement. She's saying that she is not bowing to pressure, but has made her own decision. She is pre-emptively countering the charge of censorship by saying that this decision was hers and hers alone, independent of any outside pressure she might have received. And I applaud her for that.

In the post linked above, Michael attempts to analyze why so much attention has been paid to Kos's comments on the deaths of these four civilian contractors. He also brings up the topic of Rachel Corrie and the comments that were made after her death. Here is part of his conclusion:

The men who died in Fallujah were on my side. They were working and risking their lives to make the American pacification and reconstruction of Iraq succeed. I think that puts them on the side of every loyal American. After all, how can a loyal American not want us to succeed in Iraq? Kerry and the advertisers who left Kos certainly understood that. Whether or not they share that sentiment they realized that the voters would and that associating themselves with Kos was a bad idea.

He also answers the question of why he's not making such a fuss over all the soldiers that have died in Iraq. I've been wondering that about myself and I think Michael gets it right when he says:

(N)o one (excluding the absolute loony moonbat left) has said "Screw them" about our soldiers.

Their deaths are tragic and unfortunate and I hope that there are as few more such deaths as possible. But no one within the US political mainstream is rehtorically pissing on their graves.

Props to the Kerry campaign

From the John Kerry campaign blog comes this post:

In light of the unacceptable statement about the death of Americans made by Daily Kos, we have removed the link to this blog from our website. As John Kerry said in a statement earlier this week, "My deepest sympathies are with the families of those lost today. Americans know that all who serve in Iraq - soldier and civilian alike - do so in an effort to build a better future for Iraqis. These horrific attacks remind us of the viciousness of the enemies of Iraq's future. United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail."

It's good to see that this line is one that Kerry and his campaign won't cross. In contrast, take a look at some of the comments. Kos himself posted part of his "apology" as a comment. Others have said that now that he's apologized, Kos should be put back on the Kerry blog's blogroll.

Funny thing, nowhere in Kos's "apology" do the words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" appear. It isn't really an apology. It's an explanation, an attempt at justification, spin control.

And that wasn't the end of it. He continues his efforts at spin control with this post. I can't add anything to what Misha has to say on the subject, as he takes it apart in his usual fine, hyperbolic form.

Fallujah rundown part the second

I'm making this a separate post from the previous one because it doesn't deal with our response to the atrocities in Fallujah but rather the reaction of some on the Left.

We start with John Hawkins showcasing some of the comments to this post on Democratic Underground. Here are the first two:

DulceDecorum: "Death to ALL mercenaries. The beer is on me."

5thGenDemocrat: "Regular Army here. I wore a uniform and followed Geneva conventions. These swine were MERCENARIES. Paid Hessians. Murderers for hire. John They're worse than Al-Queda. At least Al-Queda is fighting for a cause. I say "too bad, so sad, bye-bye."

I want to comment on the use of the term "mercenaries" here. Dictionary.com defines the noun form of mercenary as:

1) One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2) A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

I wondered why they were being so characterized so I followed the link to DU and found a link to and excerpt from this article. I knew that they were guarding a food shipment and it turns out that they were working for a private security firm named Blackwater Security Consulting. Hmmm... sounds like a reasonable company for the US Government to contract this job to.

Let's compare this to the definitions above. Of course these guys were working for pay, most people do. I know I do. The connotation here is of a person who has placed the acquisition of this pay above all other considerations both moral and ethical. Given the history of these guys, I find it extremely unlikely that this is the case.

The second definition also doesn't apply. First of all, they were not hired for service in a foreign army. They were Americans and they were not serving in anybody's army. They were not combatants, they were security guards, albeit highly skilled and trained, and likely paid commensurate with their experience and abilities.

In short, I think characterizing these men as mercenaries is incorrect and I think the authors of these comments are doing so in order to justify their celebration of these atrocities. Go read this and then tell me if you think these men deserved what they got.

But the one that really got me is the one that has raised a firestorm among conservative bloggers all over the web. Left-wing blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who authors Daily Kos, had this to say:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

by kos on Thu Apr 1st, 2004 at 15:08:56 GMT

No link because he has since pulled this post. It did exist, though, as I read it while it was still up. It's been archived in several places. Michael Friedman has archived a screen shot in this post where he talks about informing some of Kos's advertisers about the post. Some of them have already pulled their ads.

Connie du Toit has this to say:

Here's my take on the whole KOS controversy (OK, it's a line stolen from Kim):

Scratch a liberal/socialist and you'll find a totalitarian fascist within.

What I don't get is why everyone is so surprised.

Kos has replaced the post with this one. He's clearly put more thought into his initial reaction and attempts to clarify why he posted what he did. Nevertheless, you can tell a lot about a person by what he or she says before taking the time to think things through. Keep in mind also that Kos is one of the more prominent bloggers on the Left. A lot of people pay attention to what he writes.

It's an explanation but not an apology. His reasons include being upset that these men got all the attention when, the same day, five soldiers were also killed, and 51 total have died in the month of March. This is a valid point but there is a critical difference that sets the death of these four men apart. Their bodies were deliberately burned and mutilated in an act of desecration that was intended to so horrify the Americans and their leaders that we would hopefully, finally, respond the way we did after the Battle of Mogadishu.

Kos also characterizes these four men as mercenaries. He writes:

Back to Iraq, our men and women in uniform are there under orders, trying to make the best of an impossible situation. The war is not their fault, and I will always defend their honor and bravery to the end of my days. But the mercenary is a whole different deal. They willingly enter a war zone, and do so because of the paycheck. They're not there for humanitarian reasons (I doubt they'd donate half their paycheck to the Red Cross or whatever). They're there because the money is DAMN good. They answer to no one except their CEO. They are dangerous, hence international efforts (however fruitless they may be) to ban their use.

Like the posters at DU, he ascribes to these men an amoral pursuit of maximum profit. He assumes that they had no good intentions and implies that people who make good money but don't donate half to charity are evil people. He implies that these men deserved what happened because they chose to go into a dangerous area whereas soldiers are required to follow orders to do the same. Yes, the money is, as he says, damn good. You know why? Because these men were damn good at their jobs. Yes, they chose to go into a dangerous area. But our soldiers chose to join the military knowing that they could be ordered to fight and may end up making the ultimate sacrifice. These guys, if anything, knew more about what they were getting into. And, although they were highly skilled, they were not invincible as their deaths so emphatically have proven. Yes, they made good money, but they also chose to take the risk knowing full well that you can't spend your money if you're dead. Misha goes straight for the jugular and makes the point in his own inimitable style:

Oh, and throw in a heap of the usual socialist howling bullshit about how he "really supports the troops" (when they shoot their officers, right Zunicunt?) for good measure. He just really really HATES those "evil mercenaries" who have the nerve to get paid for working in a war zone and they REALLY deserve to be burned, mutilated and hung from bridges as a result.

Kos closes with this:

Nobody deserves to die. But in the greater scheme of things, there are a lot of greater tragedies going on in Iraq (51 last month, plus countless civilians and Iraqi police). That those tragedies are essentially ignored these days is, ultimately, the greatest tragedy of all.

He's right that we must not ignore all those who have given their lives in Iraq. Every soldier that dies leaves behind a family that will miss him or her. But we also must not forget the hundreds of thousands who were murdered by Saddam's regime and all those who now no longer have to fear that fate. Whether or not you think it's worth the cost in American lives, do not forget the price that the Iraqi people were paying every day until we came and made it stop.

Fallujah rundown part the first

It's been a few days since the atrocity in Fallujah, where four American civilians were killed and their bodies burned, mutilated, and hung from a bridge. A lot of thoughts have been going through my head about this, which I've been working to straighten out, and I've also been reading what others have to say to help me do that, which is why I've waited until now. I'd probably wait longer except thinking about it is keeping me awake so I want to get this stuff off my chest and go back to sleep.

I'll start with what some others have been saying. As usual, Steven Den Beste has a thoughtful post on the subject. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Terrorism is one form of violent war. It emerged as a way to wage war on the cheap; it was a way that very small groups could contend militarily with opponents who were vastly more powerful.

"Terrorism" in a broad generic sense is as old as humanity. But in the 20th century, a coherent doctrine for terrorist war emerged, which I described here. The key point to remember is this: the strategic goal of terrorism is to provoke reprisals.

...

Now, in Falluja, we have seen another operation consistent with the doctrine of terrorism, only this time the US was the target. Four American civilians driving through that city were killed, and their bodies were desecrated by an exultant crowd. Foreign cameramen captured it all.

The Baathist insurgency thought that ongoing attacks would cause American demoralization and retreat. That didn't work, because they monumentally misjudged the American character. But the goal of this attack is to inspire American fury. What they hope is that the Americans will be blinded by hatred and will do something extremely stupid: to punish the Sunnis collectively for the actions of the terrorist group.

...

We have to respond, and we have to respond massively. But that response must be targeted only at those truly involved in this attack. Sunnis collectively must not feel themselves victimized by it. And that's why this is exactly the right response:

U.S. troops on Thursday vowed to use overwhelming force to enter the volatile Iraqi town of Falluja and hunt down those who killed and mutilated four American contractors.

Marines took up positions on the outskirts of the restive town west of Baghdad where insurgents ambushed the contractors on Wednesday, but the U.S. army's deputy director of operations Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said they would return.

"Coalition forces will respond," Kimmitt told a news conference. "They are coming back and they are going to hunt down the people responsible for this bestial act.

"It will be at a time and a place of our choosing. It will be methodical, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming."

In his own inimitable style, Misha rants here and here. He also makes a very good point:

Much as I'd have loved for the Jarheads to go charging in immediately, guns blazing following the unloading of a dozen Buffs on the top of the pigs' heads, this actually makes a lot of sense.

There's nothing the Marines could've done for the four civilians, they'd already been murdered, and by rushing in they'd only have given the chance for the murderers to fight back at a time and battlefield of their choosing, and that's the last thing we want.

And for more, just go through the links on my blogroll and scroll down. You'll find plenty of commentary that I mostly, if not entirely, agree with.

As for my thoughts, I realize this is a tough situation. We're essentially caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, there's the desire to pound the town flat with a rain of MOAB's. On the other, we really are the good guys here, we're really trying to help. As Den Beste says, this attack was intended to provoke us into doing something stupid that would alienate the very people we want to help and turn them against us. Well, it's not going to work because, quite frankly, our people in charge over there just aren't that stupid. They were also doubtless hoping that we would finally be haunted strongly enough by the ghosts of Mogadishu that we'd lose resolve and go home. They were wrong.

One of the miscalculations on the part of those who carried out these atrocities is allowing it to be filmed by foreign journalists. We have them on tape, we see their faces, we can identify them. In fact, it's already happening as noted in this article:

U.S. officials have identified several people involved in Wednesday's fatal attack on four U.S. contractors in Fallujah, ABC News reported Friday, quoting intelligence sources as saying they included former members of Iraq's paramilitary forces and "non-Iraqi Arabs."

ABC said U.S. forces were expected to take decisive action against the attackers within the next several days, and intelligence sources knew who they were going after.

And, in support of the theory that this was part of a larger operation that had been planned in advance:

Eyewitnesses have told intelligence sources there were seven to 18 assailants involved in the attack, ABC said. It said Iraqi insurgents had set up several ambush points around Fallujah, and had stocked them with gasoline on the morning of the attack.

Some townspeople had been warned to stay inside, the intelligence officials told the network.

The fact is that we are an occupying power. I've never denied that. The point to remember is that the goal of this occupation is not conquest. Our goals have always been to remove a dangerous regime from power, and to work to set up a functioning democracy (besides Israel) in the Middle East in order to spark a wave of reform of that entire region. Whereas a conquering power would crush the town flat, we're not going to do that. But we must make sure that these people understand that this kind of behavior will not go without a response. Our response must be measured and targeted, but it must also be unambiguous.

At the risk of saying "I told you so..."

So, after the bombings on March 11, the Spanish people elected a socialist government, one which is planning to pull all Spanish troops out of Iraq. They did what the terrorists wanted thinking it would make them safer.

And we can already see how well it's working.

Thanks to Quibbles and Bits for the link.

Hanson answers an important question

Victor Davis Hanson answers the question: When should we stop supporting Israel? Right now, the article is on his main page. Eventually, it should migrate to his archive page. Here are few of the conditions he lays out:

Well, we should no longer support Israel, when…

...

Preteen Israeli children are apprehended with bombs under their shirts on their way to the West Bank to murder Palestinian families.

...

Rabbis give public sermons in which they characterize Palestinians as the children of pigs and monkeys.

...

Jewish fundamentalists execute with impunity women found guilty of adultery on grounds that they are impugning the “honor” of the family.

...

New Yorkers post $25,000 bounties for every Palestinian blown up by Israeli murderers.

...

Jews enter Arab villages in Israel to machine gun women and children.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East (hopefully to be joined by Iraq). If you accept that Israel has a right to exist, then their actions to defend themselves are perfectly justified. They don't go into the West Bank and Gaza and indiscriminately kill Palestinians. They retaliate against terror attacks against their own people and work to make it more difficult for those attacks to be carried out. There is no moral equivalence. Period. If the terrorist attacks stopped, then Israel would stop their military actions.