For Our Children's Children

Nathan the Wise, a play in verse, written in 1779 by Gotthold Lessing remains today as one of the greatest pieces of literature in history that promote religious tolerance. At the time this play was written and produced, almost all of the intellectuals in Europe were blatantly and openly anti-semitic and attacked any positive portrayal of Jews.

Here is a summary of the plot:
Nathan is a rich merchant in Jerusalem. An infant girl (Recha) is placed into his custody by a monk. The secret of the child's identity is known only by Nathan, the monk, and Nathan's Christian servant (Daya). Nathan raises her to respect God, but without teaching her the trappings of any religion. While Nathan is away on a business trip, Recha is rescued from death by a German knight who had come to Jerusalem as part of the Crusades. She falls in love with him. Nathan returns and when he tries to thank the knight, he is spurned because the knight disdains friendship with a Jew. But the knight yields to Nathan's pleas and visits Recha, with whom he falls in love.

The servant informs the knight that Recha was born a Christian. Obsessed by a sense of sacred duty he turns to the Christian Patriarch of Jerusalem for advice. He is repelled by the latter's self-righteousness and inhumanity (the character is drawn quite negatively). The knight then visits the Sultan, Saladin. When he denounces Nathan, he is rebuked by the Sultan who tells him not to be a Christian at the expense or injury of Jews or Moslems. Nevertheless, the Sultan pledges to bring the lovers together. But the play ends with the revelations that Recha and the knight are really sister and brother and that their father was tire Sultan's brother.

Recha's transformation from "Jew" to "Christian" to "Moslem" within minutes as each secret unfolds is only one of Lessing's messages on religious tolerance. A stronger lesson unfolds in the play when the Sultan summons Nathan and asks him, What human faith, what theologic law Hath struck you as the truest and best? Nathan, suspecting a snare (if he says Judaism he offends Moslem ruler and if he says Mohammedanism he risks being forced to convert or being accused of lying), invents the parable of The Three Rings.

In days of yore, a man lived in the East,

Who owned a ring of marvelous worth,

Given to him by a hand beloved,

The stone was opal and shed a hundrd lovely rays,

But chiefly it possessed the secret power

To make the owner loved by God and man,

If he but wore it in this faith and confidence...

The owner of the ring had three wonderful, obedient sons he loved with all his heart. Because he could not decide among them, he had identical rings made for all of them before he died. When the sons realize they each have a ring from their father they become angry and take their case to a judge to determine who has the real ring. The judge considers and finally makes his decision:

But stop! I've just been told that the right ring,

Contains the wondrous gift to make its wearer loved,

Agreeable alike to God and Man.

That must decide, for the false rings will not have this power....

Let each one strive to gain thee prize of proving by results

The virtue of his ring and aid its power

With gentleness and heartiest friendliness....

The virtue of the ring will then

Have proved itself among your children's children.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam--the three rings-- all possess a wonderful and a terrible power over the hearts of men and women who believe. They have the power to inspire wondrous deeds in the world; beautiful art; heavenly song; and soaring monuments- reflecting the best within humankind. But, as we have seen throughout history, they can also motivate horrendous and monstrous behavior in the name of God.

Christianity and Judaism have both had their periods of prolonged insanity, where followers were enslaved by the evil that is within men's souls. Neither religion should be proud of those times and should remember that they --far from always preaching peace and brotherhood--have also expoused hatred and death to the infidel. Even today we can find instances of the same Christian and Jewish fundamentalism and intolerance that led, in earlier epochs to much human suffering and death.

Fortunately the world survived and at least two of the rings matured. As humanity pursued liberty and freedom of thought; new ideas and concepts replaced the old, rigid thinking. Bible verses were freshly interpreted and understood in new ways. Religious tolerance replaced religious fanaticism.

Islam, for all its medieval glory and early contributions to enrich humanity has succumbed to the evil lurking within its believers' souls. As a religion, it has remained immature and relatively unchanged for centuries. The Middle East, where Islam originated, has clung to tribal traditions and resisted progress, centralization, and internal critique, thus spurring the growth of islamofacism and Terror in the name of Allah. By isolating itself from the rest of the world, maintaining decentralization, and promoting and limiting interpretations and analyses of its own holy book; it has managed to bypass the wave of freedom and democracy that has taken hold on the rest of the world.

Islam in the Middle East currently exists within a Culture of Victimhood; a culture where hatred is passed on through generations; and one where misogynistic behavior is encouraged and considered holy. There are few real Middle Eastern Islamic "scholars" today who do anything other than parrot phrases from the Koran, using it only to further this Culture; or to advance their own pathetic personal agendas of power.

Any reasonable person of any faith should express horror at Islam's increasingly virulent attitudes toward women and sexuality (see here, here, and here); at the vicious and joyous celebrations of death and destruction (see here and here) of the open and unchecked anti-semitism (see here, here, here); at the cult of suicide murderers (here, here); of mothers and fathers praising children who kill others while killing themselves (see here, here); and the continued dumbing down of its own people, preventing them from expanding their minds beyond the boundaries imposed by the pages of the Koran and forbidding the use of a critical thinking capacity.(here)

As has been said in many other places and times over the last decade, this is a Culture of DEATH and, if Islam as a religion wants to survive, it must extricate itself from this Culture. It must loudly denounce believers who use the religion to justify barbaric and psychopathic behavior ; it must search for ways to open the minds and encourage reason and learning in all its people, men and women, and permit them to join the 21st century and leave the Middle Ages behind.

In short, Islam has to demonstratae--like the beloved sons with their three beautiful rings--the virtue that their loving father once believed they possessed. The True Ring will bring its bearer the love of Man and God; and Islam - especially those who consider themselves moderate - need to prove their ring is true by their behavior: "the virtue of his ring and aid its power with gentleness and heartiest friendliness."

This must be done for the sake of all our children; and for our children's children.

CBS = Media Joke

Betsy from Betsy's Page imagines the following dialog during a press conference:

GW Bush: "We found WMD in Iraq. All of our critics have been completely discredited"
Media: Can we see them?
GW - No. you'll just have to take my word for it. We have experts to prove their authenticity.
Media: Can we talk to the experts? Can we interview the people who found the weapons?
GW: NO. And the mere fact that you are asking these questions proves that you are partisan rumor mongers. End of story. Case closed.

I wonder if the Left will start referring to Dan Rather as Hitler? Probably not, but consider this: a major media outlet that follows a political agenda; determines what is "best" for its viewers to know; and feels itself above the need to answer questions about its stories, motives and facts, is not much better than the old Soviet propaganda outlets Pravda (meaning "truth") and Izvestia (meaning "news").

And, as with those two Russian media giants - where the joke in Russia was that there was very little "truth" in Pravda; and no "news" in Izvestia - soon that's all CBS will be: a joke.

Is The Kerry Campaign Rather Sunk ?

If not sunk, then sinking fast --thank you, Dan!

Hamster Wars!

Via Betsy's Page comes this little gem as to why Kerry is losing the hamster owner's vote!

The battle began at the Democratic National Convention when Alexandra Kerry, candidate John Kerry’s daughter, told what she obviously believed was a touching story of her heroic father. "We were standing on a dock waiting for a boat to take us on a summer trip," she said. "Our golden retriever got tangled in his leash and knocked the hamster cage off the dock. We watched as Licorice, the unlucky hamster, bubbled down to a watery doom. But my dad jumped in, fished the cage from the water, and began to administer CPR."
Now, granted, this is a pathetic image of a man so desperate to please his kids, so eager to protect his reputation as a "man of action," that he would resuscitate a dying hamster. Knowing Kerry, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that he also grabbed a hamster defibrillator and yelled "CLEAR!" as he energized the tiny paddles on little Licorice’s chest—and then put in for a Purple Heart (for himself, not Licorice).

Read the whole thing--it's pretty funny!

Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry

American Daughter has a good summary with pictures of the "Kerry Lied" Veterans Against Kerry Rally in Washington D.C. yesterday. Here is what one of the speakers at the rally had to say:

"Kerry already made his choices....In choosing how to relate and react to the circumstances in which he found himself--in choosing how to relate and react to the Vietnam War--Kerry created his identity and defined himself as a man lacking character, integrity, and moral courage."


Check it out. It will give you some perspective.

The Axis of Evil, Parts II and III

Remember President Bush's "Axis of Evil" Speech in 2002? Here's a relevant excerpt:

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. " (Emphasis mine)

Remember the outrage around the world by the Left ?(here, here, here , here, here)
The general tone of which was: My God! How dare Bush call these countries evil! How dare he confront dictators who destroy their own people? How dare he suggest that they would do anything....bad! Who does he think he is?"

Fast Forward two years.

IRAN : Getting closer to having a nuclear bomb, which would make it the most powerful country in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel. It has actively worked to destabilize its neighbors; continues to harbor terrorists from Al Qaeda; actively suppresses the freedom of its own people; murders female children under the auspices of "Sharia". America, through President Bush's policies has placed itself squarely on the side of freedom in Iran.

NORTH KOREA: Defiantly touting its own nuclear weapon program; its own people starving, it persists in its pursuit of weapons with which it can threaten and blackmail its neighbors; as well as the U.S. Its recent activities suggest it is ready to actually test a nuclear weapon. The Bush Administration's policy toward North Korea has been consistent and confrontative and is based on the reality of North Korea's behavior, not on wishful thinking. Knowing that it has broken promises and treaties in the past, the Administratin has pursued a policy of multilateral diplomacy, refusing to give North Korea the aid it wants until it changes its nuclear policy.

IRAQ: Because of Bush's doctrine of preemptive action against states that represent a developing threat, Iraq's dictator has been deposed, the Iraqi people have a real chance of developing democracy; and Iraq has become a magnet for the Al Qaeda terrorists who have been unable to attack the homeland again. They are therebecause they want to attack American soldiers. But because they are there, we finally have access to THEM also. I would rather have us deal with them away from the U.S. mainland. And, I believe that the U.S. Military is doing its job--protecting us--splendidly and should be honored for it. 1000 American deaths are tragic, but not anywhere near the number of deaths I believe we might have suffered if we had remained passive. Just note that more than 2800 people died on 9/11 and many thousands were injured. It was not the job of the people who worked in the WTC to protect US citizens--that is the proud job of the volunteers who are our Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force.

Most importantly, the possibility of a democracy in Iraq, the middle of the Arab World, has shaken things up dramatically. The effects of this bold and decisive military intervention will have important repercussions on the politics of this region for decades to come. Some of the effects may be negative, but the hope (and for the first time there IS hope) is that our action will ultimately result in more freedom, more economic advancement; and more peace in that historically chaotic region.

Personally, I think that President Bush did what needed to be done in his 2002 State of the Union speech: HE CALLED A SPADE A SPADE. And he refocused the discussion onto the regimes that were and are slowly but surely inching their way toward world domination.

What diplomats had been skirting around for decades was distilled into a blunt assessment of reality and the state of the world. If these three regimes could not be called Evil, then Evil has no meaning. I believe this was one of the most brilliant achievements of Bush's first term as President. In addition, the President made a good start in dealing with these three Powers. 33% of the axis is now not a threat to the homeland. If we learned anything from the appeasement and passivity that existed prior to WWII, it is that we cannot wait for Evil to consolidate and expand its power. Especially when they now have weapons that could destroy millions in one demonstration of egomaniacal bluster or religious fanaticism. Hitler was the prototype of of totalitarian rulers like Kim Jung Il and the Mullahs of Iran and yes, Saddam Hussein. Those who try to pin that label on Bush are not merely misguided, they are in total denial and delusional about reality.

One down; two to go.

UPDATE: Blogs for Bush has a nice update on the history of the North Korean problem.

A Triumph of Democracy

It now seems that the ascendance of the blogsphere over the mainstream media is a triumph of freedom and democracy. Steven Horowitz says in his thoughtful article:

For years, we've heard from both Right and Left that the "Big Media" are a problem. Each group thinks they are the handmaiden of the other group. What both appear to agree on is that they are near-all powerful entities who are growing unchecked like some electromagnetic cancer upon the land. The Left has long had the small alternative press, which tried to counter the power
of the Big Guys, but with limited success, and it had academia. The Right, since the 80s anyway, has had the think-tank world (which I've always viewed as the alternative university for libertarians and conservatives who perceived themselves, perhaps wrongly, as being closed out of academic by what they saw as leftist power). However it had no real media of its own (Jim and Tammy Faye don't count) until the advent of the Internet. There's a reason the earliest and
most well-known blogs lean conservative or libertarian: there was a latent demand for their services.

The net finally reduced the cost of publishing to near zero, at least on the margin, and radically democratized the knowledge production industry, especially investigative reporting. By eliminating both political (think broadcast licenses) barriers to entry and the huge start up
costs of publishing, the Internet widened the sphere of liberty for those who wished to be producers of information. The result, as we've seen so clearly the last 48 hours, is that the strength of Big Media power has been radically reduced. Average Americans, with their knowledge of typewriters, military procedure, or fairly obscure terms like "kerning," were able to compete with, and effectively neutralize, one of the most powerful organizations on the
planet.

Some see this as nothing less than a new revolution in media. The distributed intelligence of the internet replacing Big Media; the common man's experience x 1 million replacing journalists, and that we will all be better off for it.

However, before the Triumph of the Net is made into a movie, I would like to propose that rather (a bad word, I know) than replacing the Print and TV News media; the internet will actually become a resource and tool for those media--at least for the media that are capable of changing their dinosaur mentalities. In the NEW MEDIA that would evolve from this union, there would be a far more objective and "fair and balanced" perspective that is missing from the Old Media--as represented by CBS. Editorial decisions, as well as research, fact-checking; analysis etc. could all be functions of the utilization of the Net by the Print and TV news. Those outlets that are flexible and appreciate the vast resource available for their stories; and are able to appreciate the speed as well as the varied perspectives available to them in developing a news story would be able to dominate this new market.

The mainstream media have been losing customers for some years now. I believe the reason why this is occurring can be traced directly to the conscious and unconscious biases of those who control and operate those media. While some outlets deliberately have a particular ideology and make all their news stories "fit" into that procrustean agenda; others are not even aware that they are bias because of the "cocoon" that the owners, editors and writers live in. Those of us can see it from the outside looking in; but they, long ago, lost the ability to see themselves as others see them. They truly believe that their opinions are the holy Truth and so are able to see only those news stories that fit their Truth. This latter scenario is probably the case with the CBS fiasco. I would like to think that the deception was not a deliberate attempt to foist their particular beliefs in the middle of a presidential election, but we shall see, won't we?

In this triumph of Democracy, Liberty and the Common Man (and Woman), we will see the beginnings of many changes in the world of News and Information Dissemination. It is like a tidal wave of freedom, and it bodes well for the entire world.

Not Another One!

I remember when I used to live in Houston. At the time I felt were were the center of the hurricane target zone....but clearly, that bullseye has moved. I hope everyone in the path of Ivan stays safe.


Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5 Storm, takes aim at an already battered Florida

Defenders of Truth

A pop quiz.

Question: What do the following facts have in common?

-Juan Williams saying that it doesn't matter if the memos are faked, it only matters if the content is true (no link, but I watched it yesterday);
-Dan Rather continuing to insist that his story is "essentially correct" even if the overwhelming number of facts prove it wrong;
-Paul Krugman defending Fahrenheit 911 for its "essential truth" despite its lies and deceptions;

Answer:
Far from being the "Defenders of Truth" that I imagine these people see themselves as, what they all have in common is a complete disdain, and even contempt, for the concept of an objective, verifiable Truth. Unbeknownst to them, they represent Truth's greatest enemies. Why?

Because, what they all are promulgating is that Truth is elastic; Truth is relative; Truth is whatever you want it to be if it feels "right" to you. Facts and Reason be damned. Distortion and even lies are acceptable if you are pursuing a "greater" Truth.

Much greater thinkers than I am have grappled with this issue. Aristotle, Ayn Rand and Thomas Sowell come to mind. But let me just take on Mr. Williams, NPR Correspondent for a moment. Let's say I forged a memo that said:

September 11th, 1991
MEMO: CYA
1. Moody is putting pressure on the news staff to treat Williams’ opinions and hack jobs with respect and lay off asking the hard questions. I have said that he will drive viewers interested in truth away, but it’s clear he’s already gone to the top to get
approval. As his supervisor, I am not permitted to say anything negative and have to sugarcoat my evaluation of his performance.
2. It’s well known that Williams performance on the show has been extremely poor and that he is always whining about getting less exposure than other reporters. I will let him stay on the program, but respect is something I can’t give him.

Chet Huntley
Senior Correspondent

Would you have to accept that the contents are "true", Mr. Williams? Mr. Huntley is deceased, so we can't ask him if he wrote it. Oh, was he already dead in 1991? He died in 1974 when you were just a kid? But that's irrelevant since the content of the memo has "essential truth"--at least from my perspective. So, I think we should focus on the content, not the possibility that it was forged! Why waste time on minor details? I feel your views are "stupid", and I believe you are a lousy reporter and news analyst-- so it shouldn't matter that I "faked" the memo, or forged Huntley's name to it, should it? It serves that greater truth.

"But it’s not true--and can't possibly be real!" you might say. But, Mr. Williams, IT IS MY TRUTH, isn't it? It's what I feel, deep in my heart; and since I have no objective evidence outside of my feelings (except of course for almost every word from your own mouth), I decided to take Truth into my own hands, do everyone a favor and write a memo that proves what a moron you are. I believe that by doing so I have become a true "Defender of Truth"like you claim to be. Some people might suggest that it makes me a lying, cheating, opportunistic sleazebag. But hey! They don't understand the real nature of Truth, like you and I do.

IF YOU HAVE ACTUAL FACTS, PRODUCE THEM. Reporters have been trying to prove for many years now that Bush was AWOL; that he didn't meet his obligation and that he was caught in a dereliction of duty. They think it is true because their feelingsabout Bush make it true.

But the TRUTH is that President Bush was HONORABLY DISCHARGED from the ANG. And that precludes the possibility that he was AWOL; in dereliction of his duty; or somehow "failed to meet his obligations." The TRUTH is that President Bush has shown himself to be an effective, decisive and even innovative Commander-in-Chief, and he doesn't even have to rely on his record of 35 years ago! He can run on his record of achievement of the last 4 years.

But, if it makes you feel any better, I can certainly understand why your method of confusing feeling with thinking is so popular. I feel really wonderful calling people like you, Dan Rather,Paul Krugman, and Michael Moore complete assholes!

But, you see, I don’t actually have to resort to feelings, lies, distortions, forgeries, emotional projection or intellectualization to prove my point; since I'm willing to let history decide. I think the facts are on my side.
UPDATE: I was commenting over at Roger Simon's blog and another commenter posted this, in reponse to my blogpost here:
Dr. Sanity
Thanks for the link. I've been enjoying your comments.
What keeps striking me about this are the two views of reality, of truth, espoused by Plato and Aristotle respectively. For Plato, the only "true" circle was the imaginary, perfect circle. All the real circles we see around us, which are always flawed, are only imperfect copies of the one true circle which exists in the one true reality. For Plato the ideas were paramount and the world of the senses was secondary.
For Aristotle, whose father was a Greek physician, in the long tradition of famous Greek physicians (cf. "I, Claudius"), reality was what you see before you. Ideas you had about reality were just that, ideas. For Aristotle, the world of the senses was paramount and the world of ideas was secondary.
Epistemology necessarily precedes politics.
If "Bushitler is evil" is the one true reality, it scarely matters what occurs in the world of the senses. Whether the memos were faked or not, whether they make any sense or not, none of this has the least bearing on the ultimate reality to be found in the heads of these people. I'm sure they've long hence forgotten why they came to believe "Bushitler is evil" in the first place.
How can anyone fail to see the guise of the religious fanatic in such an attitude?
Posted by: WichitaBoy This was such a good post, WichitaBoy, that I had to include it on my site! Thankyou

A Rather Mini Mental Status Exam

Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom conducts an interview with Dan Rather's Ego. He asks the mental health world, "Is it true that a diminished grasp of the temporal is a tell-tale sign of mental illness?" I am happy to oblige him and answer:

A grasp of the temporal is extremely important in evaluating the mental status of an individual. It is called “Orientation” and it reflects an assessment of whether the person: 1) knows who he is; 2) knows where he is; and 3) knows the date/time (e.g., PERSON, PLACE, and TIME). When the disorientation is “acute” (relatively recent onset) the diagnosis is DELERIUM; When the condition is chronic (lasting for a long time) it is called DEMENTIA. I

In evaluating Dan Rather:
PERSON - he thinks he is God and doesn’t have to answer to anyone (it is possible this is just delusional, but delusional people aren’t necessarily oriented either)
PLACE - we can’t be sure what planet he is actually from, and he doesn’t appear certain either. TIME/DATE - as Jeff points out, Mr. Rather is unable to tell the difference between Pacific Time and Central Time.

Since his condition has been chronic and seem to have been going on for years, the most likely diagnosis is DEMENTIA. Possibly more tests will be needed to distinguish that diagnosis from a delusional psychosis.

NEVER FORGET

IN MEMORIUM

TO

THE VICTIMS OF 9/11

AND TO

THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DIED SINCE 9/11

DEFENDING THE HOMELAND FROM FUTURE ATTACKS

The 2nd Tower is hit.... The numbers are indelible: 8:46 a.m. and 9:02 a.m. Time the burning towers stood: 56 minutes and 102 minutes. Time they took to fall: 12 seconds.

Go HERE for a slide show of pictures from the September 11th attacks.
NEVER FORGET THE ONES WHO DIED AND ARE NOW DYING TO PROTECT FREEDOM.
We must remember that this is a war we cannot afford to lose....and once again come together to pledge "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor" to defeat the Islamofascist savagery that threatens our entire civilization.

Click here for a moving tribute "We Remember" from the Marines in Iraq

at American Daughter

40 Days....And Counting

via Instapundit

"I have pledged that I am going to have a press conference at least once a month to talk to the nation about what I'm doing because I don't have anything to hide," Kerry said during a campaign stop in Beloit, Wis., after the Democratic National Convention. "I want America to know what I'm doing. I want you to know what I'm fighting for. I want you to ask me questions."

The Infinite Improbability Drive suggests that the odds of Kerry answering questions about HIS service in Vietnam and the SBVT accusations are 150,000 : 1 at the moment. But, I recommend you just grab your towels, don't panic, and hold on!

Rathergate

Ra^thergate (Darn, I can't get the "th" into a superscript! UPDATE: Thanks Jason H for the tip!) --great name!


From the folks at Ratherbiased.com

People Who Live In Glass Houses....

Instapundit has a roundup of all the latest backtracking, investigating and handwringing about the apparently fraudulent documents brought forth on 60 Minutes about Bush. Captain Ed has info on who might be behind it all (three guesses, and the first two don't count). Also, check out RealClearPolitics for a roundup of opinion. Thanks to Powerline, LGF, and Allah, for staying on top of the story and pushing it in the faces of the mainstream media. And, Wretchard analyzes "the shot heard round the world."

Now who looks even more stupid than usual?

The Doctor Is Somewhat Confused About These Memos...

The internet is abuzz with talk about the possibility that the "new" Bush Air National Guard memos are forgeries and that CBS has been hoaxed. You can go here, here, and here for updates. My problem with the memos is the content, particularly the content of the May 4th memo purportedly ordering Lt. Bush to get his flight physical.

I am a former NASA flight surgeon. I did physical exams on members of all the military services, including ANG. People report normally for a PEX (physical exam) by the last date of their birth month. Bush's birth month is July (DOB July 6, 1946). WHY WOULD HIS CDR ORDER HIM TO REPORT OVER 2 MONTHS EARLY FOR HIS ANNUAL PEX? Especially since we know that GWB was flying in April (he had 7 flight days according to the records).

If Bush was already aware that he would be going to Alabama--where they did not have the plane he was trained in and where the CDR of the Alabama unit had already told him they had too many pilots, but that he was "welcome" to come-- Bush would have allowed his flight status to lapse, since NO pilot willingly will permit a physician to do a PEX if he didn't have to.

Nothing in these new memos makes sense from the flight surgeon point of view. And, of course, the timing is awfully suspicious.

UPDATE: Allah in his mercy has graciously linked to this site! Welcome..

UPDATE: 9/10/04 - someone emailed me questioning my background and stating that the government only initiated the "birth month" rule for flight physicals about 10 years ago. In response to that email I'd like to state that I received my flight surgeon's wings through the Air Force (I was detached to them from NASA for that purpose) and did my training, including the flight training portion in the T-37 ("Tweetie Bird")--although we used T-38's at NASA. I was at NASA 20 years ago and routinely did flight physicals on active astronauts who came from every military service. Our exams had to meet the rigid requirements of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Guard flight requirements. So, as of 20 years ago, using the last day of the birth month was somewhat routine. Of course, I have no idea if that was the case during Vietnam--and have said so on various forums when asked. I am not aware of anyone being "ordered" to take the PEX, it is just standard procedure to do so annually, otherwise your flight status will lapse and you won't be permitted to fly any aircraft.

If someone has information about the Vietnam era practices, I would be happy to hear it. I am perfectly willing to believe that things were different then and my points may not be relevant. But attacking my credentials and other BS won't cut it with me.

Haven't We Heard This Before?

Al Qaeda's #2 Terrorist, Ayman Al Zawahiri announces that the United States is on the verge of defeat by Al Qaeda forces in a new videotape released to Al Jazeera

Is Osama Bin Laden Dead?

I am someone who has believed that that there is a good chance that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for several years and that his #2 henchman, Ayman al Zawahiri (who always was the brains of the outfit anyway) has been running the organization for some time. It is obviously in Zawahiri's interest to make people believe that OBL is alive since OBL is the one who commands their love and loyalty. Audiotapes released over the years purporting to be from Bin Laden could have been faked from older audiotapes.

Now, I am not a terrorism expert and I have no inside information. My reasons are psychological. Let me explain.

1) I don't believe that someone like Bin Laden could go for so many years (he hasn't been seen on a NEW videotape since 9/11. He was apparently seen in Afghanistan briefly, but then completely disappeared from the radar for the last 2 years now) without having some videotape of himself made showing his followers that he was alive and well-- if for no other reason.

2) his own ego would demand to be the center of attention in all major terrorist matters. Just his name being bandied about would not be good enough (at least for this long), especially when secondary persons (al Zawahiri; al Zarqawi etc.) have numerous videotapes airing on al Jazeera and up on various internet sites glorifying terrorism.

3) We have seen his #2 guy twice in these last two years. Why use #2, when #1 will rally the troops even more?

4) Surely he would realize the value to his adherents to be able to see him and give him the adulation he desires and they are desperate to give?

Granted that the videotape of Zawahiri released today might be the "signal" to initiate new attacks here in the U.S. or elsewhere, but why not have OBL do it himself?

Three reasons:
1) he's so close to being caught its too dangerous to make a videotape of him
2) he's so ill that he is completely unable to star in his own videotape
3) he's dead

I happen to like the third reason the best. Hey, I can hope, can't I?

Direct Connections

Note that this is not a "web" of connections; this is a DIRECT CONNECTION. The question is, where is the media outrage?


From Balloon Juice , via Instapundit

Wah! Wah! Wah!

Its so unfair!
We're not allowed to criticize his Vietnam military record.... (it's questioning his patriotism)
We're not allowed to say that things would be worse if he were elected... (it's hateful rhetoric)
We're not allowed to talk about his record in the Senate.... (there's nothing to talk about)
We're not allowed to say he's out of touch with normal Americans.... (its hypocrisy and lying)
We're not allowed to see all of HIS military records.... (he's a hero)
We're not allowed to see his billionaire wife's tax records.....(they're not relevant)
We're not allowed to watch Republican 527's anti-Kerry commercials... (they're part of a vast
right wing conspiracy, doncha know?)
We're not allowed to call him a flip-flopper and mock his changes in position....(it hurts his
feelings)
We're not allowed to point out that he has voted against every military spending bill in the Senate...(that was over the last 20 years, but he's a hero)
We're not allowed to yell at him....("feel the hate")
We're not allowed to question his fitness to command....(did I mention he was a hero?)
We're not allowed to wonder why he made up stories about being in Cambodia in 1968....(he's a hero)
We're not allowed to wonder why he videotaped his adventures in Vietnam for posterity....(he's a hero)
We're not allowed to wonder why he came back and called his fellow Vietnam veterans war criminals....(he's a hero)
We're not allowed to wonder if he's telling the truth about other items in his history....(to do so would be "fear and smear")

I guess we should just stop asking all these silly, childish questions; stop whining, and act like responsible, grown-up adult Democrats.

NASA Science Goes Splat

A man takes a close-up look at the return capsule from NASA's Genesis spacecraft mission after it crashed into the earth in the Utah desert when its parachute failed to open, September 8, 2004 in this image from NASA video. The space capsule, returning solar particles to Earth after a three-year mission that probed the origins of the solar system, crashed in the Utah desert before it could be captured in a mid-air recovery, officials at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said on Wednesday. The silver, disc-shaped capsule containing 'star dust' was jettisoned as planned by the Genesis spacecraft but its parachute failed to deploy and the capsule spun out of control and crashed. It was not immediately known if the container carrying the solar material inside the capsule survived the impact. REUTERS/Reuters TV

I feel especially sorry for the scientists who have waited years to get their results.... I hope something of the data can be salvaged.

Technical Problems

I appear to be having some technical problems on my blog and am presently trying to fix it.

Desperation

Captain Ed from Captain's Quarters makes an excellent point about gossip writer Kitty Kelley's new book about the Bush Family:

I know that lefty bloggers like Oliver Willis are drooling over the blockbuster allegations and promoting them as Bush's doom. I find it enlightening that they readily accept the word of a disgruntled and unstable ex-wife of Bush's brother and possibly one or more unnamed sources, while they completely disregard over 250 combat veterans who put their names to their testimony in Unfit For Command and backed it up with evidence. The Left has very flexible standards when it comes to credibility these days.

250 combat veterans are "liars" and indulging in a "smear campaign" against John Kerry, but a well-known distorter of truth for fun and profit who has spent her life trashing famous people is someone to listen to.

THAT, my friends, is known as desperation.

Enabling Behavior For Terrorism

In psychiatry--and particularly addiction medicine--we talk about people who "enable" addicts. Enabling refers to any behavior or action that assists the addict in the continuation of their addiction. Enabling can be either intentional or unintentional, but enabling behavior allows the addict to continue their destructive behavior. An example of enabling behavior is a man or woman who, although they verbally disapprove of their spouse's drinking, repeatedly will go out and purchases alcohol for him/her. Frequently enablers tell psychiatrists that they "only want to help" or that they are "afraid" of what will happen to them if they don't do the things that help the addict (e.g., the addict will beat them up or hurt them in some way).

From this site about Alcoholism, an interested person can find out if his or her behavior makes them an enabler. Here are a few questions that one might ask:
1. Have you ever "called in sick" for the alcoholic, lying about his symptoms?
2. Have you accepted part of the blame for his (or her) drinking or behavior?
3. Have you avoided talking about his drinking out of fear of his response?
4. Have you bailed him out of jail or paid for his legal fees?
5. Have you paid bills that he was supposed to have paid himself?
6. Have you loaned him money?
7. Have you tried drinking with him in hopes of strengthening the relationship?
8. Have you given him "one more chance" and then another and another?
9. Have you threatened to leave and didn't?
10. Have you finished a job or project that the alcoholic failed to complete himself?
Of course, if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you at some point in time have enabled the alcoholic to avoid his own responsibilities. Rather than "help" the alcoholic, you have actually made it easier for him to get worse.
If you answered "yes" to most or all of these questions, you have not only enabled the alcoholic, you have probably become a major contributor to the growing and continuing problem and chances are have become effected by the disease yourself.

I would like to propose a corollary use of "enabling"--to refer to those individuals who intentionally or unintentionally behave in such a way as to encourage terrorists and terrorism.

Asking the same questions can be revealing:
1. Have you ever made excuses for terrorists or terrorism ?
2. Have you ever accepted part of the blame for the terrorist's behavior? Examples: after 9/11 the Left responded by demanding that we look at the "root causes" of terrorism and there was a chorus of "America's policies are to blame". Or, for more indepth discussion go here, here, and here, and here)

3. Have you avoided talking about terrorism--even avoided using the word "terrorist"--because you are afraid of the response terror groups might have or just because it is politically correct?
Let's see if we can identify all the words being used for "terrorist" (except, of course, the word "terrorist") - rebel, insurgent, militant, militia, guerrilla,freedom-fighter, minutemen(a la Michael Moore), hostage-takers. It is totally breathtaking the amount of effort that is being expended to AVOID using the "T" word. It has become the new political correctness. Is there any doubt that it enables murderers? RantingProfs has some good analysis.

4. Have you bailed a terrorist out of jail, or paid his legal fees?
5. Have you provided financial support or aid to terrorist groups or regimes that support terrorism?
6. Have you loaned money to terrorists or regimes that support terrorism?
Well, we have seen this over and over again. Germany releasing the Islamofascists involved in 9/11 because we wouldn't permit access to a key witness in our custody; our own Supreme Court saying that they are entitled to the same priveliges and legal options as citizens of the US (there can be reasonable debate about this issue, but there is no doubt that this kind of decision--IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR--only helps the enemy and enables them to continue to harm us); Our own foreign policy prior to 9/11 consisted of giving money to the Middle Eastern dictators (Egypt comes instantly to mind); the people in this country who unwittingly gave money to charities that purported to help muslim/palestinian children etc. etc.

7. Have you marched in solidarity with terrorists, even to the point of participating in acts or encouraging acts of terrorism against others?
ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice ; this letter to Glenn Reynolds is a good example; and numerous other organizations that probably actually believe in their mottos.

8. Have you given terrorists or regimes that support terrorism "one more chance" and then another and another?
This one is so obvious that it requires only two words: United Nations

9. Have you threatened to be tough with a regime that supports terrorism and then weren't?
Every European country comes to mind; US policy for decades also was a textbook example of waffling behavior in this area. At least we seem to have stopped for the most part.

10. Have you finished something like a project or job for a terrorist or a terrorist regime who wasn't able to finish himself?
France supporting the development of the Iran nuclear plants is one example; Companies that continue to support the oil industry in Saudi Arabia (they don't have the technical expertise in the country); continued financial support for dictators (and the US has had its share of guilt in this behavior).

As you can see, there are many Terrorism Enablers around. Some of these people truly don't have a clue that their behavior is not all sweetness and light and that it encourages the exact opposite of what they think it does (e.g., some of the innocent groups--like the Episcopal Church--who are members of "United for Peace and Justice"). These "Do-gooders" are usually completely deluded about the nature of the terrorist and often cry that we must "try to understand" why the terrorists are angry at us and want to kill us. They believe that with enough soul-searching we can discover how to change ourselves and the terrorism will then cease. They are the same "useful idiots" who said the same things about communism and socialism in the last century as communist and socialist regimes murdered millions and enslaved even more. They are the pacificists and the genuinely good people who continue to maintain a denial so intense that they cannot see that they are supporting Evil.

A second kind of Terrorist Enabler is an individual or group engaging in enabling behaviors for manipulative reasons and for personal gain--primarily because it is financially or politically beneficial for them in the short run. They are deluding themselves as they appease the terrorists or the regimes that support terrorism so that they can earn a few more bucks from them; or politically benefit from opposing efforts to stop terrorists. In truth, they cynically doubt that the terrorist are really "all that bad", and believe that by befriending them, they can have the best of both worlds.

And then there is the third kind of Terrorist Enabler. This kind is as morally reprehensible as the terrorists themselves because their motivation is one with the terrorist. They do their enabling because they gain sadistic pleasure from the acts of death and destruction that terrorism involves, yet since they don't directly participate in these actions, they consider themselves not responsible. They know that they are supporting terrorism and terrorist regimes, and that is why they behave the way they do. They hate freedom and indivudality; they hate their own country and desperately wish for its destruction. For them I have no sympathy and I feel nothing but the same contempt and revulsion that the subhuman terrorists engender within me.

So, are you an enabler? Is the newspaper you read or the TV station you tune into; or the actor/singer/comedian you idolize an enabler of terrorism? If you think this doesn't matter, you are fooling yourself--just as the woman who buys the alcohol for her alcoholic husband is fooling herself. Someday in a drunken rage, he will beat her up--even kill her. Her efforts at appeasement are folly and they only encourage the very thing she fears.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

-Edmund Burke

Strong Poison

There is about to be an onslaught by the Democrats targeting Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service during Vietnam. The old accusations will be dredged up again and a flurry of activity is planned. It started with this editorial by the "art critic" of the NY Times, Frank Rich (too bad its not Frank Smart) claiming that Bush is the real sissie for only training to be a fighter pilot. It will continue with the Today Show airing an interview with Kitty Kelley, author of such memorable works as The Royals--not sold in the U.K. for obvious reasons; and Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography who will talk about her new book on Bush, which will of course reveal all his alcohol use and (gasp) his and Laura's (!) alleged use (alleged by his ex-sister-in-law apparently) of cocaine and other substances. Then tomorrow sometime a new group, called "Texans for Truth" (or maybe it is "Texans for Kerry" --I'm not sure) will air an ad about Bush dredging up the old AWOL/deserter accusations (I don't have a link yet). WOW! I simply cannot wait to inhale it all.

If you would like the antidote to all this poison, this article should do it. It simply re-states all the facts AGAIN (how many times do we have to go through this???), and points out some things that the National News Media continues to want to ignore--like how the Air National Guard works and how that is different from the regular military. for example.

And, while we are on the subject: it is now 38 days and counting since John Kerry has faced a single reporter to answer questions about his military service in Vietnam and the inconsistencies in his Cambodia story; questions about his self-inflicted wounds and purple hearts and all that jazz. Clearly the Media has tried desperately to ignore all of this and can only be grateful that Kerry is deflecting attention by going on the attack (Hey! Its OK if Kerry does it, right?)

Hero

Just to know that people like Yanis Kanidis existed brings hope to the rest of us.

"In an act of unlimited devotion and dedication, to the bitter end, an elderly teacher insisted on remaining with his students. He protected them, bandaged their wounds, and with his death, saved their lives.
Children who escaped from the school told of how they owed their lived to elderly Yanis (Ivan) Kanidis, age 74 – a man of Greek origin who worked as a gym teacher at the school. He was among the hundreds of teachers, students and parents taken hostage last week when Chechen rebels invaded the large school.
On Thursday, in what was an unusual humanitarian move in the midst of the horror, the terrorists agreed to allow a group of women and babies to leave the building. The commander of the terrorist squad, saw Kanidis -- a sickly elderly man -- and offered to allow him to walk free as well.
But Kanidis refused. “I will stay with my students till the end,” the teacher insisted.
“Whatever you say,” said the terrorist, dismissing him with a wave of the hand."

Read the whole story. This was the kind of man whose truly heroic behavior against monstrous evil can truly inspire us to hope in these dark times.

Look In The Mirror

Over and over again we see the Left proposing that it is the Right who is the origin of hate, war, and suffering. That the Right is taking us to Hitler's Germany. They repeat this mantra like it was a holy chant from the holy book of the Left.

While granting that there is certainly a lot of hate in individuals of both sides (hate, after all, is a HUMAN emotion and all of us are human), the interesting thing about the hate that the Left generates is that it is disguised and self-righteous. It is then "projected" onto the Right, so that the Left does not have to take any responsibiity for it--for they are pure and holy. Their way of viewing the world is the only correct way, so their analogy of Bush=Hitler is not "hate", but gospel truth. This way they never, ever need to examine their own emotions; their own beliefs, or their own premises.

Again, reasonable people can admit that both Bush and Kerry are flawed men. But each represents a significantly different way of viewing reality and a marked difference in dealing with it. Bush is direct, confrontational and focused on the facts. Kerry is nuanced (indirect); passive; and in denial. One is living in the first decade of the 21st century. The other is stuck in the 7th decade of the 20th century.
Some part of the Left recognizes that something dreadful is going on in the world, but they cannot face it directly because it is too threatening to their world-view and their holy scripture; and facing the truth might make them have to go into their heart of hearts to examine the origins of that dreadful terror. Hence the need to displace their anxiety to a less threatening authority figure (e.g., Bush) is easier than facing the source of their anxiety.

These three psychological mechanisms (projection, denial, and displacement) are the source of almost all human misery, genocide, racism, anti-semitism, sexism, and now terrorism that we see all over the world. If the Left wants to know where they originate, then need to look in the mirror.

The Essential Question Now Being Asked--Even By Liberals

Honest people are beginning to "get it". Nat Hentoff writes in his most recent column:

Although Kerry campaign officials insist they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records." On tumultuous cable talk shows, Kerry defenders repeatedly maintained that all of Mr. Kerry's Vietnam records are on his Web site. But, writes Mr. Dobbs:

"A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least 100 pages."

What is in these 100-plus pages? Since the centerpiece of Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign is not his 20-year Senate career, but what he did in Vietnam, including his medals, aren't voters entitled to look at the entire record? If not, why?

This is the essential question. What is Senator Kerry hiding? There must be a reason why he has so vociferously resisted releasing these records through the years. There must be a reason why every time the issue comes up, Kerry attacks his questioners. Release ALL the records, Mr. Kerry and this will all go away if you have been telling us the truth. Go in front of reporters and answer questions about your Vietnam record, Mr. Kerry. It has been one month, 5 days and counting since you had the nerve to face them.

Of course, if you are too scared to answer questions and insist that everyone who questions your military service is "smearing you"; if you haven't been telling us the truth and have been hiding behind the hope that your lies and distortion could never come to light---then you are definitely "French Toast".

Appeaser Disbelief

C'est l'appeasement


From the fabulous Cox and Forkum

The "Girlie Women" of Today's Feminist Movement

Once upon a time, the Feminist Movement actually stood for something. I remember when I was in Medical School in the early 70's. Those of you who can remember that far back (you know, during the Vietnam war?? The one that Kerry fought in??) might remember that at the time every medical school in the U.S. was overwhelmingly male-dominated. "Doctors Wanted: No Women Need Apply" was a book that documented the systemic exclusion of women from the medical profession. In my class at UCLA of 105 people, only a small handful were women. The Women's Movement of the day stood up proudly to support and encourage women: "I am woman, hear me roar--in numbers too big to ignore..." I was proud to be a Feminist then, when the agenda was women's rights. That was when Feminists were arguing that women need NOT be victims; and told them to stand up and live up to the best within themselves.

There is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the very same Feminist Movement that I supported back then was instrumental in mobilizing and encouraging women to reach for the stars. One small measure of the success of that movement is that most medical school classes today are 50% or greater composed of women! There is no systematic discrimination any more that keeps women out of medicine. Women are in every medical specialty. They have become presidents of universities and professional societies; deans of medical schools and chairwomen of departments. This is really wonderful.

The bad news is that the Feminist Movement never realized that the mission had been mostly accomplished. The women who want to become professionals--or do anything for that matter--can do it--including becoming wives and mothers if they choose. The war is won, but the Feminist Movement continues to battle on, oblivious to that fact.

The main justification for their battles these days are to support the cult of victimhood that they have created among women. They have become like a mother once happy to nurture her child and help her leave the nest and go joyfully off to lead her own life; but now extremely bitter and resentful about the fact that her daughter doesn't need her anymore. Feminists have now dedicated their lives to convincing women that they really don't have any power; aren't capable of living and working equally among men; and encouraging them in demanding the "rights" that will ensure women who embrace their party line will be regarded by any person of reason and responsibility as complete losers and whiners.

Because now, the "Feminists" (and today, I use the term with contempt) have a strict party line. Apparently, if you are NOT a Democrat, or more generally, a person on the left side of the political spectrum, THEN YOU ARE NOT A WOMAN WHO COUNTS. If you are the National Security Advisor in a Republican Adminstration and happen to be a woman--and not only that, a black woman--you don't count (as either a woman or a black). If you are a REPUBLICAN nominee for the Judiciary and a woman--YOU DON'T COUNT. YOU DON'T COUNT if you happen to disagree with them on any issue. Indeed, the Feminist Movement of today is a bizarre parody of the women's movement that once supported and encouraged women like me back in the 70's. Like the mother I mentioned above, this group has now become outraged that I and others like me have excelled and dared to have my own ideas about how things should be in the world. Dared to disagree with them. Dared to grow up and live my own life.

The only "rape" of the Feminist Movement has been by women (though it can hardly qualify as "rape" since it has been consensual) who now proclaim that all women are "victims" and that there is only one correct way to be a woman; only one way to think, and only one way to vote. While they whine and posture, parading around New York in pink, lacy underwear with "bush" on the crotch, real women (not these "girlie women") have supported a President who has liberated millions of women in Afghanistan from the most brutal misogynist regime in history. How amazing that George W. Bush is more of a real feminist than any of these losers.

Don't Get Cocky

Its time for Republicans to heed Han Solo's advice to Luke Skywalker: "Don't get cocky, kid." Practically every pro-Bush blog, pundit, and person is feeling pretty good right now. Bush is way up in the polls; Kerry's campaign appears to be in "meltdown", and all the signs and potents seem very favorable. The only problem is that the election is still two months away.

What has to be done now is to KEEP THE PRESSURE ON. The question is how? Here is what I think will do the trick:

• Support the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They must keep their pressure on the Kerry campaign and not let him get away with ducking the issues their group is bringing up. On a psychological note--this is Kerry's Achilles' heel. He seems to be blind to the fact that by his not answering the charges (he has gone over 1 month and still counting...and not talked to a single reporter) he gives further fuel to them. Without an explanation of his excellent non-adventure in Cambodia; the conflicting stories he has told about his service and the changing medal citations; people are going to believe the Vets. Additionally, his anti-war stance while still a Naval Officer; and his complete trashing of fellow veterans in Vietnam, is not something that people are going to forget. What is so astonishing is that he KEEPS BRINGING BOTH ISSUES UP INDIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC ! He can't stop talking about how heroic he was in Vietnam even when it is clearly hurting him. He has no insight into his behavior and thus, this is a big area of vulnerability.
• Fred Barnes has an interesting comment in his column: apparently the speech at the RNC that most "wowed" the general public, was President Bush's !

Whose speech got the more favorable reaction? Bush's. Really. At 17 focus groups organized by Democratic consultant Bob Beckel in battleground states, voters were mesmerized by Bush, especially when he talked about the war on terror. At an MSNBC focus group in Cincinnati run by pollster Frank Luntz, 13 of 21 undecided voters jumped to Bush after hearing his speech.

This tells us that people want to hear from Bush about what he is thinking. They want to understand his decisions and what leads him to make those decisions. President Bush needs to communicate this over and over again to the public. He needs to explain again and again why he went to Afghanistan; why he went to Iraq; Why Iraq is important in the War on Terror; and even more importantly, why the U.S. must be the carrier of the torch of Liberty for the world. And then, secondarily, he must tie this belief in Freedom and Liberty to his policies at home. He must show that while we bring Liberty to others on the planet, we should not be eroding Freedom here in our own country by ever-expanding government and reliance on government to solve all economic and social problems.

• Finally, Bush and members of his administration must remain Presidential. They need to stay on message and not use any of Kerry's own tactics to denigrate Kerry. I think we will see a lot of personal attacks from Kerry and Edwards on Bush and Cheney. I believe that Bush must continue to do what he has done: praise Kerry's military service--even talk deferentially about it--and focus any direct attacks on Kerry's record post-Vietnam. If possible, continue to make light of Kerry and Edwards; mock their inconsistencies and make self-effacing jokes while doing it.

We have two months more to go until we can relax. Anything can happen in that time--both for Bush and against him. But, if Republicans stay on message; resist the urge to strike back at Kerry's attacks; and continue to press him on his senate record--well, then it will be time to be a little cocky; and pretty proud of an America that still listens to reason and can understand the reality of the world and is willing to lead it to Freedom and victory over Terrorism.

Feel the Hate, Indeed

Paul Krugman obviously was too busy "feeling the hate" from the Republican National Convention to be able to work up much of a negative emotional sweat about the terrorist massacre in Beslan. Someday, I hope people like him will rot in a special place in hell.

Russia 9/11

Words simply cannot express....


by Daryl Cagle

Are Jihadis Smarter Than The Liberal Left?

Well, you gotta say this for the Jihadis: at least they know they are at war with us. Consider the Left Wing of the Democratic Party (or is that redundant?). They haven't figured that simple fact out yet. Neither has much of Europe, despite 9/11, despite Madrid; and now despite Russia. The terrorists are so certain that noone in Europe cares much, they're even holding a conference!

The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the extremist Islamic movement Al-Muhajiroun has announced a convention in London, titled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," to mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The organization had planned a similar anniversary event a year ago, called "The Magnificent 19 [Suicide Attackers]," but had cancelled it at the last minute. (Emphasis mine)

Sounds like a real hoot. Do you think that some of the protestors at the Republican National Convention might like to protest here? Or, maybe some of them intend to register for the meeting? If so, here is a guide for them. on the politically correct way to think about terrorism.

OUCH !

I wonder how long John Kerry can avoid speaking to any reporters?? 34 days and counting, so far. And, THIS HAS GOT TO HURT.... (via Instapundit)

Terrorist Math

As we await the death and casualty count from the Russian School in Beslan....


From Cox and Forknum

A Lesson in Narcississtic Rage

Let me give a mini-lecture. Here are some characteristics of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
A pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy;
A narcissistic individual is grandiose in their sense of self-importance and exaggerates their achievements and talents. He expects to be recognized as superior without achieving any great accomplishments;
A narcissistic individual is preoccupied with fantasies of his brilliance as well as his unlimited success or power. He fantasizes about beauty or ideal love;
A narcissistic individual believes that he is "special" or "unique." He feels that he can only be understood by or should associate with other special or high status people;
A narcissistic individual requires excessive admiration and is on a constant search for
admiration;
A narcissistic individual has a sense of entitlement. He has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment and expect others to automatically comply with his wishes;
A narcissistic individual takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends and uses others without regards to the feelings of others;
A narcissistic individual lacks empathy and does not identify with the feelings or needs of others; A narcissstic individual is envious of others and believes that others are envious of him;
A narcissistic individual shows arrogant or haughty behaviors or attitudes and does not care who he offends. (emphasis mine)

A narcissistic injury occurs when someone defeats or criticizes the narcissistic individual. The narcissist may not show it outwardly, but he is haunted by criticisms and defeats. When a narcissistic injury occurs, the narcissist begins to feel empty, degraded, and humiliated and he is capable of retaliating with narcissistic rage. His reactions constitute disdain or defiant attacks.

What we witnessed last night at midnight --if you bothered to stay up you heard it; if not, you heard it this morning on the news--was an outbreak of narcissistic rage from John Kerry who simply cannot believe that anyone could possibly question anything the candidate has said or done in the past. See Here and Here for details.

From the NY Times:

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief,'' Mr. Kerry said. ``Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.''

So there you have it. That's the best that Mr. Kerry can do. He has reached deep within his soul and...found it empty. In a time of world chaos, where there is a current war against an impacable enemy who doesn't care about the number of innocents they murder and who would destroy millions of Americans if they had the chance, John Kerry is obsessed with a war he was in 35 years ago. While the Republicans concentrated on an agenda of promoting freedom and liberty and NEVER ONCE CALLED INTO QUESTION MR. KERRY'S SERVICE IN VIETNAM (his behavior since then was, of course, fair game), Mr. Kerry called the President and Vice President "liars", and suggesting that they were only in it for their own personal gain; even condoning his supporters comparing Bush to Hitler and worse.

You see, Kerry's sense of entitlement knows no bounds. His unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment has been fully nurtured by a timid press, reluctant to question Kerry's fantasies of brilliance. Noone is permitted to question him or his achievements. But he seems to think that he can question their honor and motivations with impunity. In his arrogant and haughty behavior toward his fellow Vietnam veterans, he has demonstratedthat he could care less who he offends. He needs admiration so very much that he simply can't bear a few months where some of his less than admirable behavior over the last 30 years is examined (his frightening "sensitivity" on this issue makes you wonder how he would have fared over the last three years with the level of rage, hostility and denunciations which have been relentlessly directed at President Bush. One suspects he would have completely fallen to pieces the first time France didn't like what he did).

There is nothing more important to John Kerry than to make sure his image as an heroic Vietnam vet is protected.

And yes, there is nothing more important to John Kerry than...John Kerry.

The Truth? They Can't Handle The Truth

Why is anyone surprised that Fox News has beat out ABC, NBC, CBS, and the other two cable news networks in viewers for the RNC?? I have been saying for months that Brit Hume and crew are THE BEST NEWS SERVICE ON TELEVISION.

"That marked what is believed to be the first time a cable channel has grabbed the biggest audience for a telecast of a single event covered by all the networks, Fox said.
Combined viewership during the 10 o'clock hour in which the Big Three joined cable outlets Fox News, CNN and MSNBC in carrying Tuesday's proceedings totaled nearly 22.2 million, according to Nielsen Media Research.
That was up from the 18.5 million six-network total for the first night of the Democratic convention in July, when former President Bill Clinton addressed the delegates.
NBC was a close second behind Fox with 5.1 million viewers, followed by CBS with 4.4 million and ABC with 4.3 million. NBC's sister cable network, MSNBC, was fifth with 1.6 million viewers, and CNN was dead last with 1.5 million.
As they did for the Democrats in Boston, the broadcast networks are limiting their prime-time coverage of the Republican convention in New York to one hour a night for three nights and skipping one evening of the event altogether. The three cable outlets are offering gavel-to-gavel coverage."

I hate the way ALL the cable news outlets play up stories like the Peterson and Bryant Trials, as well as all the trivial news of the day--and that includes Fox. Nothing irritates me more than having to watch high/low speed chases in various parts of the country-- although I know when I turn on the TV and see that, nothing really important must be happening. But one of the things I really, really like about Fox News is that they actually call terrorists "terrorists"--not "insurgents", not "militants", not "rebels" etc., etc. etc. They also frequently refer to suicide bombers as "homicide bombers"--another good reality check.

You may not agree with some of the positions taken by the individual reporters; you may not like that they include positions on both sides of almost every issue; but what's important is that Fox News is the only station that consistently airs the stories that matter and provides context and clarity, as well as debate and diversity.
I have talked about Fox News before (here, for example). I understand that the protestors in NYC had a demonstration against Fox, as well as against the RNC. They say they want the truth, and that Fox News should be silenced. Why? It's simple. They can't handle the truth.

NPR : Up The Creek Without A Paddle

Why do I torture myself every morning by listening to NPR? This morning, buried till the end of their newscast was an "update" on what they called the "Russian school hostage crisis". If you didn't know the story, the headline would make you think it was a Russian Columbine. Not one iota of new information from yesterday. The Chechen Islamic Extremists are called "Chechen militants". And bizarrely, NPR states that "no one is certain what the militants are asking for." Of course, they make clear that the "children are being treated well, so far" (this supposedly from phone calls from hostages inside to their parents); while at the same time that no food or drink or medicine has been allowed to be delivered. Can you imagine a toddler who has had no food for 30+ hours? Or one with asthma, not able to take his daily medicine? GIVE ME A BREAK. These "militant" has said repeatedly what they want. They have mined the lawn with explosives; they have mined the auditorium where the hostages are with explosives (BTW, NPR didn't bother to mention these two irrelevant facts--after all, they wouldn't want to be "biased" against these Islamic thugs). Did they mention that the "militant" are gleefully holding up small children to the windows, just in case there are some military snipers outside? Or, that parents are outside weeping with anxiety about their children? No. Just that the "militants" were treating the kids ok.

I get more information in one stroke of my keypad than NPR appears capable of giving. If you want to find out what's going on, go here; or here. The former link is getting regular updates from Russian news media (something I guess is too difficult for the NPR folks). The latter gives a good summary so far. Did I mention that 8 people --including children--have so far been killed? NPR didn't mention it either.

We pay for this with our tax money????

The Curse Has Come Upon Us

I suspect that THIS or an even worse variant of it is what al Qaeda would like to be doing in the United States.

Did you know that Koranic (rhymes with "moronic") scholars have determined that it is OK to kill 4 million women, children and men (specifying that up to 2 million can be children)? That is is OK to leave up to 8 million homeless? And a few hundred thousand maimed and crippled? Can you imagine human beings spending their time calculating things like this?

It is almost banal to talk about the Curse of Evil these days, with all the vile incidents and insane psychopathic people who perpetrate them. We are used to speaking this way about lone serial killers, who up until recently were monstrous enough for our sensibilities. But the religion of Islam has created a meta-Evil -- an "uber" malignancy that has no corollary in history.
Certainly there have been historical events that intimated the evil that men are capable of. The Holocaust in WWII instantly comes to mind. And until the early 21st Century, Hitler was the epitome of the worse evil imagined by the race of mankind.

But we are talking about people who are planning the deliberate extermination of millions of people for the alleged wrongs done to them; and because of the simultaneous envy and hatred they feel for America and its values. Who justify their murderous rage with decorous, formal religious language and repeated invocations stating how great their god is. Compared to these religious fanatics, Hitler was a piker. This is not a Curse upon Jews or Christians, but a Curse upon Mankind.

What is most frightening is that they combine religious primitivism with technological sophistication. As they search for the perfect weapon to confer mass death, destruction and mayhem what will we be doing? Will we passively sit and wait for their plans to come to fruition? Like the Lady of Shalott, will we let this curse come upon us and lay ourselves down to die in hopelessness and resignation?

As they plan the death of YOUR child, what will you be doing?

As the Russians are finding out, once the terrorists have the children it is already too late to do anything and still be able to save them. I hope someone--anyone-- can think of a way, but it seems to me that the situation defies peaceful solution and can only end in tragedy.

So, what will you do?

And down the river's dim expanse
Like some bold seer in a trance,
Seeing all his own mischance--
With a glassy countenance
Did she look to Camelot.
And at the closing of the day
She loosed the chain, and down she lay;
The broad stream bore her far away,
The Lady of Shalott...

Heard a carol, mournful, holy,
Chanted loudly, chanted lowly,
Till her blood was frozen slowly,
And her eyes were darkened wholly,
Turned to towered Camelot.
For ere she reached upon the tide
The first house by the water-side,
Singing in her song she died,
The Lady of Shalott.

The War On Rats and Roaches

This is the BEST explanation of why President Bush might comment that maybe we won't win the war on terror... at least not the way we would like to:

"Mankind is not soon going to "win" the war on rats and roaches, either."

How true.

Read the entire link above. You'll enjoy their take on the wimpy NYC protestors.

Dueling Daughters !

It might be better for both campaigns if the adult children of the candidates kept out of the limelight...HAH! As if that would happen.

I'm sure this is what my brothers Paul and Skip are thinking right about now!
Hey! If I can't insult my own brothers on my blog, who can I insult??

Welcome To The Real World

It is a psychological axiom that "Change is Difficult", and that people by their very natures will resist alteration of any kind. This is so axiomatic, in fact, that most of the time the horrible rightness of the saying is forgotten in the humdrum of our unwilling but necessary accommodations to everyday life.

I have always prided myself on being a person willing and even eager to embrace change. Take a new job? GREAT! Move to a new state? HOW EXCITING!

Recently, however, I have come to appreciate that I am not as flexible as I imagined. Nor, as it turns out, am I as even-tempered as I liked to be thought because as I scrambled to deal with one small change in my life--even though it was a relatively minor one-- I became absolutely enraged beyond all reason.

Without notice, and quite abruptly (it seemed to me) my supermarket (we have a large Kroger's here in Ann Arbor) completely changed the layout and design of its store! I was used to regularly popping in to pick up some juice; or vegetables; or just something I needed for a recipe for dinner that night. Then one day--OUT OF THE COMPLETE BLUE--I showed up and NOTHING was in the place it had been in for the last 5 years. I was in a foul mood anyway since something at work had annoyed me, so my temper flared into full-blown violent wrath simply because my usual 5 minute detour to the supermarket was taking 25 or 30 minutes.

And the thing was, I didn't hesitate to let everyone who worked there know about my anger and frustration. "How could you do this without any notice!" I moaned. "This is a nightmare!" I yelled at some hapless store worker who was trying to direct me to the soup section.
"What kind of morons decided to move everything to the opposite side of the store! " I stormed.

I was relentless in my pursuit of justice for my cause. In the car going home I fumed, thinking that I would take my business elsewhere from now on. Then I realized that if I went to a new store, I would have to learn where everything was anyway. But, I argued with myself, it would serve Kroger right if I took my business elsewhere? Hadn't they abandoned me? Weren't they making my life harder, and doing it deliberately so they could showcase all this stuff I didn't go to the grocery store for? (they had put up new sections with furniture--furniture!-- and expanded the book and magazine section, along with other non-grocery items).

It has been several weeks now. My anger is calmed somewhat, but all it takes to arouse it again is for some condiment whose proper location I used to readily know, to be found in what seems to me to be a location that only a lunatic would choose. The anger remains raw and unquenchable--right near the surface. After all, I have been betrayed.

It has taken me this long to begin to think about why such an insignificant change--and it really is insignificant--upsets me so much. I was used to things the way they were. It was convenient for me. It made my life easier for things to stay the way they were--for the canned corn to be dependably in Aisle 3. Kroger used to be so dependable....why, why would they betray me??

I stop for a moment lost in a blaze of insight. THIS, I think is what all those people are experiencing! If I could feel it about groceries, for God's sake, what must some people be feeling about the America since 9/11? George Bush has rearranged all those nice comfortable aisles. Diplomacy, which used to be on Aisle 1 is now in the back of Aisle 8. Things you never imagined would be in the store at all are upfront and right in your face. And it happened so suddenly! George Bush betrayed us! Here we were all complacent thinking we were so safe. Cozy and comfortable and predictable under the Clinton Administration.

EVERYTHING WAS SO PERFECT. SO DEPENDABLE. AND THEN IT CHANGED. WE WANT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE!

Oh, shit. Welcome to the real world....

Iraqi Talk Radio

I didn't realize that the Iraqis had talk radio now! Check this out. Apparently this show gets over 150 calls an hour. I was particularly struck by this comment:

Another time, he asked listeners what they thought about the insurgency that has roiled Iraq, claiming most of the energies of the new interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and putting the American occupation in danger of failure.
"We asked them, is it terrorism or is it resistance," he said. "A very large proportion, almost 100 percent, said terrorism. They did not like it."

So the Iraqis don't see these thugs as "resistance" or "freedom fighters" or "insurgents". They see them for what they are: terrorists. I can already see the liberal argument against this--it must be a right wing radio show that the Iraqis are listening to!

The Iraqis are discovering what we've known for a few hundred years: ain't free speech grand?