On fantasy

This brings us to what we might consider modern literature and two of the earliest exponents of early romance or fantasy are H. Rider Haggard and William Morris* who both developed the template for quest fantasy as we are familiar with it today. William Morris' fantasies owe something to Malory and medieval romance and Lin Carter calls The Wood Beyond the World (1894) with its sea voyage to a magical kingdom "the first great fantasy novel ever written". However, Morris' magnum opus is The Well At the World's End (1896), which clearly influenced Tolkien. This novel is set in a completely imaginary world and tells of a prince's quest to find the fountain of youth.

Morris defined what we now know as genre fantasy. Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom sequence, begun in 1912, started the heroic fantasy genre that was continued by Robert E. Howard in Conan the Conqueror (1935) whose hero was violent and barbaric. Far more mannered was The King of Elfland's Daughter by Lord Dunsany (1924) which was a direct descendent of William Morris and an inspiration to both E.R. Eddison and J.R.R. Tolkien.

One thing I always find interesting is how George MacDonald always goes unmentioned when it comes to discussions of modern fantasy literature. His first fantasy novel, Phantastes, was published in 1858, long before William Morris or Lord Dunsany, and his work was a far greater influence on seminal fantasy writers CS Lewis and JRR Tolkein than either Morris or Dunsany. In fact, the beginning of The Princess and the Goblin will be almost disturbingly familiar to anyone who has read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, as it involves a little girl wandering around a large house....

MacDonald clearly deserves far more credit than he is given, as he was publishing long before Jules Verne had first seen print and before HG Wells was even born. The fact that he was a minister and a prolific author of sermons may be one reason that the notoriously secular writers of fantasy are somewhat reluctant to recognize that their genre was first created by Christians.

*Morris was clearly familiar with MacDonald; he later acquired MacDonald's house and lived there.

Sometimes I hate being right

I had a sneaking suspicion that the salesguy didn't know what he was talking about, but since his opinion was backed up by the technical information on the company's web site, I decided to turn off my brain for a moment and for once in my life simply accept what someone who theoretically should know what he was talking about said.

So, I ordered a laptop with a 128-meg video card instead of the 256-meg one I was planning on buying, because I really didn't want a 17-inch screen. After all, I was assured, there's no way that the additional memory is needed, even if you're running a graphics intensive application.

Of course, the guy turns out to be completely wrong. Somewhere between 87 and 99 megs of uncompressed textures, we're falling off a performance cliff, because the 128-meg card can't handle the amount of 24-bit textures we're throwing at it. It's definitely the textures, because the geometry is the same and dropping down to 16-bit restores the performance. (This reduces the memory requirement by one-third, keeping us on the safe side of the cliff.)

It seems that the company is willing to rectify the error and allow me to swap out machines, but it's still annoying. First, because I really didn't want to lug a 17-inch beast around Second, because sometimes I really don't want to think, I just want someone to accurately tell me what my options are.

What George hath wrought

Robert Novak writes:

Sen. Arlen Specter, who moved right to stave off a conservative challenge in this year's Pennsylvania Republican primary, took a sharp left turn in a general election debate last weekend. Noting that he is in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter promised: "I can bring centrist judges to the bench." This contrasted with his primary campaign promise to back all of George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

Vote for George Bush, because he's going to nominate centrist judges of whom Arlen approves... that's got to have loads of appeal to Christian conservatives who still harbor the hope that Bush work to overturn Roe vs Wade. Of course, nearly everyone has forgotten by now that Bush personally interceded in the Republican senatorial nomination to ensure that Specter would stay in office.

The worst president ever

Drudge quotes Jonathan Chait:

In a LA TIMES column, Jonathan Chait blasts: "To say that I consider Bush a 'bad' president would be a severe understatement. I think he's bad in a way that redefines my understanding of the word 'bad.'

"I used to think U.S. history had many bad presidents. Now, my 'bad' category consists entirely of George W. Bush, with every previous president redefined as 'good.'

Now, I think it's pretty clear that I'm no Bush fan, nor will I be voting for him this November, but I don't think he's in the worst five at this point. Worse presidents, in declining order of awfulness, were:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
Ronald Reagan
Woodrow Wilson
Richard Nixon

Relax, I'm totally kidding about the one in the middle. But Jimmy Carter was definitely worse than W, as was Lyndon Baines Johnson. I do think W is worse than Clinton, but only because Bill was hamstrung by the once-Republican Congress and distracted by other matters.

The questionable lineage of St. Paul

Guerilla Monkey talks with Nick Coleman:

2:10 AM. The phone rings. Before I even answer I know who’s on the other end.

I pick it up and hear a man sobbing. It’s Nick Coleman. Again.

“Nick, do you know what time it is?”
“Yeah, G. and I’m sorry. It’s just…it’s them again. They're doing it again.”
“Who?”
“THEM! The #$@^% bloggies. They’re doing it again.
Bloggies? What the hell are bloggies?
“I tried to ignore them but the things they say. You wouldn’t believe the things they say about me. They’re so...so hurtful.”
“Listen, Nick, its late…”

Since readers of this blog tend to be a little more broad-based geographically, I should probably explain that Nick Coleman is a columnist for the Star Tribune - which is in Minneapolis - and combines a complete lack of writing talent with an insufferable sense of his own moral superiority. Amusingly, he's married to another columnist, Laura Billings of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, who is more than a bit of a ditz. She once wrote an entire column about how the USA could learn a lot from Britain about gun control, totally clueless with regards to the massive irony of that idea.

Why not?

VDH meditates on Iraq:

Our eventual aim should be perhaps around 50,000 American troops in the region — or not that many more present than when Saddam was in power. Even if the worst-case scenario were to transpire in January — an elected Islamist government ordering us to leave — we would still have plenty of alternatives. Beside not having to come through with the promised $87 billion in relief, we can also make it clear that an Islamist Iraq is subject to the same conditions as the mullocracy in Iran — veritable ostracism from the world community, prohibition from acquiring nuclear weapons, and internal problems from imposing sharia on a restless youth.

And the next time the United States uses force in the Middle East, we shall not do nation-building but rather serious GPS-ing at 20,000 feet in punitive Roman fashion. Indeed, despite the glum punditry, the sacrifice of blood and treasure to bring freedom to the Iraqis has been a landmark event by virtue of the very attempt.

I don't take any great exception to the learned VDH's conclusions, especially the notion of cutting off foreign aid, but I do wonder about one thing. If nation-building in Iraq was the good, wise and proper thing to do, why shouldn't we dive into the process again next time? After all, if Iraqis deserve democracy, don't Saudis, Iranians and Syrians too?

We apologize for the rampant colloquialisms

It's Big Week in our fantasy football league, with WB's Grizzlies going up against the dread Piranha in a cataclysmic battle for, (cough), last place. WB hurled a gauntlet by composing an ode to the upcoming game... it's obviously going to be up to JamieR to judge the off-the-field winner. This, by the way, may help explain a) why I don't get terribly worked up about my hate mail considering that it's usually tamer than what I hear from my best friends, and b) why Crystal need not fear me turning media whore.

Anyhow, if you find NWA to be outside your range of musical tastes, you'd probably do well to skip this post....

Staright outta Greenfield
Crazy motherfu(ker named Lonzelle
Sippin' gin and takin' Eurotrash to hell!
VD is sawed off
I got a tall Moss
Roy Williams gettin' corner backs hauled off

You too Vox if you fu(k wit' me
Four straight losses makin' iffy
Right to last
That how you goin' out
You and the Shimmer
League bitches gettin' blown out

Carson wants to rumble
He's gettin' humbled
Seattle D makes your punk ass fumble

You'd rather see me from more than a mile
Than right from behind doin' ya Mankato style

Yo weekly monthly yearly
That chick Ahman's gonna fear me
Deshaun Foster gettin' picked and peeled
And how we rollin'?
We're comin' straight outta Greenfield

Of course, I had no choice but to add a second verse, setting the record straight:

Straight outta Greenfield, crazy pansy ass White Buffalo
Got a team full of jack with a front ho
When he's called out, he turns about
Running away like a muthafukking girl scout
What you say, cos I can't hear you
How you like that last-place cellar view?
Loser mumbles, he thinks he rumbles
Giving me 10 DEF points off the fumbles
And he'll give it up right smooth
Because the Fish are always down for a jack move

That Lonzelle ain't so much bright
With a win record like Rich Kotite
First-round draft is the devilish tool
Making WB look a muthafukkin fool
Picked Randall C. back in 99
Followed by Warner-n-Holcomb in joint decline
So bad, weekly, monthly and yearly,
He's a dumb muthafukka, yo, clearly
That's him with the W-B
Who ever lost to him - nobody!
So when he's in your neighborhood, you're in luck
Coz Greenfield is sh!tty like fukk

Woof woof

Jonah Goldberg tries to defend the President on Iraq:

When Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair in May 2003 that the administration settled on the WMD issue for bureaucratic reasons, opponents of the war cynically distorted the interview to make it sound like the administration wasn't convinced about the WMD threat. What Wolfowitz was actually saying, very clearly, was that the WMD threat was the most palpable threat - the one that all the professionals could agree on it.

But that doesn't mean that Bush didn't offer numerous other rationales before and after the war. In major speeches he touted the importance of democratizing the Middle East. Administration officials pointed out that Saddam was the only world leader to applaud 9/11, and that he was a major source of funding for suicide bombers in Israel. They argued that removing Saddam would have a positive impact on the peace process. President Bush made a masterful case to the United Nations that, in the post-9/11 world, the world body could not afford to let a dictator - one who had gassed his own people and invaded a neighbor - flout its countless resolutions with impunity.

These rationales don't add up to 23, but who cares if they do? What important decisions have you ever made in your life that have depended on a single variable. We don't buy cars for a single reason. (Oh, it's blue! I'll take it!) Why should we launch a preemptive war for a single reason?

1. WMD: They haven't been found, they aren't in Iraq. There's no indication that Hussein was planning to use them against anyone, much less somehow strike the USA with them without missiles or long-range bombers. Given that many other countries have them, this is looking more and more ridiculous every day, which is no doubt why the administration is in active retreat on the issue and its defenders are trying desperately to point at other justifications.

2. Democracy in the Middle East: The administration is not advancing the freedom of self-determination, but is actively working to suppress it. It is forcibly keeping a fundamentally divided Iraq together, while attempting to install the same fraudulent system of vote-legitimization that is present in the USA, which is neither democracy nor Constitutional republicanism. Furthermore, the history of Algeria, Indonesia and Turkey demonstrate that even this mutated form of "democracy" has intrinsic conflicts with Islamic law.

3. Hussein was a major source of funding for suicide bombers in Israel: So is Saudi Arabia. The administration itself is funding Yasser Arafat, who sends out the suicide bombers; by this reasoning we should invade Washington DC. Not a bad idea, really, perhaps we could restore Constitutional government.

4. Removing Hussein would have a positive impact on the peace process: Yes, Israel and the Palestinians appear to be closer to peace than ever, don't they. That's just stupid.

5. The UN could not permit a dictator to flout its resolutions: So much for the notion that Bush is not a globalist lackey. This is not only a terrible justification that has nothing to do with America's national interest, but is in fact directly contrary to the long-term interest of American national sovereignty. To hear this expressed by a so-called conservative is troubling indeed.

There is only one reason that justifies preemptive action. A serious, imminent and direct threat to American national security. Iraq didn't even come close to meeting that requirement; one could have made a far better case for Saudi Arabia, Iran or North Korea. Interestingly enough, Goldberg says that those who criticize this president must also assert that Lincoln was wrong... with great pleasure, Jonah, with great pleasure.

Goldberg is one of my favorite writers on NRO, but it's been disappointing to see that he is more interested in defending a Republican president than sticking to the principles he expounded while Bill Clinton was in office.

Mailvox: tinfoil and the truth

BLS senses suspicion:

Vox, I'm confused by your posts. Your comments that Bush grounded the Air Force and that NORAD should have known what was going on in US airspace sound as if you believe Bush had prior knowledge of the attack but chose not to act.

Are you advancing a Coventry theory of 9/11? That Bush knew of the plan to use airliners as bombs but decided not to act in order to preserve some intel asset? Are you advancing a Psychopath theory? That Bush knew of the plan to use airliners as bombs but decided not to act because he's just plain evil?

What theory are you implying?

I'm implying nothing, simply stating some obvious facts and raising obvious questions. I don't know precisely what happened, nor with whom the responsibility lies. Bush did not ground the Air Force as far as I am aware, but the Air Force was grounded nevertheless, apparently due to the drill that NORAD was running. NORAD and the FAA almost certainly knew that something unusual was going on in US airspace, especially after the first plane turned off its transponder. Given that NORAD's system of radars and satellites can pick up very small objects and are designed to track very fast-moving missiles, it's the height of folly to insist they couldn't find four lumbering airliners whose maximum speed, takeoff time and takeoff location were known.

The truth will eventually come out, just as it has about Pearl Harbor and as it is in the process of doing with regards to OK City and TWA-800. And the official story will prove to be wrong in some significant manner, though precisely how I cannot say.

The frequently heard cry of "tinfoil" is nothing but the fearful cry of those who are afraid to look directly at the facts as they are. Governments have not only killed their own people before when they find it to be in their interest, but they do so with great regularity. In fact, 40 percent of the member states of the United Nations have killed a statistically significant percentage of their population in the last century, including "civilized" countries such as Spain, France, Germany and Mexico, as have the majority of the UN Security Council.

It is only the argument that the possibility of what is quite normal behavior for governments the world over is somehow unimaginable here that is crazy.

Homeschool or else...

The Department of Education engages in some petty fear-mongering:

The Education Department has advised school leaders nationwide to watch for people spying on their buildings or buses to help detect any possibility of terrorism like the deadly school siege in Russia. The warning follows an analysis by the FBI (news - web sites) and the Homeland Security Department of the siege that killed nearly 340 people, many of them students, in the city of Beslan last month.

"The horror of this attack may have created significant anxiety in our own country among parents, students, faculty staff and other community members," Deputy Education Secretary Eugene Hickok said in a letter to schools and education groups.

The safety advice is based on lessons learned from the Russia incident. But there is "no specific information indicating that there is a terrorist threat to any schools or universities in the United States," Hickok said. Federal law enforcement officials also have encouraged local police to stay in contact with school officials and have encouraged reporting of suspicious activities, the letter says.

In particular, schools were told to watch for activities that may be legitimate on their own — but may suggest a heightened terrorist threat if many of them occur. Among those activities:

Interest in obtaining site plans for schools, bus routes and attendance lists;

Indeed. I'm not exactly surprised....

Mailvox: 100 percent unrecommended

Porcus holds back the tears

I was sad to see Vox Popoli didn't make the NR 2004 Recommended Blog list.

I didn't even know that National Review had such a thing, but considering that only Ramesh responds to my emails these days, I wouldn't exactly have been holding my breath anyhow. I think, as did Ann Coulter and Joe Sobran before me, I've rendered myself beyond the pale in their eyes. So be it.

It would be difficult for me to be less concerned about it. I'd already ended up letting my subscription lapse since I wasn't even bothering to read the magazine anymore. I enjoy Goldberg, Nordlinger and Derbyshire, and I also like Ponnuru and VDH, but that's about it. They've turned into complete Republican lapdogs, for the most part, as capable of turning on a dime in response to their master's voice as their Democratic counterparts. I stopped by NRO today, as I usually do, and didn't see what looked like a single article worth reading.

Instead of standing athwart history shouting stop, they've been transformed into Three Monkey Republicans echoing Michael Ledeen. "Faster, please!"

Is he losing it?

Thomas Sowell writes:

Polarization is a high price to pay for high voter turnout. But efforts are already underway to scare old people that their Social Security is threatened, in order to get out their vote, when in fact nobody in his right mind is going to touch their Social Security....

That is an enormous responsibility at a time when Americans are in greater peril than even during the nuclear stand-off of the Cold War. After all, the Soviet Union could be deterred by our nuclear weapons but suicide bombers cannot be deterred by anything. And it may be only a matter of a few years before they have nuclear weapons....

Those who vote on the basis of what the government can do for them are especially short-sighted during a war against worldwide terror networks. What good would it do to get free prescription drugs forever if your forever is likely to be cut short by more attacks like those on September 11, 2001?

So, scare tactics about Social Security - which is mathematically doomed anyhow - are off-limits, but scare tactics about suicide bombers who don't possess nuclear weapons and aren't presently active in the United States are appropriate? The average American's odds of being killed by terrorists over the last three years run at about 0.00033 percent, or 3.3 per million, including 9/11. Those are odds that not even the most inveterate purchaser of lottery tickets would consider "likely". Moreover, the notion that nuclear armed suicide bombers are more dangerous than the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal ever was simply asinine.

I like Dr. Sowell and I own several of his books, but he has been on a very feeble streak of late. An intellectual with his grasp of history should immediately recognize the old, old scare tactic of tyranny through safety, not further it.

Mailvox: the red flag of punctuation

Liam the Obscure breaks his silence:

"I think taking a jab at punctuation or spelling always weakens your arguement."

I don't. I think systematically using improper punctuation and spelling brings the author's ability to think and breadth of knowledge into question. The occasional typo or habitual error - I always want to write judgement, judgment just looks wrong to me - is a complete non-issue, but serial and simple mistakes are another matter.

This doesn't necessarily discredit the author entirely, but it does serve to raise a red flag. One can be wise and ignorant, especially with the benefit of age and experience, but the two don't generally go hand-in-hand.

In any event, I loathe all these "weakens your argument" assertions. An argument is as strong as it is, all the rest is just window dressing. If someone seriously thinks my case against socialized health care is weakened by my prediliction for calling Hillary Clinton "the Lizard Queen", I have zero regard for their ability to reason. I've noticed that this school of thought often expresses the notion that Ann Coulter would be more "effective" if she would tone down her rhetoric, which is, of course, the height of idiocy given that it is Ann's rhetoric and style which have made her the most successful political writer in the nation.

It's a Vox thing, you wouldn't understand

Anonymous fails to penetrate the veil:

I will never understand why Vox takes such pleasure in twisting someone's hind most hairs. It's perverse. heaven forbid that someone should accuse him of being inconsistent. You might as well say he lied.

That's an interesting metaphor, and no doubt a Freudian would make great hay of it, but if you can't understand the pleasures of literary sadism, well, then you're probably not a writer. And considering that the column was fundamentally nothing but more homeschooling advocacy, inconsistency is a strange charge to level given my past record on the issue, unless one is focusing solely on the petty bits. Which Rat Spleen was, of course, doing.

The world is full of people that are going to misinterpret what you said no matter how clearly you say it. And there are some that are going to think you're just plain wrong. Get over it. Reality bites.

Now, this is ironic. As Rat Spleen himself writes: "Here's the neat part Vox, it was perfectly obvious only to someone with a good grasp of your personality and your viewpoints." Like, perhaps, the regular readers of my column? You see, I not only am not surprised that many people will misinterpret my writing, but I have learned to expect it. After three years, it doesn't even bother me anymore.

You're so defensive. Did Ratspleen have a point maybe? Could you be wrong? Could you be inconsistent? Heaven forbid...that would make you human. We wouldn't want that now would we? We'd all be terribly crushed.

Wrong about what? That children in public schools are at greater risk of terrorist attack than those being homeschooled? That the possession of the San Diego school district plans by an Iraqi in Iraq supposedly linked with terrorists is highly suspicious? I certainly CAN be inconsistent and incorrect, I just don't see any explanation of HOW I was either, except in utilizing the fear-mongering tactics of the other side, which I certainly did in sarcasm.

As for being "defensive", I am simply defending myself against Rat Spleen's charges, as it would be both inconsistent and hypocritical to fail to do so in light of the way in which I have deplored Mrs. Malkin's ostrich imitation.

Petty fearmongering-R-US

Rat Spleen's attempted fisking goes horribly awry:

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Vox has abandoned his principles and partaken of the koolaid quagmire of fearmongering and situational ethics. To wit:

Then again, if one considers how TV shows such as "Law and Order" see fit to preach that homeschooled children are malnourished and abused little freaks, it seems only reasonable to point out in like manner that public schooled children are brainwashed, quasi-illiterate savages, with targets painted on their chests to boot.

The finest situational ethics one could hope to uphold, and perfect delivery to boot. In no uncertain terms Vox should quit his luvrative writing career and pursue career advancement as a political advisor (truth and sarcasm at once). Look at the impeccable logic. The nuance. The spin. Because a TV show makes fautuos accusations, I will to... Nice glass house there Vox, perfect for nurutring the indoor greenery.

Of course, if my column was facetious, which its over-the-top language from beginning to end should have made perfectly obvious, Rat Spleen's entire point about my abandonment of principle is incorrect. I was simply mocking the other side's typical argumentation by using its methods. A tad below the belt? Probably. I found the whole thing quite amusing, myself.

The terrorists have raised the stakes once again, targeting children to demonstrate how much they envy our freedom or whatever highly implausible motivation the Bush administration is imputing to the enemy today.

Hi, ho Silver! Away! The Religion of Peace (TM) has only ever had one target - the most emotionally expedient. No stakes were raised. The world didn't change on 9/11. It is as it always has been. Without a doubt, as someone with Vox's impeccable knowledge of history and current affairs, knows children have always been on the buffet table. It is truly a shame to watch this great luminary of Truth fall afoul of his own damnations.

Nothing changed on 9/11? You'd better tell the entire punditocracy that, not to mention the "we are at war" crowd. Have we been giving up our civil liberties for nothing, then? The possibility of children being targeted has always been there, but the reality was that only Jewish children had hitherto been actively targeted. Breslan and the South Baghdad bombings demonstrated that this possibility had become an actuality. There is a difference.

I'm just curious to know what the FBI has concluded that an Iraqi man was doing with the information in the first place, given that it is so sure that the thought of attacking a school had not even begun to consider the merest possibility of thinking about the prospect of crossing the man's mind. Perhaps it was an innocent coincidence, the gentleman simply happens to be in charge of crisis planning for the local madrassah and only wanted to be sure that its emergency plans were up to date and in line with those belonging to schools run by the Great Satan.

The final nail. (I believe this makes three - for the symmetry) This was public information you feckless dolt. What the heck were you doing with information on the wonders of war time production so recently? If you want to cry foul, cry foul at the fact that this information was public in the first place. In other words, suck it up and plainly state that the government should censor this information from the parents themselves - relieving them of full disclosure and input on the State's for the children - or stuff it.

That's nonsense, which Rat Spleen admits in the very next sentence that he does not believe. You have a perfect right to possess a butcher knife, but if you happen to possess a butcher knife while sneaking in your neighbor's window, you will likely be charged with far more than simple breaking-and-entering, especially if you have previously announced that you want to kill him.

In truth, I believe in my paranoid core that this cavedweller had purchase of the information for nefarious purpose, but it is the height of ignorance to condemn him for perusing public documents. It is no less the equivalent than supposing that an Iraqi with a copy of the Bill of Rights in his possession was looking for ways to undermine it to his advantage in overthrowing the Great Satan.

It doesn't mean you have to like the circumstance, but you have to acknowledge it with honesty. Doubly so, if you set yourself up as the paragon of The Truth and then engage in petty hysterical fearmongering. Three nails it is - the gauntlet is thrown - and your up on your cross, Pal. I hope you have enough integrity to state your position clearly - whether it be that of reason or of situational ethics.

My position on the public schools is quite clear. Liberate the students, demolish the buildings and send the teachers to Cuba. Perhaps if Rat Spleen's ability to identify sarcasm and black humor was not as limited as his ability to utilize proper punctuation, he would have realized that my column last week was nothing more than a wake-up jab at public school parents in the vein of the notorious ode to the Yellow Bus of Doom.

Blinded by love

Jay Nordlinger, when not confessing to extreme homoerotic affection for Dick Cheney and George Bush, complains:

Over and over, Edwards said that the administration had not told the truth. Basically, he called them liars, all night long. I was hoping Cheney would respond to that even once — with a little indignation, with a "How dare you?" But no.

I find it interesting that Three Monkey Republicans of Mr. Nordlinger's stripe never manage to even contemplate the possibility that the administration's representatives don't deny such charges because they are fully aware that they have, in numerous ways and with regards to numerous matters, failed to tell the truth.

Because they have to

...since Wife Swap and Trading Spouses focus on how each mom performs on the cooking/cleaning/childcare front, it's no surprise the stay-at-home moms look like wizards, while the working (or shopping) moms bumble around like Abbott and Costello. This is, of course, hilarious, but it ignores the fact that most women work because they have to. Turning those women into villains moves the feminist debate sideways, rather than forward.

The surprise in both shows is that some people actually do change. When Jodi simply offloads all the cleaning and cooking onto Lynn's husband, Brad, he does it. And suddenly realizes what his wife has endured for years. He recognizes what a jerk he's been in expecting either Jodi, or his wife, to do all the housework alone. Even Jodi has a tender moment with the Bradley girls and some cookie batter—generously recognizing that both cooking and children are not just for poor people anymore.

Steve Spolansky has no such revelation—not even when his young son's face lights up like heartbreak in Yankee Stadium on learning his dad might actually be dining at home for a week. Steve dismisses Lynn and her values as "hillbilly." He's worked hard for the right to neglect his kids and disparage his bride. Confronted with a "good mom," he writes her off as an anachronism. Steve's failure to learn anything from the swap stands in stark contrast to Brad's realization that he treated Lynn like a doormat, to Lynn's realization that she allowed herself to be treated like a doormat, and to Jodi's realization that her kids aren't short houseplants.

This is all a vaguely interesting form of social experiment as long as I don't have to watch any of it. But what I found interesting about this article on Slate was the admission that "most women work because they have to." And why is that?

Because inflation and taxes have dramatically increased the family cost of living. Why have inflation and taxes increased?

Because the government is creating and spending more money. Why is the government creating and spending more money?

Because the voting populace demands it. Why does the voting populace demand it? I'll answer in the form of a question. What is the single greatest change in the voting populace in the time that government spending per capita has increased 250-fold and the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value after remaining essentially stable over its first 120 years?

I leave it to you to figure it out.

Moloch rising

Chuck Colson writes:

According to Wesley J. Smith in the Daily Standard, Groningen University Hospital in the Netherlands now officially allows doctors to euthanize children under twelve, “if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness.” That includes non-fatal illnesses and disabilities. Whether or not the child can consent is irrelevant—what child under twelve would have a clear idea of what he or she was consenting to?

As Smith writes, “For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of medical ethics in the Netherlands, this isn’t at all shocking. . . . Doctors were [already] killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who died each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately eighty to ninety per year. Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least ten to fifteen of these killings involved infants who did not require life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.” Smith adds that at least a fifth of the killings were performed without parental consent.

There are those who still believe that the United States is a blessed nation, that it is somehow a morally superior country. They believe this mostly because the USA is materially prosperous. They should keep in mind that so are the appropriately named Netherlands.

George Lucas hates you

THE 1997 SPECIAL EDITION release of Star Wars included a new scene where Han Solo encounters Jabba the Hut on Tatooine. Solo owes Jabba money, and has just killed a bounty hunter sent after him by the Hut. Running into one another in a hangar, Solo and Jabba banter and eventually reach an agreement whereby Jabba lets him go on the condition that Solo repay him with hefty interest.

This seems like a small change, but it sets off a chain reaction which undermines the basic arc of Han Solo's character: Throughout the Star Wars series, Solo is on the run from an implacable gangster who wants him dead. This deathmark influences his decisions and is what makes him a skittish, mercenary scoundrel. Solo is the type of guy who has to look around every corner. But now that he has a deal with Jabba the Hut, none of that makes sense. Han isn't being chased by bounty hunters and can go square with Jabba any time he likes. As a result, his character loses a good bit of danger and romance.

(As an aside, it's worth noting that this new scene also manages to confuse the character of Jabba himself. When the great Hut made his first appearance in 1983 in Return of the Jedi, he
is a crass, stupid bully. In the Special Edition scene grafted onto the original Star Wars, he's a smooth-talking, genial Mafioso. Will the real Jabba please stand up?)

...it is a measure of the deleterious effects of Lucas's tinkering (and the awfulness of the prequels) that it is difficult to care about Star Wars anymore. Twenty years ago that would have sounded like heresy. People growing up in the 1970s and '80s committed Star Wars to memory and developed a cult around the movies (for instance, the band which performs the theme song to Buffy the Vampire Slayer is called "Nerf Herder," an epithet Leia uses to describe Han in Empire). Strangely enough, the cultural space Star Wars occupies has shrunk in recent years. People who were weaned on the originals have become disenchanted, and Lucas's revised versions aren't minting many new fans.

Count me as one of those burying their heads in the sand, pretending that the "prequels" never happened. I loathed the first prequel and have so blocked it out of my memory that I can't even tell you what it's called off the top of my head. I didn't bother seeing the second one. As a matter of fact, I thought that Jedi pretty much sucked when it came out too. The Ewoks throwing rocks at Storm Troopers was just too stupid for words, even if the jet bikes were pretty cool. (Perhaps a bigger problem was that I was old enough to realize that Princess Leia was not, in fact, attractive in any way, shape or form except perhaps to stocky female softball players.

I don't think there's any question that the faithfulness Peter Jackson showed to The Lord of the Rings - even his errors must be excused as the sort made in good faith - make the LOTR movies far superior to even the original Star Wars trilogy. I will always love those first two movies, but it would have been better if Lucas had left us bereft and wishing for more instead of revealing that there was, after all, no magician behind the curtain.

Hack on Rumsfeld and the coming draft

Recently, when John Kerry brought up the possibility of a return to the draft, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld was quick to respond that Kerry was full of it. But my take is that Kerry is right on the mark. Not only because Rummy has been flat wrong on every major military call regarding Iraq, but because this is a war that won't be won by smart weapons or the sledgehammer firepower we see every night on the tube....

Rumsfeld, in fact, has already kicked off the anti-draft campaign by denigrating the draftees who fought in Vietnam. The SecDef, who prefers sycophants who don't ask questions, recently stated that Vietnam-era draftees added "No value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services ... because ... it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

Wrong once again. I led draftees for almost four years in Vietnam and for several years during the Korean War. If well-led, there are no finer soldiers. Ask the Nazis, the Japanese and the Reds in Korea and in Vietnam, where "no value" draftees cleaned their clocks in fight after fight. Israel, a country that has lived under the barrel of the Islamic terrorist gun for decades, has the most combat-experienced counterinsurgent force in the world – and boy and girl draftees are its major resource.

Count on it. We will follow their lead.

I've already written volumes on internment, but a draft is an equally unconscionable violation of life and property rights. If a society will not defend itself voluntarily, it deserves to fall. I suspect that unless the "war" is dialed down, and soon, Hackworth's logic will become undeniable. But it's not a Democrat vs Republican thing; both parties will join forces in declaring that it is necessary and cram it down America's throat while the sheep on both sides bleat their approval because their masters have spoken.

By the way, I've noticed in the past that some knee-jerk Republicans who pride themselves on their "support for the troops" don't hesitate to sully themselves by slinging mud at Hackworth for doing what he has always done, standing up for the enlisted whose lives are on the line, even in the face of the military and civilian leadership. Take a good close look at his record and examine his well-documented expertise before embarrassing yourself by criticizing him rather than his arguments.

In defense of the UN

Rumsfeld on Iraq, on Monday:

On whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war, Rumsfeld said flatly Monday that intelligence about such weapons before the invasion was faulty - a markedly different statement than what he told a television interviewer just a day earlier. "It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said Monday in the speech to the foreign affairs group. "Why the intelligence proved wrong I'm not in a position to say, but the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail."

...In Monday's speech, Rumsfeld said President Bush had taken the position that "it was unwise for the civilized world to allow Iraq to continue rejecting" U.N. resolutions demanding that Saddam's "vicious regime," which previously had used weapons of mass destruction on its own people, to give them up.... Asked to describe the connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Rumsfeld on Iraq, later that same day:

The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:

* We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
* We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.
* We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.
* We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
* We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.

I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.

It's interesting to note that if you read both statements closely, there's no serious contradiction between the two. There may be "links", after all, there are plenty of "links" between France and the USA. But the evidence is neither strong nor hard. There are far too many weasel words, "could" "what we believe" "what we consider" and so forth. After all, al-Qaeda members were also in Germany, among many other countries, but we have not yet bombed the Bundesrepublik.

I've always liked Rumsfeld, to a certain extent. He's beginning to strike me as a man who is distinctly uncomfortable with what he has done and on whose behalf he has done it.

But... but... internment is good!

From NRO's Corner

"The government of Charles de Gaulle held hundreds of foreigners, including at least three Britons, in an internment camp near Toulouse for up to four years after the second world war, according to secret documents. The papers, part of a cache of 12,000 photocopied illegally by an Austrian-born Jew, reveal the extent to which French officials collaborated with their fleeing Nazi occupiers even as their country was being liberated. They also show that, when the war was over, France went to extraordinary lengths to hide as much evidence of that collaboration as possible."

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Mailvox: 1 of 1 principals surveyed agree

MP writes:

As a school principal in a small community with easy on and off access to Interstate 70, I read with great interest your article. I feel that the only way to deal with the possibility of terrorism in schools is to allow all teachers and administrators to be armed; just like the Israeli’s did after Arab terrorists shot up their schools. Thanks to our treasonous federal and state governments, we are sitting ducks. I only hope that I can get to the weapon locked in my truck in the event of such an attack, like the principal in Pearl, Mississippi! If nothing else, I will continue to try to get my wife to let me send my children to private school or homeschool them.

If 9/11 is any indication, even a Breslan in the suburbs won't be enough to permit armed teachers in the public schools. I was fully expecting to read a full-on rant when I read the first words of this email; parents convinced of the adequacy of the public system might want to rethink the issue if even school principals want to homeschool their kids.

Wisdom and age

From NRO's Corner:

I was golfing with my brother once and the starter was a nasty old retired man. Just a real jerk. Anyway, as we walked away from him my brother offered true words of wisdom. He said, "You know, everyone reaches a point in their life when they know they're old. They know they don't have that much time left. And at that point, they face a decision. I've seen it time and time again. Some seem to make a conscious decision to be happy for the rest of their lives, and the rest become increasingly bitter. That guy chose to be bitter."

This is true. I've been disappointed to see some of the elders of my acquaintance choose the bitter path, especially since it seems so unnecessary and self-destructive. In a world where the poorest American is better off than 99.99 percent of everyone who has ever lived throughout history, I fail to understand how and why this sort of behavior is so ensnaringly addictive.

Now, I am about as cynical and skeptical as they come. But I'm not bitter. There is too much that I love, too much in which I am interested and too much hope and joy to be found in the world to leave much room for bitterness. There are things that I dislike with which I am forced to deal with and/or accept, some of them quite intensely. But they are what they are, and allowing those things to mar one's enjoyment of everything else is simply foolish.

The evil of Disney

I loathe Disney. I won't go to Disneyworld, I have no trouble avoiding their increasingly awful children's films and I think they are the poster child for the way in which corporate evil invades and destroys entrepeneurial creations like a cancer. Harvey Weinstein is not someone I hold in high regard, but it's interesting to catch a glimpse into the deceitful operation of the most pernicious of the evil corporate empires.

When came the epic dustup over Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. On May 12, 2003, a Disney executive sent Harvey Wein-stein a letter saying, “You cannot release this movie.” Four days later, another letter was sent. This one outlined why Miramax would not be allowed to release the film—it was a “restrictive picture” under the Miramax-Disney contract, it was politically partisan, etc.—and instructed Miramax to divest itself of its interest in the project.

Weinstein, all sides agree, went ahead and funded the movie anyway. And, according to Disney, Weinstein hid the $6 million budget in other projects. In this version, Eisner found out about Miramax’s continued involvement only when Weinstein casually mentioned that he’d like his boss to take a look at the film as the two men were strolling toward an elevator bank in Disney’s California headquarters.

The problem is, it’s not true. Costs associated with the movie weren’t hidden; indeed, quarterly budget reports sent from Miramax to Disney in 2003 include a line item for “FAHRENHEIT 911” complete with a film code (“M1621”), a date of first cost (“FY03 Q3”), and a tentative release date (“Oct-04”). Moore even said publicly the checks came from Burbank. (Disney never produced for me the reports where Fahrenheit 9/11 supposedly should have appeared but didn’t; a spokeswoman told me I was “naïve” and “in the tank” when I explained I’d need to see the reports myself.)

I would have thought it was naive to take Disney's word for it, in light of how it contradicts the evidence. But Black is white in the new Disney. Keep that in mind the next time your child wants to see the latest talking animal film. They think of the children all the time, though not exactly in the manner in which a parent would wish.

Deeper Democratic depths

From the Washington Times:

Perhaps the most comical moment in the liberal-media after-party Thursday night came on PBS' 'Charlie Rose,' when Newsweek's chief Democratic spinner, Jonathan Alter, mourned that Republicans have a 'huge advantage' after the debates because conservatives 'control all of talk radio' (sorry, Al Franken) and because there won't be many on Fox News Channel speaking well of Kerry. By contrast, CNN and MSNBC and PBS all have the disadvantage of attempting to be balanced.

But it seemed from flipping past Fox after the debate that they had several Kerry fans on — from aspiring secretary of state Richard Holbrooke to Sen. Bob Graham. And what made Alter's statement so comical was that he was sitting on a PBS round table with Charlie Rose, Walter Isaacson, Karen Tumulty, Mark Halperin and Michael Kinsley — all credentialed members of the liberal media elite who liked Kerry's performance.

One of the things I despised about the blogosphere's defense-by-silence of Michelle Malkin's contemptible tome was that it was a direct imitation of a much-used mainstream media tactic. But in fairness, statements like this hallucinatory one of Alter's demonstrate that there's an awful lot of corrupting and self-deceiving to be done before King Log can hope to reach the depths of King Stork.

Discuss amongst yourselves

Time to ride the tank

From Slashdot:

Before I worked at Microsoft as an intern last summer (I'm a college student), I was under the same impression about the amount of brainpower they had. I worked specifically for MSN Ads, and everywhere I looked (I also talked to my friends in other departments) I found sloppy coding practices, FUD, and general CYA-motivated B.S.

9/10 people I met didn't know what they were doing, but they were too good at political maneuvering for it to matter. The people that knew what they were doing were extremely cynical and didn't think things could change. Oh how I wish I could comment on specifics. Damn NDA.

I was really hoping Microsoft would be a cool place to work, but I was severely disappointed. Behind closed doors, I couldn't find a SINGLE person who would actually recommend taking a job there. When they made me an offer to join after my senior year (this year), I turned it down.

This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that it is a comment made subsequent to a Bill Gates statement: "fast forward 10 years, the two leading OS technologies will be Linux and Windows."

I know who my money would be on if it was necessary to spend it on an open source OS. Linux. Learn it now or learn it later....

Week 4 picks

Last week: 8-6. Overall: 28-18.

New York Jets over Miami Dolphins
Philadelphia Eagles over Chicago Bears
New England Patriots over Buffalo Bills
Baltimore Ravens over Kansas City Chiefs
Tennessee Titans over San Diego Chargers
Indianapolis Colts over Jacksonville Jaguars
Green Bay Packers over New York Giants
Denver Broncos over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Oakland Raiders over Houston Texans
Washington Redskins over Cleveland Browns
New Orleans Saints over Arizona Cardinals
Pittsburgh Steelers over Cincinnati Bengals
Carolina Panthers over Atlanta Falcons
St. Louis Rams over San Francisco 49ers

When drunks drive

It turns out Bill Gross and Steve Roach were swapping notes on the global economy. The candid exchange took place over email during late August and early September and was posted at Morgan Stanley's website. A reader forwarded us the thread...

"Bill, I don't know about you, but I've lost confidence in the world's fiscal authorities." Roach is almost desperate. "[B]y fuelling the debt-driven super-liquidity cycle of the past several
years, they, too, have now become part of the problem, I fear."

The bond man's response: "While I would concur that monetary authorities have been drinking with reckless abandon without turning over the keys to a designated driver, there's only so much I can do. What? Sell my bonds and accept their penal yield of 1.5% in short-term paper?"

"Central bankers used to be the tough guys," retorts Roach, "and you used to be one of the world's leading bond market vigilantes who held them accountable for doing the right thing. Where are the vigilantes now that we really need them?"

"So the world's on my shoulders now?" retorts Gross, in an email back to Morgan Stanley's chief economist. "My first obligation is to my clients."

And meanwhile, gold has quietly increased from 250 to 420 in the last four years. Hmmmm....

Yeah, I'll get right on it

An email I received today:

The [Florida] Secretary of State, Glenda Hood has noted that thousands of voter registrations are being turned in which are blatantly incomplete and those folks are not going to be permitted to vote. Secretary Hood is apparently really worried about what is going on. She notes that the number of such registrations in unprecedented in Florida history and is in sufficient numbers to make a difference in the election. The majority are in Maimi-Dowd and Broward counties. Surprised?

This may be a well planned program on the part of the extremists in the Democratic party. You know, the Michael Moore, George Soros, Al Gore wing.

If this is a plan, which, by the way would make Richard Nixons indiscretions pale by comparison, it would explain why the more radical democrats are already trying to convince the world that the republicans are engaged in fraud in Florida. It would also explain, more than anything else, why the Kerry organization recruited Jesse Jackson. This needs to be thoroughly investigated and exposed right away. November 3 is too late. If Kerry loses in Florida there is no doubt that the Kerry camp has a federal litigation ready to go on November 3 and disenfranchisement of the minorities will be its center piece.

If this is happening in Florida it may also be happening in other "swing" states. Its really a simple operation, operatives hit the streets to sign up voters but make sure that the registration forms are faulty. When the voters are turned away from the polls the case for a disenfranchisement conspiracy will get legs on November 3.

This needs to be given top priority, right now. November 3 will be too late. If it is not exposed, when the polls close the nation will be thrown into complete disarray with federal and state litigation and, most likely a move to impeach the president should Bush win the election.

Please get on this without delay and pour any and all resources available into it.

This MAY be... whatever. And what is the news, that the political system is corrupt behind the scenes? It's corrupt on its face!

Debate and debacles

It's interesting to note the increasingly defensive tone of the Bush administration and its defenders with regards to the Iraqi invasion and occupation. It's equally interesting to note that this is despite the fact that the supposed opposition party, the Kerry-led Democrats, isn't exactly on the offensive either.

Having a few more allies, as Kerry suggested was the primary deficiency of the Bush war effort the other night, makes little sense when one examines the military force at the disposal of the countries not already involved in the so-called Coalition of the Willing.

The German Bundeswehr consists of a mere eight divisions. This is not exactly their great-grandfathers' Wehrmacht of yore, which consisted of 216 mostly battle-hardened divisions, especially considering that more than half of Germany's troops are conscripts rotating through their two-year service. And considering how the French army's 100 divisions were almost useless in 1940, it seems unlikely that their descendants would provide an adequate substitute for the U.S. Marines.

Only Russia, China, Vietnam and North Korea have armies large and well-equipped enough to off-load a significant portion of the US military burden, but it would be the height of irony, not to say idiocy, to ask a Communist army to help free a people enslaved, assuming that is in fact the goal. And it is unlikely that Belgian paratroopers, with their prediliction for roasting teenagers over open bonfires, could be the one significant element that is missing.

Kerry, it is clear, is only emitting these typically bizarre assertions because he cannot remain silent on the matter and still hope to win. This is not to say, unfortunately, that Bush is any more sensible on the subject. I am extremely skeptical of his suggestion that the occupation of Iraq will succeed because the Iraqi people want to be free, considering that here in America, the overwhelming majority would trade freedom for perceived security in a heartbeat.

Given that the popular revolution in next-door Iran was the one that brought the mullahs into power – a group not widely known for favoring either freedom or democracy – and the strongly adverse relationship between secular democracy and Islamic law in Algeria, Indonesia and Turkey today, the President's assertion appears to be as fact-free as his challengers.

I don't have a solution, other than to decry the logic of imperialism of any kind. Some problems do not have solutions and it is not true that it is always better to do something than nothing. That is likely to prove to be the case in the Middle East, where the nation being built is unlikely to fit the model envisioned by the builders.

You might want to reconsider homeschooling

Bane drew my attention to this:

An Iraqi man with suspected links to terrorism had a computer disk containing crisis planning information for San Diego and other school districts when he was arrested by U.S. authorities in Iraq, 10News reported. The man's intentions were not known, and there was no indication that schools in San Diego or any other district were targets for terrorism, according to San Diego law enforcement officials.

The public report, "Practical Information on Crisis Planning, A Guide for Schools and Communities," was downloaded from the U.S. Department of Education Web site.

The arrest was reported to the San Diego FBI office and the San Diego Unified School District last week. Parents and schools were not informed because it was determined there was not a threat. "The clear message is that your children are safe and our schools are very well prepared, as well as our school district," San Diego School District Police Chief Don Braun said.

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne echoed the sentiment that public notification was not necessary.

If that's the "clear message" that the police chief drew from the news, I may have to rethink my career options. There is evidently a good living to be made from petty crime in San Diego.

Spinning like spiders

I did not watch the debates last night. I have been amused, however, to read the follow-up discussions. As you'd expect, the Democrats are insisting that Kerry won, while most Republicans - not all - are asserting that Bush won. My take is that Kerry did well enough to eke out a close win, which is nowhere nearly enough to get him back in the race.

As always, George Bush will benefit from low expectations. Kerry is supposed to be smarter and verbally skilled, so anything but the total destruction of the President or a complete meltdown on his part are unlikely to have any serious effect on the race.

The failed vote on the marriage amendment will also help Bush; it may be an irrelevant and short-sighted idea, but it is a very popular irrelevant idea and getting many Democrats on record opposing it is a winning strategy. I expect it may prove to have far more effect on the Senate races and perhaps the Presidential race itself than the three debates, barring any significant change between last night's performance and the subsequent two.

Mailvox: random shots

Gregg gets hissy:

Are you waiting for the debate to turn in your favor? Won't happen as long as I am here.

Actually, just letting you ramble seems to be turning the debate in my favor here...

Mike thinks resistance is meaningful:

I can assure you, that if you take that pacifistic attitude toward a modern equivalent of the Roman Empire that it will kill off christianity down to the last man, woman and child unless people are willing to deny being christians.

Yes, they will. The Bible predicts this. I think we can and should resist this, but the effort will be ultimately futile as the struggle is not one against flesh and blood. The Bible talks often of deception, one need only look at the long-term joint effort of Democrats and Republicans alike to build world government to see that this deception is at work on both sides of the American political spectrum. Remember, George Bush himself stated that he went to war in Iraq in order to uphold the viability of the United Nations.

Craigp believes in Jesus Christ and George Bush, presumably in that order:

I think a chrsitian that does not vote for Bush or does nto vote at all is being deceived and manipulated, and I say shame on them

I find this rather humorous, considering how it is almost precisely backwards. I predict Craig is going to be one very, very angry individual once he realizes the President's true colors and allegiances.

The most significant comment was from the White Buffalo:

As a matter of fact He was against even having men ruling men polticially as He refused to give Israel a king until He finally relented and gave them good old Saul.

This appears to be one of the most obvious signs that God would lean libertarian, if one assumes He takes an interest in politics. Not only does He refuse to use His power to control men and their behavior, but we have a Biblical example of His preferences in the matter. In God's eyes, it is clearly both ideal and possible to have a state where men do not rule over other men.

And finally, Gregg also fails to note something important:

The greatest system ever devised, came from men who believed that our rights came from God and that governments were instituted among men (that means by men) to preserve those rights.

That system has not only been radically altered, but completely abandoned. It is a hollow shell, left in place to deceive. The fact that the names of the offices remain essentially the same does not mean that it is the same system of highly decentralized, strictly limited republicanism. Modern Switzerland, with its powerful cantons and strong limitations on the central state, is much closer to the historical American system than the modern United States.

Mailvox: The White Buffalo cogitates

I've been listening to a great set of sermons by Greg Boys. I'd be very interested in hearing what your regulars thoughts are on the idea that politics and government have nothing to do with Jesus, and that nations and worldly power are the exact opposite of God's approach. Greg contrasts the Kingdom of the World with the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of the World is about "power over." Those who have the sword decide, and the aim is to gain the sword. Jesus introduced the idea of the Kingdom of God being a "power under" approach. Serve to enact change, humble yourself to enact change, even go so far as to die to enact change.

So now we have this political debate raging about who is on God's side, and WWJD in an election, with all kinds of people (your regulars very much included - and I have done this mistakenly many times as well) claiming a "Christian" approach. But a simple look at the history of the church shows that any combination of the church with politics is the death nell of the church remaining the instrument of the Kingdom of God on earth. As soon as Constantine made Christianity the state religion, the church atrophied. Because Constantine changed the equation to power over from power under, and despite the fact that it was now Christians who had the sword and could enact righteous laws that God would like, they were abandoning the approach Jesus invented. And the Kingdom of God does not advance with power over.

I agree with this assessment; I'd be perfectly comfortable voting libertarian even if I thought the question of for whom one voted was a matter of life or death, but I don't believe that it is. I think the notion of those who believe that God wants an individual to vote for any specific candidate for President is massively mistaken, and approaches rather closer to blasphemy than I generally like to tread now that I am a Christian.

God does not often engage in idle and helpless wishing. He demands, and His concerns are beyond our understanding. Meshing Church and State has always worked to the advantage of the latter and the detriment of the former. It's a pity that so many Christian conservatives don't recognize that picking up the favored weapon of the enemy is inherently corrupting.

Government is god

KLO notes something highly significant:

Andy McCarthy is reading through the 120-page Patriot Act ruling (on one provision of!) that came down yesterday. He highlights this classic passage--for Black Robes' Greatest Hits: "Personal freedoms, on the other hand, are far more unique. As individualized by constitutional ideals to embody our sense of human dignity, decency, and fair play, they attach to each individual by promise of the very government which creates those basic rights and is charged to protect them, and upon whose faithful adherence to their underlying principles and aims their enduring enjoyment depends."

Government, Creator, whatever....

Not to rain on their parade, but....

Disturbingly, the Fraters Libertas are more than a little excited about a 100-year old woman:

Emma Torkelson, 100 year old resident of the Broen Memorial Home in Fergus Falls, MN registered to vote for the first time in her life on Friday Sept. 24, 2004. Wayne Stein, Otter Tail County Auditor was on hand to receive her registration application and also her absentee ballot request form. Mr. Stein had no recollection of there being any older first time registers in Otter Tail County history. State Representative Bud Nornes also paid a visit to congratulate her. Emma's absentee ballot will arrive in the mail in October, and her family will be there to share the experience with her when she casts her first vote - for George W. Bush....

Emma states she's not ever been "a politician" but the president's stance on abortion and the marriage amendment have made her want her to vote this year. Her parents were life long Democrats, and she figured she always was one too. They both voted, and she can't say why she never did. When asked if she'll vote again in four years she stated "I suppose I will, if I am still living."

I'm just wondering how the news that big government Republicans are beginning to appeal to lifelong Democrats should be seen as a positive development by the conservative Republicans that make up the core of the party. Sure, Mrs. Torkelson is sound on abortion, and I applaud that, but I still see this sort of thing as more of an indication that the Republican party is moving to the left than one that the nation is warming to the apparently outdated Republican concepts of freedom and liberty.

On conspiracy theory

This blast from the past seems appropriate:

One of the easiest ways to dismiss something out of hand is to label it conspiracy theory. Although the word "conspiracy" simply refers to the act of joining together in secret agreement to do a wrongful act, tacking it on as an adjective somehow evokes images of unfounded fears and even paranoia.

But is it reasonable to believe that there are truly none who wish to do wrong, or to think that if such men exist, they will always be foolish enough to declare their intentions openly?

History speaks eloquently on the subject. In the 1,129 years of the great Byzantine empire, the average reign of an emperor was 12 years. This is a bit longer than the eight years we now allow our president, but is rather short considering that the Byzantine position ostensibly offered supreme power and lifetime tenure. But if it wasn't unheard of for a ruler of Constantinople to die peacefully in his bed, it was also not the norm.

For example, in the 135 years following Maurice's peaceful succession of Tiberius Constantine, seven of the empire's 12 rulers saw their reigns end in assassination or execution. Of the five who were not slain outright, two were deposed, and one, Constantine IV, was only able to keep his throne by mutilating his two fraternal rivals....

Has anything changed today? On the surface, the answer is certainly yes. But is it truly reasonable to think that human nature has changed much over the 549 years that separate us from the last days of Byzantium? I submit not, especially considering that we are closer to the 11th Constantine, Dragatses, than was the first Justinian to Julius Caesar. Nor can democracy be considered some kind of magic antidote, as the subsequent careers of successful politicians such as Alcibiades and Adolph Hitler inform us.

But where does that leave us, then, if the leopards have not changed their spots, but remain undetected despite stakes that would take Caesar's breath away? The Marxian theory of history has been thoroughly discredited. The Great Man theory cannot explain the dichotomy between the proven conspiracies of yore and their seeming absence today. The Accident theory is a vapid ontological argument. Only the much-belittled conspiracy theory of history, which stubbornly insists that events are not always as they appear on the surface, holds together in this light when examined in a historical and logical manner.

United scams on America

David Hackworth reminds us of the Jessica Lynch fiction:

Lynch, it turns out, wasn't wounded in action, she was badly banged up in a vehicle accident, which occurred while she and her mates were trying to escape a guerrilla ambush. She not only never fought with her rifle and trench knife as the Pentagon had leaked, she never even got off a shot – because she was out cold from the time of the collision until she woke up in the hospital, where the Iraqi docs couldn't wait to transfer their well-cared for but terrified patient to Special Ops control....

Lynch garnered a Bronze Star for her "heroics," the Purple Heart for "wounds received in action," a mega-buck book deal – and millions of proud Americans got to view her "gallantry and sacrifice" in an NBC TV docudrama. To keep the press bamboozled, she was locked up under tight control in Army hospitals with a convenient bout of amnesia. In its micro way, the Lynch scam symbolizes the miasma of deception surrounding the invasion and the ugly unsolvable occupation already causing the direst consequences to our national security.

Not only was the WMD claim erroneous, but it is now looking increasingly likely that Saddam Hussein did not gas the Kurds in 1988 as has widely been reported. The fact that the reported fatalities range from 80,000 to 300,000 should probably have been the first clue that something was wrong; Jude Wanniski suggests: "start with Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA's top analyst covering this period. Give him a call or send him an e-mail. He will be happy to talk to you. You can then call Pat Lang of the DIA, who will back up Pelletiere. They will explain to you that there was no genocide at Halabja."

Remember, the government is almost pathologically willing to lie. It has lied repeatedly and poorly about Lynch, TWA 800, Waco, OK City, Ron Brown and Vince Foster, and the chances are very high that it is lying some significant manner about Iraq, 9/11 and everything from mohair subsidies to milk-price supports.

Saint Paul schadenfreude

Saint Paul takes no small pleasure:

It appears the chill wind has blown through Brian Lambert's cubicle at the Pioneer Press. Some months ago we were alerted to the pending "reassignment" of the entrenched veteran entertainment columnist. I now point you to the archive of his recent work.

It's all over. His sneering, partisan voice, hectoring us from what should have been a non-political beat has been silenced once and for all. And that silence is golden for conservatives all over town.

The Silence of the Lambert. Not bad, not bad at all. That's one thing I very much like about the Fraters... they're about the only guys I've run across in the media with the same open disdain for fake bonhomie that I have.

Why Bush will win

Peter Robinson writes on NRO's Corner

The nation has experienced four wartime presidential elections in which a candidate who was, broadly speaking, anti-war challenged a candidate who was, by contrast, pro-war. In brief:

During the War of 1812, Governor De Witt Clinton of New York attempted to unseat President James Madison, who was running for a second term. Whereas Clinton and his supporters derided the conflict as “Mr. Madison’s war,” Madison insisted instead that the war had proven “just and necessary.”

Madison won.

In 1864, General George McClellan attempted to deny President Abraham Lincoln a second term, accepting the nomination of a Democratic Party that denounced the Civil War as “four years of failure.” Although McClellan argued for a continuation of the war, he attempted to have the issue both ways, making it clear that he remained open to some form of negotiated peace. Lincoln insisted instead on outright victory.

Lincoln won.

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey proved increasingly critical of the war in Vietnam as election day approached. By contrast, Richard Nixon remained committed to the defense of South Vietnam.

Nixon won.

In 1972, George McGovern proved unambiguously dovish, calling for an withdrawal from Vietnam, while Richard Nixon remained, once again, committed to American war aims.

Nixon won.

It's pretty clear that given the choice between war and peace, Americans, like most people throughout history, will choose war. The wisdom of this is a matter for another debate, but the logical conclusion is hard to escape. Bush is a pro-war President, ergo he will win. You can't out-martial the Commander-in-Chief, it's just not possible.

Easier links

Thanks to Christian, you can now link to posts here without having to load an entire month's worth of archives, which I'm told can be considerable. If you click on one of the dates, you'll see what I mean. FYI, just in case you're interested.

Fraud at Harvard

Tribe’s mea culpa comes just three weeks after another prominent Harvard faculty member—Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree—publicly apologized for copying six paragraphs almost word-for-word from a Yale scholar in a recent book, All Deliberate Speed.

Last fall, Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz also battled plagiarism charges. And in 2002, Harvard Overseer Doris Kearns Goodwin admitted that she had accidently copied passages from another scholar in her bestseller The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys.

University President Lawrence H. Summers told The Crimson in an interview last week—before the allegations against Tribe surfaced—that he did not see “a big trend” of plagiarism problems at the Law School as a result of the charges against Ogletree and Dershowitz, but indicated that a third case would change his mind. “If you had a third one, then I would have said, okay, you get to say this is a special thing, a focused problem at the Law School,” Summers said of the recent academic dishonesty cases.

He declined comment last night.

I suspect that historians will likely look back on the ascension of the left as the destruction of the academy. It is ironic that they enjoy accusing Christians as anti-intellectual, considering that it was Christians who started nearly every major university. And with the decline of Christianity will come the decline of scholarship, as the cause of truth is rendered secondary to questions of politics and power.

It's worth noting that the only new colleges being founded are Christian colleges, as the atheized universities gradually devolve into morasses of plagiarism, political correctness and low-grade minds filled with secular dogma.

Call me Annabella

Not a great week, not a bad week, but the White Buffalo gained on us, Zerb passed us, and we're in 39th place, 44 points behind the leader. We can't even use Annabella as an insult for WB anymore, as a crushing 109-point week put her 14 points in front of us. But it's a marathon, not a sprint, and we're still in it. Our Week 3 record wasn't great, but we gave up only one high-point game so the points were all right. 8-6 last week, 28-18 overall.

Fantasy, on the other hand, was grim. This appears to be one of those years where everyone goes off against me; Space Bunny's team scored only 10 points after laying 40 on me last week in handing Chokechain an easy win, while Big Chilly racked up almost 40 himself. Daunte and the Oakland D were good, but Peerless Price is looking utterly worthless and Ahman Green scored one pathetic point. Things had better turn around fast.

Learning humility

One of my favorite quotes is posted on the wall of my old gym. It says "This room is for the weak, that they might grow strong. This room is for the strong, that they might learn humility." The best thing about weights is that there is no pretense with the iron. You either beat them or they beat you. No middle ground.

When I started lifting, I was the same height that I am now, but I was precisely 40 pounds lighter and I couldn't even bench 135 one time. Today, I knocked out three reps at 300, (with plenty of help on the last one) and stupidly decided to go for 315. I was feeling good, nice and fired up, and it didn't do me a bit of good. It might as well have been a mountain on top of my chest, because it wasn't going anywhere. The trainer helped me put it back, we looked at each other and he laughed. "No way," he said, and I had choice but to agree.

That's genuine humility. Knowing your limits and accepting them. I've never seen any purpose in the false sort, though. We are what we are. Some are highly intelligent and foolish. Some are stupid and wise with experience. It's not directly related, but one reason I like Peter King, the sportswriter, is that while he writes about whatever he pleases - I was so happy his daughter went to college so we could stop hearing about her stupid high school softball team - he's never afraid to admit he's wrong. Today, he wrote:

"Speaking of mea culpas, I have one. In the Sports Illustrated NFL Preview issue, I was running down the Lions' recent drafting woes, and I referred to the lack of production Detroit was getting from its top picks like Andre Ware, and I threw Reggie Brown in there as an example of a bust. Brown, of course, was paralyzed in his second NFL season. Why did I do it? Brainlock. Not thinking. Idiocy. All of the above. So I'd like to apologize to the readers who were offended by this. Shoot, I'm offended by it, and I wrote it. My fault."

"I'm offended by it, and I wrote it." I think I'll steal that one and save it against future needs. While I'm quite content with how things turned out with regards to the discussion of the last few weeks, I have a feeling that sooner or later, it will come in handy.

Mailvox: hearing from the Malkin fans

YR writes:

The sneak attack at Pearl Harbor was an act of war you fucking twit. I am proud to have nuked their gook asses. They were cruel evil motherfuckers. Man you are an idiot. Ever served in the military, you fucking dweeb? Get a LIFE man. People like you should be deported and shot. You talk all this crap, but have ZERO military experience. The Japanese attack on 7 December 1941 was act of war fuckwit!!!!!!! We should have tortured their citizens exactly like they did with ours. So we put some Japanese Americans assholes in camps, so what? Many of them colaborated with the mother nation, Japan!!!! Midget subs were the first to attack on that infamous day. LEAVE the USA if you hate it so much!!

I'm sure it does Michelle Malkin's heart good to know that in her place, she's got eloquent folks like these defending her position. Did they have midget subs? Sweet Cthulhu, I must completely revise my analysis!

Enough is enough

A few people have emailed to express this sentiment today, which is funny considering that I considered today's column my final public word on the matter unless a) they start interning people or b) someone challenges me to a public debate on the subject.

The irony is that even though it has already been admitted that the forgeries aren't genuine and the story that Dan Rather was biased and willing to lie in order to elect Democrats was hardly surprising, I count two front page stories and three columns on Dan Rather and CBS on WND alone today. Townhall features 15 columns on Rather on its Columnists page, running as many as three per day. Conservatives just can't get enough of it, apparently. But they deem my three columns in four weeks on internment over the top and bordering on obsessive. Right....

Anyhow, it's of no concern to me. It never has been and it never will be. There's a reason why I call my column Defending the Mike. Those down with PE will understand.

By the way, I should probably mention for the sake of those readers who have expressed concern with my audience retention that more people are reading my boring, bludgeoned equine of a column than are reading any other column on WND today, including the big headline pieces. Three times more than some of those ever-fascinating CBS columns. Not that it matters. I mean, you don't honestly think that I believe a world that is truly concerned with Britney Spears's marital status is all that interested in anything that happened in the 1940s, do you?

Mailvox: dumb enough to defend Malkin

KC sets himself up:

Boy it reeeeeeeeeeally gets to you Ms.Malkin won't respond to your nonsense. Are all your columns going to be devoted to this? Perhaps she has dismissed you because of your thumbnail bio which includes the words "Christian Libertarian." Oooh good now we all know you're not one of those blockheaded Christians, you're one of the "open-minded" kind,coooool. And we know you're smart, cause as you constantly remind everyone, your in Mensa which I guess gives you the abilty to time-travel and know the loyalties of all the Japanese that were rounded up and to also read minds. Very impressive indeed!

And if you're using atheist Al Franken as a reference you're really lost. The Bible says "A fool says in his heart there is no God."

But KC, didn't you read my column today? Don't you recall that Malkin claimed on WBAL radio that she had already responded to what you call my "nonsense"? So, how could it possibly bother me, unless she lied when she said that? The answer, as you obviously know, is that she lied and she has not responded to the many, many issues I have raised with regards to her factual inaccuracies and erroneous assertions. But her mendacious response doesn't bother me at all, as in the course of the last month she has been forced to reveal to every impartial observer that she did no research on the very foundation of her thesis, that she does not have even a History Channel-level grasp on the events of WWII and that she prefers to lie rather than admit that she was wrong.

I'd only hoped to destroy some of the false assertions in her book, to see her destroy her own character was far outside the scope of anything I'd expected or desired.

As for Alice, well, the broken clock analogy would not seem out of place here. It's clear there is at least one lying liar who claims to be on the political right. It is true that I am a Mensan, be further astounded that I even know how to use an apostrophe, a punctuation device with which your obviously unacquainted.

Finally, when did Jesus Christ teach us to lie in order to maintain our TV viability and sell books? Blessed are the media whores, for they shall see their names on the New York Times Bestsellers List.... Another verse from the Book of Vulpes, I suppose.

JN adds:

Michelle is a real class person. Why are you nitpicking? Have you gone mad? Al Franken is less than a shadow of a human being. You must decide where you stand, with righteousness, or with evil. How dare you even suggest Al Franken was right? You are losing your credibility, wake up! Try living in the present, there is nothing to gain by questioning our motives for interning the Japanese in the forties!

What little I know of Michelle Malkin does not suggest that she is a class person, unless class is demonstrated by intellectual charlatanship, cowardice and dishonesty. Al Franken is certainly a clown, but he was correct about both Sean Hannity's math skills and Bill O'Reilly's literary ability. If I am losing credibility with some conservatives because I am committed to the truth, however uncomfortable, I think that is more of a statement on the lack of integrity of those particular conservatives than anything else.

I had a feeling that that reference to Franken might sting a bit.

Mailvox: it's all in Grimm

DG has the answer:

I am so sorry to hear this rubbish being bandied about as though all of you knew what you were talking about. (Re: The Japanese internment camps and their need for being.) I have yet to read what we were told at the time of these interments, so I am taking it upon myself to tell you what we, as school children, were told. We at that time were allied with China. We were told that the reason the Japanese families were sent to camp was for their own protection. It was as simple as that, and the reason was accepted as logical and humane, for the people were angry and wished to strike out against an enemy. At least that was the rationale at the time. I was a twelve year old kid and had many Japanese friends, and yes, it angered me that these people were singled out and sent away, but the logic behind this made sense.

Yes, military historians often assert that one of the best ways to understand the rationale behind events of the past is to study what adults were telling children at the time. No doubt we should revisit "Little Red Riding Hood" to learn precisely how Clovis defeated the Visigoths at Vouillé.

Where do you go with this, except to stand mute, in awe?

Modern internment

If the Malkinites will permit us to move on from the historical internment debate and look at what John Leo suggests is the present one, I'd like to encourage people to consider the what is the fundamentally leftist notion of internment. First, does the following statement sound more characteristic of left-wing or right-wing thought:

We have to do something even if it won't do any good.

You see, the technological imperative suggests that it will soon be impossible to prevent the damage wrought by a single individual, if it is not already. Whether it is a matter of nuclear miniaturization, biological weaponry or nanotechnology, the massive and powerful edifice of the central state is growing increasingly vulnerable to the actions of one man.

The only genuine defense against an unstoppable danger that is limited as to its area of effect is decentralization. But decentralization is also highly conducive to individual liberty, which is why the central state resists it even when its own survival is supposedly at stake. For example, if Leviathan is beheaded in Washington DC, the plan is not to turn power over to the 50 governors of the sovereign states, but to FEMA, an even stronger central authority than the current Federal government.

Internment will only be one of the many totalitarian solutions proposed, if not imposed, in the wake of a serious attack on the USA. I think it is a short-sighted and foolish betrayal of principle for conservatives to look to the state to protect them from something it manifestly has not been able to protect them and from which it will likely never be able to protect them.

The other possible defense against a threat from resident aliens lies in immigration controls and deportations, but since the global statists have latched onto flooding the population as an excellent method of destroying national sovereignty, this is not even up for mainstream discussion despite its Constitutional viability in comparison with internment. I can't help but think what a surprise it will be to many conservatives when they finally realize that they are more likely to be candidates for internment than those they were envisioning would be the targets.

Mailvox: hindsight ahead of time

Ran tries attaching electro-shock paddles to the dead horse:

Vox - Like many armchair generals, you operate with the benefit of hindsight. Planners and leaders in 1942 had to assume worst case against a military that had already overran most Asian colonies, pounded the Royal & US Fleets, & threatened Australia.

Now I'm getting sick of this. Ran, with all due respect, please shut your mouth, turn on your brain, and go read the actual war plans that the planners and leaders you mention had worked out in response to the Japanese military threat. Then get back to me via email. Don't even think of posting more wildly stupid statements like this until you do so.

Read AWPD-1, AWPD-4, AWPD-42, Rainbow-5, War Plan Orange, and War Plan Red. Then read what Admirals Stark, Nimitz and King had to say AT THE FREAKING TIME!!!!! I'll be very interested to hear how you argue that they were operating with the benefit of hindsight ahead of time. Were they armchair admirals?

Just to give one of many, many examples:
On 4 February [1942] General Clark of GHQ and Admiral Harold R. Stark, the Chief of Naval Operations, offered testimony on the west coast military outlook at a meeting of the first of these subcommittees. Before they spoke, Senator Holman summed up the situation by saying that the people there were alarmed and horrified as to their persons, their employment, and their homes. General Clark said that he thought the Pacific states were unduly alarmed. While both he and Admiral Stark agreed the west coast defenses were not adequate to prevent the enemy from attacking, they also agreed that the chance of any sustained attack or of an invasion was as General Clark put it-nil. They recognized that sporadic air raids on key installations were a distinct possibility, but they also held that the west coast military defenses were considerable and in fairly good shape; and, as Admiral Stark said, from the military point of view the Pacific coast necessarily had a low priority as compared with Hawaii and the far Pacific. These authoritative Army and Navy views were passed on to the Wallgren subcommittee, but they do not seem to have made much impression.

I'm getting very, very tired of this theoretical idiocy that clearly doesn't know the first thing about the historical specifics. No admiral or general at all concerned about damaging attacks on the West Coast would have sent all four of their carriers, 160 heavy bombers and 272 fighters to the Dutch East Indies on January 6 and January 11, 1942, and there are a plethora of statements from various generals and admirals that demonstrate this total lack of concern.

If anyone has a specific argument, backed up by historical fact, I'll be delighted to entertain it and discuss it. Further theoretical objections unsupported by direct citation will be deleted. I don't want to have to ban anyone, but I won't hesitate to do so if anyone repeatedly refuses to abide by this very reasonable condition.

Discuss amongst yourselves

Peter Jackson rules

From Slashdot:

"DISCS 1-2: The Feature FEATURE (approx. 250 minutes) - A new version of the final installment in the epic trilogy! The Academy-Award winning film now has 50 minutes of never-before-seen footage incorporated into the film for this highly-anticipated video release."

Yep, sometime this winter I'm going to sit down and fire up a 14-hour Tolkein marathon. I still am deliriously happy when I stop and think that against all odds, my favorite childhood books didn't get completely trashed in translation to film. Unbelievable, but in a good way.

Now if someone will only do The Dark Is Rising and The Chronicles of Prydain. (Some will say that Disney did a movie called The Black Cauldron; don't believe them. It never happened.) I think a CGI version of Watership Down is definitely worth doing as well.

Strangely enough, it's theoretically possible that my first foray into comic book writing might make it to the screen before any of them. We'll see. It's amazing to discover that there is an industry even more full of BS than the music industry, but it's true.

Speaking of football

Week 2: 9-7. Overall: 20-12.

W - Atlanta Falcons over Arizona Cardinals
W - Seattle Seahawks over San Francisco 49ers
L - Tennessee Titans over Jacksonville Jaguars
W - Minnesota Vikings over Chicago Bears
W - Philadelphia Eagles over Detroit Lions
Oakland Raiders over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
W - Denver Broncos over San Diego Chargers
Indianapolis Colts over Green Bay Packers
L - St. Louis Rams over New Orleans Saints
W - New York Giants over Cleveland Browns
L - Kansas City Chiefs over Houston Texans
Miami Dolphins over Pittsburgh Steelers
Washington Redskins over Dallas Cowboys
L - Cincinnati Bengals over Baltimore Ravens

Last week was tough for Chokechain and I, as we lost our 16-point game with the upset of Green Bay. To give you an idea of what a massive upset that was, only two of 99 people in the pool had Chicago winning, with very low confidence ratings of two and three points, respectively. But we're still towards the top of the second quartile, while Annabella, (the artist formerly known as the White Buffalo), languishes in the bottom half. That being said, the real Annabella beat us by 30 points last week, so we may need to find a new and more insulting appellation.

Fantasy looks pretty good this weekend, as the Robin's Egg Blue and Gentle Yellow of Big Chilly's Hummingbirds are forced to start Joey Harrington at quarterback. The Piranha also feature the Oakland D going up against Tampa's putrescent offense and Ahman Green looking to make up for last week's disaster against a questionable Indy run defense that gives up five yards per carry, third worst in the NFL.

FDR on American principles

Mark Alexander writes on useful idiots:

FDR, perhaps unwittingly, used the Great Depression to establish a solid foundation for socialism in America, as best evidenced in this dubious proclamation: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

....Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Not just AN American principle, the ONLY one. Interesting. I would submit to every conservative defender of WWII-internment that any time you discover that your opinion is running in parallel with FDR's, you should probably consider taking a good hard look at your reasoning to figure out where you went off the rails of fact, logic and true American principle.