The pointless triumph of pragmatism

Bob Novak writes on Townhall:

Last Wednesday, leaders of conservative and moderate factions in the House Republican conference sat down to discuss a joint call for new leadership elections. No agreement was reached, and the events of the next 24 hours destroyed the budding coalition while exposing the ineffectiveness of current leaders. Abandonment of oil drilling in the Arctic failed to appease the moderate bloc, and the leaders pulled down the budget-cutting bill late Thursday.

Demands for new leaders are aimed at Rep. Roy Blunt, the elected House majority whip and acting majority leader. But critics who want Blunt replaced by Rep. John Boehner concede they have no solution for a malady that afflicts the Republican Party in the Senate as well as in the House. At the very hour that a handful of House Republican moderates torpedoed the budget bill, one Senate moderate stalled tax legislation in the Senate Finance Committee.

Actually, the Republican Party never has been so united ideologically, but the tiny moderate faction can provide the balance of power in the House and to a lesser extent the Senate. To frustrated conservatives, moderates look like the tail wagging the Republican dog. The events last Thursday suggest the folly of seeking ephemeral legislative victories by sacrificing principle.

This is why principle matters. Political pragmatism is ultimately not pragmatic at all. It is always the principled on both sides, the Ronald Reagans, Margaret Thatchers and the Hillary Rodhams, who are successful in effecting change. The pragmatists have the ability to take the reins of power, but once there, they have no ability to drive the horses anywhere.

It is not enough to win an election. If you don't have any reason for winning it, your victory will be hollow, pointless and ultimately self-defeating.

Mailvox: the popularity of abortion

QWERTY, we have a difference of definitions here. In my opinion, someone who supports abortion only in the case of rape and incest cannot possibly be considered "pro-choice" and the pro-abortion forces rightly consider that to be a predominantly pro-life position.

Since you clearly see things differently, then allow me to clarify my statement and say that no poll has ever shown majority support for unrestricted access to abortion.

Anti-abortion laws are regularly - if futilely - passed by state legislatures, and if my memory serves me correctly, every politician targeted by Emily's List won in the last round of elections. The overwhelming majority of Americans rightly see the pro-abortion forces as the extremists, not the pro-lifers, with the exception of the two or three individuals who have shot abortion doctors or bombed abortion clinics.

As one NROnik wisely noted today, the idea that social conservatives hurt Republican electoral performance is a media theme repeated every four-year election cycle and an untrue one. In truth, it is usually when the Rockefeller Republicans/moderates/neoconservatives/pragmatists gain the upper hand that Republican popularity begins to recede.

The voice of the rabbi

From the London Times:

Yet it is hard not to feel that something serious is happening. Paris, Amsterdam, New Orleans and Birmingham are not the Balkans or the Middle East. If violence is in the air in the citadels of liberal democracy, alarms should be ringing.... Then there is the collapse of the concept of national belonging, the feeling that we are all in this together and that the distress of some of us is a matter for all of us. Far from being a means of integration, multiculturalism has become a path to segregation. There are fewer mixed neighbourhoods, more urban and suburban ghettos. The ties that bind grow ever weaker. The forces that divide become stronger year by year....

There is no shortcut that allows us to bypass the long, slow task of society-building; integrating minorities, creating a shared sense of history and destiny and cultivating a national conversation in which each of us has a voice. Otherwise the prospects are dark. When conversation ends, violence begins.

The rabbi is mistaken only in thinking that the state has a positive role to play in society. In fact, the two are inherently at odds, hence the need for society's limits on the state. Once the state slips its restraints, it immediately begins destroying society. This is why all state involvement on societal organizations must be destroyed and those who further it removed from power and positions of influence.

The state is like an immune system. Kept to its proper place and performing its proper function, it can defend society against those who would destroy it. But once it begins attacking society's vital organs, it is like a lethal leukemia that must be eradicated before it fatally weakens the victim.

Elements such as distributive entitlements, the public schools, women's "rights", paper currency, open immigration and progressive taxation can all be seen as "cancer-causing" factors that structurally weaken society. The elite are foolish to ride this tiger; it seems the fatal lessons of past utopian tyrants have been completely lost on them.

Discuss amongst yourselves

NFL Week 10

Last week: 10-4. Season: 87-43, .669. Fantasy 7-2.

Carolina Panthers over New York Jets
Indianapolis Colts over Houston Texans
Jacksonville Jaguars over Baltimore Ravens
Chicago Bears over San Francisco 49ers
Atlanta Falcons over Green Bay Packers
Pittsburgh Steelers over Cleveland Browns
Washington Redskins over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Kansas City Chiefs over Buffalo Bills
Seattle Seahawks over St. Louis Rams
Denver Broncos over Oakland Raiders
New England Patriots over Miami Dolphins
New York Giants over Minnesota Vikings
Dallas Cowboys over Philadelphia Eagles

Foreshadows

From the Washington Times:

Losing the governorship in the reliably red state of Virginia to Democrat Tim Kaine doesn't help sagging Republican morale. It does hold a lesson: Don't take your base for granted.

There are other factors at work in a national election, of course, but there does seem to be a certain pattern at work in Virginia that may be echoed in the next presidential election.

Virginia, a southern state, is less strongly Republican than states like South Carolina and Texas, but has an Assembly that is leans 24-16 Republican and a 60-40 House. However, like their counterparts in Congress, the Virginia Republicans have taxed and spent in a manner indistinguishable from Democrats, which has demoralized their conservative base and left them unenthusiastic about voting for the pragmatic and unprincipled politicians of their party. Now, Virginia has a Democratic governor.

This is why I expect Republicans to lose the next presidential election in a similar manner. Bush's re-election was feeble in comparison with the Nixon and Reagan landslides; Democrats are fairly inoculated against an unlikely perception of eventual success in the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism by their vote for the initial invasion and the economic future does not look promising.

Unfortunately, Ms Rodham is the most likely benefit of these developments as the Democrats have no other serious national figures. It is possible that one might yet appear, but when a party is willing to consider former comics to headline its Senatorial campaigns, the roster would appear to be on the thin side.

A literary abomination

"Her lips quirked." "He quirked a smile." I've noticed this disgusting verbing of a perfectly good noun appearing more and more often in recent fantasy and science fiction; David Weber commits it countless times with all the joie de morte of a mass murderer on PCP in his Honor Harrington novels. Jim Butcher, whose books I otherwise enjoy, is also a serial offender, as is Laurel Hamilton if my scarred memory serves me correctly.

It's just pure lunacy. These writers wouldn't write "gooder" and they aren't from the Umberto Eco school of inventing words for the sheer pleasure of inflicting intellectual torture on translators, so why are they so repeatedly insistent on kicking the reader in the teeth like this?

The OED has it thusly: NOUN 1 A peculiar behavioral habit. 2 A strange chance occurrence. 3 A sudden twist, turn or curve. DERIVATIVES Quirkish (adjective). Quirky (adjective)

Do you see a verb anywhere in there? Because I don't. I tell you the truth. Every time I read that a character's lips "quirked" or that she "quirks a smile" it makes me want to drive my fist right into those fictional lips.

The salesman

I've told this story before, but it's appropriate today.

One afternoon, two friends of mine and I stopped by my uncle's house. He was working as the deputy director of Military Affairs at the White House, and the three of us were spending a long weekend at my grandparent's house near Mount Vernon. My friends never forgot the way he introduced himself to them; he pointed to a hat, a fur thing with a red star on it, and the first words out of his mouth were:

"You know the difference between you and me? I killed the guy who wore that hat."

We spent a few hours there with him, listened to his stories and otherwise shot the breeze. The man, to this day, is incapable of talking to any young male without selling them on the Corps, and is a salesman nonpareil. By the time we left, we were singing the Marine Corps anthem in the car and arguing about which branch of the Corps we wanted to serve in. We were halfway back to campus when the spell finally wore off and Big Chilly suddenly said: "Wait a minute, I don't want to join the military! What the hell are we thinking?"

But here's to those who did and became the finest warriors the world has ever known. Here's to you, Uncle Chuck, and to you too, Eric and JC. And most of all, here's to you, Gamp. We never, ever forget you, but especially not today.

Happy 230th birthday, Marines.

Mailvox: terrible sycophants

In which DM of Key Words demonstrates that I have some of the worst sycophants in the blogosphere. It apparently seems to have escaped whole swaths of the Voxologisti that the entire point of being a sycophant cum sock puppet is supposed to revolve around offering mindless adulation and enthusiastically embracing my every drop of wisdom, however errant. DM addresses the critique of Ralph Peters I posted yesterday:

Vox is not taking on the concept that increasing the number of workers an employer has to choose from helps the employer and - in doing so - also helps the economy. Instead he is bringing in distractors like comparing 1800's growth to growth today (basically comparing a relatively new market that was expanding with each state added to the union to a well established one) or women in the armed forces (always good to sidetrack the issue).

This miss on the issue at hand is probably not accidental. Vox actually has a degree in economics from an Ivy League institution, so he is more than familiar with the pros and cons of a free market. He knows that offering "a or b" is more economically beneficial than simply offering "a," so he knows he can't win on a strictly economic front. He has other issues with women in the workforce - some actually well founded - and so attacks arguments that are contrary to the outcome he would prefer.

Personally, I feel he would be better off fighting his battles on his own territory. He does have valid issues that he can easily back up and can probably stand on their own merits. He doesn't need to jump into side issues like this.

Before I address the substance, let me point out a few things. 1. I don't have a degree in econ from an Ivy League institution, I have degrees in Econ and Asian Studies (plus a history minor) from an Ivy League wannabee institution. Same price, less status, prettier girls, better parties. 2. Since Peters brought up women in the armed forces as a primary example of his point, it's hardly side-tracking the issue.

Indeed, I will even use that example to demonstrate how the entire argument can be won on the purely economic front DM mentions. According to DM's argument, the ability to choose A or B is always more beneficial than if A alone is on offer. And this is true, in general, but it only holds true in the most general and simplistic senses and is dependent upon a rational actor making the selection.

For example, the ability to have A and B serving together in the military is no different than the ability to employ A and B in the workplace. Assuming a perfectly rational recruiting process or employer, the best Bs will replace the worst As, thereby improving military efficiency or corporate productivity and therefore increasing economic growth. However, this reasonable assumption fails to account for the very real possibility that a mixed military/workforce will introduce an element of disharmony (c) that will the average productivity of the As such that (A+B)c < 2A. What DM assumes is a settled case of economic theory is in fact no such thing.

The salient question is whether (c) actually exists, and if so, if it is sufficient to reduce the average productivity of A. Furthermore, copious evidence exists to demonstrate that the recruiter/employer is not, in fact, perfectly rational and is quite willing to accept less productive Bs to replace more productive As. (To DM's credit, he suggests this possibility as an outside factor, although I tend to see it as an internal one inherent to the predictable characteristics of the Bs under discussion.)

Now, to address the question of why I did not make use of this analysis in the first place. The answer is the notorious shaving implement of Occam. Peter's entire argument is founded on the flimsy and inaccurate assertion of "stunning" economic growth in the past fifty years. Since his entire argument is based on this, the easiest way to take it down is to simply demonstrate that the present rate of economic growth - which has averaged 3.3 percent over the last decade - is nothing special. (My suspicion is that he was misled by the big increase in GDP per capita without taking inflation into account.)

Interestingly enough, as our correction of DM's theory would indicate, productivity per worker and the corresponding rate of economic growth has slowed significantly in the last 32 years since women entered the workforce in sufficient numbers to reduce the average wage rate, and not only in the USA but in every G7 country.

1950-1973 Output per Worker Annual Growth USA
2.1%

1973-1995 Output per Worker Annual Growth USA
United States
0.6%

This would tend to support the concept of a productivity reducing (c) element at work.

Kidding themselves

It's ironic, if somewhat unsurprising, that so many conventional liberals insist on thinking of themselves as apolitical moderates. The fact that their basic assumptions are perfectly in line with those of the mainline Democratic party - if not the Move On Xtreme Neosocialists - doesn't seem to matter as much as their desire to aspire to being the voice of impartial reason. But this is as ridiculous as the New York Times and the ABCNNBCBS cabal's insistence on their "objectivity".

Consider Scott Adams' list of nominees for his Weasel Awards:

Weaseliest Individual
George W. Bush
Karl Rove
Cindy Sheehan
Ray Nagin
Tom DeLay
Tom Cruise
Michael Brown (ex-FEMA head)
Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (Gov. of Louisiana)
Rafael Palmeiro (baseball player suspended for steroids)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Lindy England (Abu Ghraib abuser)
Mary Landrieu (Senator of Louisiana)
Bill Frist

That's five major Republican figures and one minor Republican figure versus four minor Democratic figures. Hillary Rodham Clinton nee Clinton nee Rodham Clinton nee Rodham can't even get a nomination? Jean-Francois Flippy Flop isn't even potentially a weasel?

Weaseliest Behavior
Advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools
Gas price gouging
Reporting it as "finding supplies" when white people loot
Corporate boards approving CEO pay packages
Politicians blaming other politicians
Outsourcing
Downloading music or movies without paying

This sounds like a list of Democratic Party talking points. Where's the far more hypocritical examples such as the media support for campaign finance reform, gun control advocates who have armed bodyguards and those who invoke Martin Luther King in seeking to justify skin color-based discrimination? Adams claims that these lists "doesn’t reflect my views. I have no coherent political views of my own."

Now, this may be true, but not only have we heard that before, we hear it all the time. So, forgive us if we're skeptical. By way of example, consider Chuck Klosterman waxing anti-ideological on ESPN:

I am an apolitical person. Absolutely nobody believes me when I say that, but it's true. Every conservative person I know thinks I'm mixing Noam Chomsky's personal Kool-Aid, and every liberal I know seems to assume I want to shampoo Ann Coulter's hair while watching outtakes from "The Passion of the Christ." I have no idea how this happened. For example, I don't have an opinion on abortion. I really, truly do not. You want to have an abortion? Fine; take my car keys, You think abortion is murder? Well, you're probably right. Who knows? Either way, it doesn't have anything to do with me. Do I think George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime? Well, of course I do -- but that's not because he's a Republican. It's because he somehow (a) got into Yale, yet (b) claims "the jury is still out" on the theory of evolution.

Everything is situational, and that reality informs how I interpret the world. At least within my mind, it seems as though any people who consciously and consistently perceive themselves as right-leaning or left-leaning are simply admitting that they don't want to think critically about complexity. It always strikes me as staunchly unsophisticated and mildly insane.

Ah yes, the old "I'm being criticized from both sides, ergo I am perfectly situated in the middle" line. That's new. Now, Klosterman may truly be indifferent to politics, but it's not at all difficult to determine where he stands on the political spectrum, which is to the left of center. Only someone who is inherently left-leaning subscribes to the notion that all everything is situational, and furthermore, no one who has any connection to the right would ever suggest Noam Chomsky as a counterpoint to Ann Coulter; you either have to be left-leaning or a student of the left to even bring him up in the first place.

A disdain for consistency is the hobgoblin of the ignorant and an inability to make sense of complexity is not an indication of sophistication, but of insufficient intelligence.

Mailvox: not the teacher's pet

Aero sides with the academy:

Its good to see the grade giver had the insight not to give you all As

A lot of them tended to have this hangup about students occasionally showing up for class and buying the textbook or something. Weird. I think the time I most enjoyed getting called on the carpet was when my stats prof was chewing me out in front of the class for missing a pair of classes after she'd threatened me with an F if I missed another one.

HER: "Why weren't you here last week! I told you I'd fail you if you didn't show up!"
VOX: "Hey, I couldn't make it. It was physically impossible."
HER: "Physically impossible? Were you sick? I don't believe you."
VOX: "Seriously, it was impossible. Ask the police. They were the ones who were keeping me locked up."

LONG MOMENT OF STUNNED SILENCE

HER: "You were in jail? For what?"
VOX: "Assault."

I ended up with a B+ since she decided to only dock me for not turning in any homework. (Only college prof I ever had who actually graded homework.) I'm pretty sure the main reason she set aside her little attendance policy was that she was terrified I'd end up in her class again the next semester if she failed me.

Who says the fascists lost?

From the Telegraph:

Every baby attending a day nursery or who is in the care of a childminder will be taught a new national curriculum devised by Whitehall, it was announced yesterday.

Childminders and nurseries will be under a legal duty to teach the Early Years Foundation Stage to children "from birth" until the age of three. Inspectors from Ofsted will check that the children are developing in four "distinct curriculum headings". This will include becoming "competent learners", for which they will be expected to have mastered such skills as comparing, categorising and recognising symbols and marks....

The framework will have the same compulsory force as the national curriculum, which lays down what children learn at school.

The British might as well simply ban parenting children altogether and grow armies of clone-workers while they're at it. Or, alternatively, just import more Muslims as that seems to be working really well in France. And is anyone surprised that the children's minister at the Department of Education who is at the forefront of this abomination is named "Beverly"?

The way in which Western societies plunge themselves headlong into destruction while a signficant percentage of its members watch and nod approvingly is totally mystifying to me.

Mailvox: a bubble waiting to burst

Renee conflates academic success with real world success:

Right now, I'm getting the top grades in my biology and chemistry classes, and no, they're not all girls. I got the highest grade in my class on my chem prelim last time around. (I have another one coming up Thursday that I really should be studying for now).

What am I supposed to do, fail on purpose?

No, of course you shouldn't give up your pursuit of excellence in your academic endeavors. Learning should always be prized, for its own sake. But neither should you confuse academic success with material success or expect the latter to flow naturally from the former.

Academic success is much simpler than real world success because it depends upon one very simple principle: please the giver of grades. This generally involves the ability to follow directions, do what is expected and show up to class. The problem is that these abilities are almost completely irrelevant when it comes to achieving success in the real world. At best, they will help one become a reasonably well-compensated worker bee in a large organization where results are measured by subjective performance reviews given by one's superior - in other words, pleasing the giver of grades.

Many have noted that few of the most successful self-made men have undergone traditional educational paths. This is not an accident. Success in the real world requires risk-taking, creativity and resiliency, three things that no student with a 4.0 has ever been required to demonstrate, not even at the finest schools. Unlike the caring teacher or the nurturing professor, the market doesn't give a damn about you and you're not going to get a do-over on that failed demonstration to the all-important potential strategic partner because the cat that Daddy gave you on your fifth birthday had to be rushed to the vet and you just didn't have time to finish your preparations.

What Renee and other young women need to keep in mind is that they have been sold two fraudulent bills of goods. One, of course, is that men will value them for their accomplishments and find them more desirable with a career and a college degree. The second is that academic success is realistisc and adequate preparation for marketplace success. This latter reality is becoming ever more apparent as women now make up 57 percent of this generation's college students but are conspicuous primarily by their absence from the latest generation of entrepeneurs.

It boils down to this. School is talk. Real work is action. You can talk all you like, but an idea only becomes a product or a service through action. Now, it is true that men and women who talk a good game can make a lot of money for a while - I know a few high-priced New York consultants; they're totally useless but they do make a lot of money convincing large companies to pay for their banal "services" - but at the end of the day they haven't built anything or really accomplished anything. And they know it.

There are women who have the guts, insight and tenacity to build a business from the ground up, but it's interesting to note that the Debbie Fields, the Mary Kay Ashs and the Oprah Winfreys of the world have all achieved great market success with very little in the way of an academic foundation.

So, get your good grades. Take pride in them. They will give you an initial leg up. But that's it.

A tribute to the White Buffalo

I went a solid 10-4 this week. The White Buffalo nailed 14 of 14, nailing first place and batting the mythical 1.000.

Now, if you know him, you're perfectly aware that skill has nothing to do with it and he's merely a lucky bastard - his week 17 last year is actually listed on dictionary.com under LUCK - but it's a staggering feat nonetheless.

Now why would I think that?

Pink Madness raises Amanda's old ante:

i am quite confused as to how men like this still exist. certainly someone should have taken a rather dangerous looking and most definitely pain-inflicting object such as a broken plastic spoon and castrated the man already. i would happily do so, since his confidence seems to stem not only from his immense stupidity but also from his inborn possession of a certain extra appendage. it would give me extreme pleasure to break a man such as him.

Bring it on, baby. You can brandish your broken kitchen utensil all you like; it won't do you any good. It's always amusing how a strong independent woman will talk like this right up to the second she realizes that a man is perfectly willing to treat her with the equality she demands and beat her down. Oh, I'm good and public-school propagandized, I am.

Even more amusing is how these clownish champions of women's rights so reliably demonstrate why women cannot be trusted to defend human liberty. While one advocates the mutilation of those who disagree with them, another is claiming my views are akin to the Taliban. What a surprise.

And again, voting does not equal freedom.

This is good for a laugh

Ralph Peters actually thinks women have aided the West's capitalist advantage:

The sudden transition of women from men's property to men's partners in our own country unleashed dazzling creative energies. In the historical blink of an eye, we doubled our effective human capital — and made our society immeasurably more humane. Our half-century of stunning economic growth has many roots, but none goes deeper than the expansion of opportunities for women.

But such unprecedented freedom threatens traditional societies. Behavior patterns that prevailed for millennia are suddenly in doubt. Relationships that granted males the power of life and death over female relatives have disappeared from successful cultures. Defensively, the failing cultures left behind cling harder than ever to the old ways amid the tumult of global change.

The true symbols of the War on Terror are the Islamic veil and the two-piece woman's business suit.

The math is basic. No civilization that excludes half its population from full participation in society and the economy can compete with the United States and its key allies. Yet Middle Eastern societies, especially, have dug in their heels to resist change. Some, such as Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, have tumbled backward....

The good news is that the forces of oppression can make plenty of tactical mischief but can't achieve strategic success. No society in which women are veiled and sequestered can achieve the dynamism and force of one in which women are senators, judges, CEOs, doctors and military pilots. Freedom will win, if not swiftly.

Of course, the small fact that America and the Western European countries were establishing colonies and achieving a position of total dominance in the world prior to the establishment of the Equalitarian Society that Peters is lauding here tends to pull the rug out from under his argument.

I'm very curious about his notion of "stunning economic growth" considering how the growth today is slower than it was in the 1800s, and he offers absolutely no explanation of how the expansion of opportunities for women have created this "stunning" growth.

As for female military pilots, I'm sure their ability to kill themselves trying and failing to land on carriers has got the Chinese Air Force pilots shaking in their flight jackets.

100 Things I Hate about Television

3. Small guns are better.

For some reason, bad guys armed with shotguns, scoped and laser-sighted assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers inevitably themselves outgunned by the good guy's little 9mm. It doesn't matter if the good guy is caught in the open and subject to enfilading fire from three positions, he will survive and his popgun will inflict inerrant death to body-armored troops set up in their defensive shelters.

TV producers' addiction to "surprises" is almost as bad as NFL coaches. "I know, it's third-and-17 on our own 20, they'll never expect a draw play." If a gun battle erupts on TV, watch to see who has the smaller gun with less firepower. There's your winner.

Needless to say, the USMC and other successful successful military organizations do not subscribe to this philosophy.

Unquestionably the best take on Debbie Does Carolina

From Deadspin:

And how in the world did these two end up not cheering for the Vikings?

Actually, it might have happened. If you look at Laura the Viking Cheerleader's pictures, you can see that the soon-to-be former Topcats are in the second and fifth photo. Fred Smoot is probably chewing out the MVC selection committee as we speak.

By the way, that rumbling sound you hear is everyone in our football league laughing at Chokechain. Yeah, that Owens pick in the fifth round was a real steal, dude. I must also correct the aspersions cast by the Gargler at THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS LEAGUE IN SPORTS. My brother is in a different fantasy league. No one in our league even picked Kordell that year, much less as the first pick in the first round.

The gold standard for draft brainlock in our league still belongs to the White Buffalo, picking Randall Cunningham first overall in 1999. Worth mocking, to be sure, but not even close to the level of total NFL ignorance.

It's not that difficult

I warn, they ignore, I act. I'm not much given to bluffing. If the Banned wish to run off and play the martyr, that's their right. My track record of tolerating open criticism speaks for itself. If the Banned want to come back and abide by the rules, as most of those previously banned at one time or another have done, that's perfectly fine with me.

Perhaps this comes as a surprise to some of you, but I don't read all of the comments. If you tend to repeat yourself or are commenting incessantly on a posted thread, you can be quite sure that I'm not paying any attention to you unless I'm directly involved in the discussion. The fact that I may have responded to one post out of many only means that Spacebunny or someone else has brought it to my attention.

As for yesterday's victim du jour, Scintan said it best. "if she's bleeding out of her eyes and dies just as she hits the send button, does that change the correctness of her position...?" No, it does not. This blog is neither an echo chamber nor a therapy group; if you can't back up your assertions, your argument will be ripped to shreds regardless of your creed, color, political party and health status. If you can't even answer a simple yes or no question, you will also be mocked.

The world is as it is. The truth is what it is. 2+2=4 for the fit young athlete and the decrepit Alzheimer's patient alike. Furthermore, we can have personal sympathy for the evils that beset an individual and wish them well even as we eviscerate their cowardly intellectual dishonesty and are amused by their dearth of logic.

There are thousands of blogs where a visitor will be treated with kind condescension. This is not one of them. If you want respect, you will be given the same opportunity to earn it as everyone else. A few simple guidelines:

1. If asked a question, answer it.
2. If you are asking a question of someone else, allow the person to answer it before asking another one.
3. One you have made your point, stop. Repetition only works to convince those who aren't paying attention.
4. Many regulars here scored exceptionally well on the Reading portion of the SAT. Trying to play games with intentional misreadings of others' comments doesn't work here, it only makes you look like a dishonest ass.
5. Silence does not equal agreement or being awed by your argument. If people aren't responding to your posts, there's a reasonable chance they just think you're a moron.
6. Confusing metaphors with reality is just... just don't.
7. Mild pedantism is fine. But don't overdo it, it's tiresome.

Mailvox: snapping at the heels

AP loses her bet:

Your sarcastic wit is truly precious. You have quite the knack for pointing out all the problems we dimwitted conservatives have, but rarely do you ever tell us just what the hell it is exactly YOU personally believe?? What political & spiritual articles of faith do you subscribe to? I bet they are fluid. I would also be willing to wager that you are secretly enamored with the Left and that the Right, Christians in particular, embarrass you.

Yes, I'm a massive fan of expanding entitlement programs, a Wilsonian foreign policy and increasing the power of central government. Oh, wait, that's our "conservative" president! There are Christians who embarrass me; they do so because I am one of them. I am only enamored of the many occasions for amusement which the Left regularly provides me. Apparently, AP has concluded that the CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN bit in my column bio and at the top of this blog is some sort of secret Gramscian code giving out props to my Che-shirt wearing peeps. Word 'em up, boyeez. Red West!

SS has read the Beatitudes:

Don't forget to add a healthy dose of condescending sarcasm to your arguments. It creates in your opponents a healthy respect and fear for whatever 'intellectual status' plateau you've elevated yourself to in your internal life. I'm pretty sure this was the very tactic Jesus used in his sermon on the mount to quell the cries of the unwashed rabble gathered at his feet. Or was it enumerated in the body of the beatitudes? I always forget... It must be in there somewhere though. I read a lot of 'Christian' writers that seem to use it every chance they get. Apparently that whole 'love your enemies' thing was just for the marks.

Why do people think that the only thing Jesus ever said was "love your enemies". Anyhow, while I may occasionally be mildly sarcastic and perhaps just a tad condescending, that is not exactly tantamount to hatred. Consider, for example, a missive addressed recently to two of my good friends:

Will anyone win? In this week's battle of the cellar dwellars, much speculation centers around the unlikelihood that either the fraudulent Ferrets or the collapsing Cocktails will be able to win. Scientists at the CERN research center in Geneva, Switzerland, have demanded that the game be called off, expressing their opinion that the contest bears disturbing logical similarities to the destructive collision of matter and anti-matter.

"Zee entire globe could be evaporated!" worried Dr. Jean-Pierre Francois, CERN's resident expert on exogravitational logistics. "Surely zee Amis, zey cannot permit zis game to play!"

When reached for comment, the league commissioner stated that he wasn't concerned about what a bunch of frightened frogs thought. After being informed Dr. Francois is actually Swiss, the commissioner added: "If his name is Jean-Poof and he speaks frog, then he's a damned frog, all right? Now, tell him to go surrender to someone; here in The Most Prestigious League In Sports(tm), we've got a scoreless ballgame to play!"

Anyhow, I suppose it is possible that "whitewashed tomb" and "son of vipers" is synonymous with "beloved brother" and "dear friend" in the original Hebrew, but color me skeptical.

A review of right-wing blogs

This is an interesting take on some of the more popular right-leaning blogs. I'd considering doing my own, except I don't read enough of them to be able to put together a comprehensive list. The comments are also entertaining.

(4) Little Green Footballs—Remember that government report that said the "War on Terror" should really be called something like the "War on Islamist Jihadism"? LGF got the memo. All Anti-Islamism, all the time.

(5) Hugh Hewitt— If you were to combine all three Powerline bloggers, Sean Hannity and any given Republican Party Chairman in some sort of GOP experiment to create the most reliable Republican pundit ever...you'd have Hugh Hewitt: the distilled essence of The Party Man.

(6) The Volokh Conspiracy—you know how you and your friends used to get into wandering, but interesting, all-night conversations about every subject imaginable—school, politics, jokes, sports, news, girls, philosophy, etc—in your younger days? Replace your old friends with a bunch of libertarian-leaning college professors. It's the Volokh Conspiracy!

Mailvox: argument by exegesis

JB somehow manages to avoid quoting Psalms:

In your "How to argue like a conservative" column you ridicule people who use the Bible as a basis for the authority of their argument. You obviously haven't haven't thought out the logical conseuqences of this position.

The issue of God's authority to determine right and wrong in our society is the very heart of the issue. If we cannot get our society back to the place where we have the objective standard of Scripture as the moral basis for our nation, we are nothing but pragmatists just like the liberals.

If there is no God to set and enforce some kind of objective standard about "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil", then EVERYTHING boils down to mere personal opinion and preference - even your conservative/libertarian opinions. Cruelty is just as valid as kindness. Hitler and Mother Theresa are moral equivalents. A chaotic, brutish society is not inherently worse than a stable, tolerant one. Pleasure is not necessarily better than suffering. Selfishness is no more wrong than generosity. Without God to establish "justice, a person has no reason to howl if someone screws him over, except that he doesn't like it because it makes his life difficult or painful. The oppression and exploitation of the weak by the strong is not inherently wrong - it's just the way things happen. With no God, there isn't even any reason why "advanced", sentient beings like man ought to survive as a species. The eco-freaks are right that it's no big deal if man destroys himself and leaves the planet to the trees and cockroaches. But, it's also irrelevant if he totally trashes the environment. If there is no God who has communicated in scripture, it doesn't make any difference (except to that person) if life here on earth is pleasurable or painful. It's all meaningless. No one is ever going to punish evil, reward good, or make things right. What is, is. Deal with it.

These are the logical consequences of a godless, scriptureless universe - a Darwinian dogfight to determine whose personal opinions will dominate the lives of other people. Conservatives and libertarians operating on human reason without the authority of scripture to back them up are just as screwed up and dangerous as the liberals.

Pragmatism, basing right and wrong on what appears to "work" can be a very ugly thing. And basically a pragmatist is all you are without scripture to validate your assertions.

JB is failing to distinguish between understanding the font of your political philosophy and knowing when is - and when is not - the appropriate time to draw from it. Forse devo fare un'analogia. Se parlo italiano e sto litigando contra un'altro si non parle italiano, e' possibile per me a effettivamente convincerlui di qualcosa quando si non puo capire niente che stavo dicendo?

Did you find that compelling? Are you convinced? Or are you just rolling your eyes and wondering what the meaningless babble was all about?

Or perhaps a different analogy might be more appropriate. Suppose that I am basing my case for the 1939 Japanese invasion of Hawaii on the memoirs of High Admiral Todoshi Fukuyama. Then suppose that you are a historian specializing in 20th century Japanese military history, you have never heard of High Admiral Fukuyama or his memoirs and you are pretty sure that the man never existed. How much credence are you going to give my case, and how seriously are you going to regard me in the future?

Because, you see, this is exactly how non-Christians regard Christians arguing from the Bible. And this is why it is stupid and futile for Christians to regard Biblical quotes as being meaningful when they are arguing with non-Christians.

CHRISTIAN: "The Bible says X!"
AGNOSTIC: "I don't believe the Bible."
CHRISTIAN: "But it says X right here! What don't you understand about that?"
AGNOSTIC: "What part of 'I don't believe' don't you understand?"

What's particularly insane about this concept of Bible-based argumentation is that the Bible itself expressly states that it cannot and will not be understood by the wisdom of the world, that it requires the foolishness of one guided by the Holy Spirit to even begin to make proper sense of God's Word, even though our understanding will remain incomplete.

Don't worry about the French

From WND:

But Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the French Muslim Council and leader of the largest mosque in Paris, seemed to blame the government for the continuing violence. "What I want from the authorities, from Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, the prime minister and senior officials, are words of peace," he said.

Sarkozy has been widely criticized for his "warlike" language in which he referred to rioters as "scum" and vowed to "clean up" the suburbs. Neighboring Germany, also with a large Muslim immigrant population, mostly of Turkish origin, was watching the horror unfold in France with alarm. Wolfgang Bosbach, the deputy leader of the conservative Christian Democrats in the German parliament, told a Sunday newspaper: "There are differences between the situation in France and here, but we should not be under the illusion that similar events could not happen in Germany."

In Italy, Romano Prodi, the opposition leader, called on the government to take urgent action, telling reporters: "We have the worst suburbs in Europe. I don't think things are so different from Paris. It's only a question of time."

Denmark has also been hit with what is being characterized as its own "Islamic Intifada." In Arhus, Denmark, young Muslims were heard chanting, "This land belongs to us!" A masked spokesman for the rioters told Danish reporters that Muslims were tired of being oppressed and harassed and warned the police to stay away.

People like to joke about the French tendency to surrender, but when one considers that this is also the nation which brought forth the Reign of Terror and Napoleon, and has a police force which is quite willing to exterminate Muslim protesters, the inevitable crackdown is only a question of when. Many are also unaware that France has already fought and lost one war with Islam in the last fifty years; the loss of French Algeria has not been forgotten and many of the current rioters/intifadists are descended from the 100,000 harkis, Algerian Muslims who fought for France and were forced to leave Algeria when De Gaulle granted Algeria the right of self-determination and the Algerians voted for independence.

I believe this is, in part, why the French are reluctant to smash the ghettos. Due to their historical ties to Northern Africa, the French are much more comfortable with Islam than are Americans, the British or Germans and there is a genuine feeling of guilt for the 150,000 harkis who did not flee Algeria and subsequently perished, as well as a sense of a debt to the descendants of those who came to France and survived. That being said, the French are famously ungrateful and will always pursue their own interests in the end.

At this point in time, the French authorities have not considered the riots to be much more than an upturn in the sort of violent which happens from time to time, on the order of 1961 and 1996. And they may yet be proven correct, as not a single Frenchman has been slain, compared to 11 policemen killed in 1961 and 12 dead in 1996. But should it become clear that the present situation is more serious and a more correct analogy is that of the Algerian War of Independence, I have no doubt that the French will shock the world in the extreme violence of its response to the situation.

I am not French, I do not speak French and I have no loyalty to France. Therefore, I see little point in expressing a largely ignorant opinion as to what France should do in this situation. I do think it is tragic, however, that the French government's determination to cling to its absurd multiculturalism will likely lead to unnecessary bloodshed. History tends to indicate that there are two ways of dealing with an intractable minority incapable of assimilation. Boot them out sooner, or kill them later.

Mailvox: French Muslims play with fire

Chuck wonders:

I'm intrigued that you have not touched on this business very much. Is there a 'reason'? Perhaps that it touches on your genteel anarchist approach to law enforcement?

What's to post on? I've made my predictions regarding Muslims and Europe, and who will be the first to go Vichy on Ismail's posterior. It's all coming to pass, and when it does, then there will be something interesting to say.

NFL Week 9

Last week: 12-2. Season: 77-39, .664. Fantasy 6-2.

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

Don't like this week, don't like it at all. All the bad teams are at home, which can lead to some strange results. I'll be delighted to go 10-4 this week.

Abraham's quixotic jihad

Fresh from his stunningly accurate predictions of mass anti-semitic riots caused by Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, the ADL's Abe Foxman declares war on Christianity and Christians:

Institutionalized Christianity in the U.S. has grown so extremist that it poses a tangible danger to the principle of separation of church and state and threatens to undermine the religious tolerance that characterizes the country, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, warned in his address to the League's national commission, meeting in New York City over the weekend....The ADL, considered the largest Jewish organization in America, has in the past spearheaded campaigns against religious preachers and Christian elements deemed unusually extreme. But this is the first all-out media assault by an ADL head on the U.S. Christian establishment.

This guy would have made quite the grand strategist, wouldn't he? With leaders such as these, it's no wonder that Jews always manage to find persecution all over the world. Launching all-out assaults on the overwhelming majority doesn't exactly strike me as the best way to win friends and influence people in any place or time.

Foxman's strategy is intriguing. The Muslims already hate the Jews, the revolutionary pagans and secular atheists haven't exactly shown a great deal of fondness for them in National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union or the post-christian EU, (do excuse that upper-case J, European readers) so naturally, attacking American Christians makes a great deal of sense. I suppose for his next trick, Mr. Foxman will travel to India to label Buddha a fat bastard and follow that up with an attack on Hindus - who, fortuitously enough, already have plenty of swastikas* on hand - thus assuring Mr. Foxman that everyone everywhere really is out to get him.

*yes, I know they're reversed, don't be so bloody pedantic.

100 Things I Hate About Television

2. Exploding gas tanks.

Unlike the vast majority of Americans, I have actually set a car on fire and blown up a gas tank. It was when I was being chased by a pair of blonde, bisexual Estonian lady spies a few years back who were angry about having been seduced into blowing their cover during a torrid threesome the night before; the sun was rising and they thought they had me cornered with their Lotus Turbo Esprit when I fired an incindiary round from my laser-sighted Glock .40 that ignited the gas tank and sent up a massive fireball that was seen from Milwaukee.

Or perhaps I exaggerate somewhat. Running through my recall subroutines, I am informed that there was only one girl, and while she was blonde, she was perfectly straight and utterly devoid of any Estonian ancestry. There was no gun, no incindiary round, and the Lotus was actually a 1977 MGB. There was, however, an exploding gas tank. It seems what happened was that I missed a curve and drove off the road during one of the Jag club's road rallies, and I did so at spectacularly bad time because the entire Midwest was going through a terrible drought that summer.

The non-Estonian non-spy and I thought it was pretty funny until we heard an ominous crackling sound beneath us. A quick glance underneath the car indicated that an overheated catalytic converter set the field on fire, and there was simply no way to drive the car forward or push it out of the ditch in which we were sitting. So, there was nothing to do but watch the car and the field burn; the gas tank explosion was disappointingly anticlimactic as there was just a dull poompf followed by a belching cloud of darker smoke rising from the back end of the car. Frankly, I felt rather cheated.

It took a lot longer than you'd think, too. I'd estimate that around seven or eight minutes of fairly comprehensive burning passed before the gas tank exploded. Ironically, MGB parts were rare enough that the various bits and pieces I managed to salvage from the burned-out hulk allowed me to pay for another MGB with a souped-up engine.

Hello Kiwi

Kiwi starts a cute little blog:

I've been doing this for eight days, and already I can't keep up with all the comments. I need minions like Vox Day has. Or maybe some ilk. Ilk would be nice. Voxie dear, do you have any spare ilk?

I'm not exactly sure why you'd want them. Their house-training is debatable, they'll certainly drink all your liquor and somebody - I can only assume Nate - has a hole in their pocket and is leaving .45 hollow-points scattered all about the place. I just caught the Ridgeback chewing on one, that or she's stocking up for the Great Canine Coup of 2005. Anyhow, I'm sure Chuck has plenty of comments to spare, so if you'd like a few dozen neatly formatted comments on the inevitable and unstoppable Uruguayan invasion of Marco Island, I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige.

And if he's too busy, just mention the A-word, the E-word or the CW/WONA, you'll soon have more ilk than you can shake a straw at.

Hello Kiwi is here, should you feel up to flexing your ilkdom. Warning: Cuteness and pinkness abounds.

Mailvox: An Australian whinge

JamieR keeps Nate up to date:

If you didn't know (you most probably did), if Australia beats Uruguay on November 12 in Uruguay, we qualify for the World Cup. We always get the hard route, Oceania doesn't get an automatic qualifier, and that usually means we have to face the South American team that finishes fifth, of all bloody regions! We almost had to play Brazil to qualify in 2002...

And sure, if we win on November 12, there's another game in Sydney 4 days later, but that's in the bag if we win in Montevideo. These are the same pricks that prevented us from qualifying for 2002 - with their home ground tactics of hiring mobs to spit on our players arriving at the airport, abusing them and trying to fight them, and forcing our team to stay holed up in their hotel rooms like prisoners, unable to do anything but sit and wait for the game to start ...and that's when the fans got rough. This time around, we're going to Argentina to train, and get into Uruguay at the last minute and head straight to the ground after that.

Good luck, mate. I wouldn't mind seeing the Ozzies make the mondiale. As for me, I'm just hoping Team USA makes it farther than the Italians again. My calcio-playing friends always enjoy a rousing round of The Star-Spangled Banner being sung in their ear; my Portugeuse teammate introduced me to some very bad new words after the USA scored its third goal against Figo and company last time around.

I'm kind of conflicted about France, though. While Spacebunny and I always pull for England, it's hard to cheer against current and former Arsenal stalwarts such as Henry, Pires, Viera and Wiltord.

Speaking of Arsenal, how about that Dutch kid? The second-coming of Dennis Bergkamp, he is. I thought he had that five-minute hat-trick until the ball went wide.

Why yes, I am in a good mood

I had a chance to meet up again with Umberto Eco last night; I was surprised and more than a little delighted to find that he remembered me. (Spacebunny wryly notes that when you follow someone around for 17 hours, accompanied by a film crew, they only wish they could forget you.) Even better, he said that he had no objections to my using an old essay of his in the anthology I'm currently editing.

It's not a done deal yet because I still have to get permission from the publisher, but the lady with whom I spoke didn't seem to feel that would be a problem. We'll see. I'm not going to start counting any chickens yet.

And yes, it was pretty funny when midway through the conversation, it suddenly hit him that we were speaking Italian.

Spacebunny may mock me for being such a fanboy, but at least I'm not writing derivative fan fiction. That would be Dan Brown.

And they wonder why we don't buy it

The Opinionista is really, truly, very sorry. At least, she'd like you to think so:

I'm a liberal apologizer. The phrase "I'm sorry" rolls regularly down my tongue like wheeled luggage on a ramp. I've been told it's a common female trait, that women are taught to be meek and cave in the face of conflict, suppressing their aggression behind an endless stream of penitential apologies. But in my case the words flow easily because they hold little actual meaning. The implicit "You were right, I was wrong" expressed in the phrase never fails to placate and mollify, so I employ it with aplomb. I can't think of any other word that serves such multi-purposes - appeasing others, dissipating anger and deescalating nearly any situation, so everyone wins. As long as my end result is achieved, I'll gladly apologize my way out of a bind with all guise of contrition.

I remember a girl in college who couldn't figure out why I stopped seeing her after a minor social offense. I think she was an hour late for a date or something equally trivial.

"I said I was sorry," she protested.

And she had, immediately, just as she had on all the previous occasions. Now, I'm not a time fascist, but I harbor an inherent distrust of anyone who will so readily apologize without feeling any sense of contrition or obligation to modify their behavior in the future.

The ability to apologize is tremendously important, but without the force of genuine contrition behind it, an apology is meaningless.

By the way, the Opinionista's blog is quite entertaining. Among other things, it offers ample justification for one's opinion of lawyers as evolutionary precursors to Gromphadorhina portentosa. I couldn't help but notice this bit too:

Because junior associates in competitive law firms embody a peer group of twenty/thirtysomethings dominated by a slavish work ethic and near-maniacal eagerness to please. Be it for our parents, teachers, coaches, admissions officers, professors, interviewers, we are skilled experts in the art of presenting a human blueprint of perfection to anyone in authority. We're the proverbial pack of Pavlovian labradors dying to salivate on cue - all you have to do is ring the dinner bell and we'll obediently come running every time. We'll do anything in our physical power to amuse today's masters. But begin beating us if we fail to drool quickly enough, and we'll crawl into our crates, lick our wounds and eventually snap our jaws at the sight of you striding angrily down the taupe hallway.

That should explain why so many lawyers are jackboot-licking Democrats. Although one of my best friends is an attorney, he's one of the few good guys I've encountered from the profession. Of course, he couldn't stand the law firm nonsense either, so he went corporate and I don't think he's regretted it.

Big Chilly and I once attended a reception at TPAM's law firm when he was still there; the lawyers didn't realize we were corporate clients and not mere lowlife friends because we were both wearing ripped jeans and t-shirts. TPAM nearly had an aneurysm trying not to burst out laughing after the firm's resident jerk offered his hand and introduced himself to me in the most contemptuous possible manner.

I simply shook his hand, smiled beatifically, and said: "I'm not wearing any underwear." Big Chilly howled, TPAM's eyes bulged out as he tried to avoid doing the same and the lawyer jerk just stared with his mouth open, with no clue what to do or say.

I don't have much interest in primate dominance games, but they can be amusing from time to time.

100 things I hate about television

I don't know if I can actually make it to 100, but we'll see.

1. The preponderance of lethal violence.

Television writers who show violence through their portrayals of criminals or mentally unbalanced individuals like to claim that they are simply showing reality. But the actual reality is that in a nation of 300 million people, only 16,137 people were murdered in 2004. This is one in every 18,591 people, which means the average American has a .00538 percent chance of becoming a murder victim.

The televised murder rate, on the other hand, has to be something on the order of one in thirty. With only thirty or so characters on a show, one or two people are usually getting whacked despite the stupendous odds against this. This is only realistic in comparison with portrayals of faster-than-light space travel, alien invasions and straight women's basketball coaches.

And don't give me the excuse that this surfeit of unlikely violence exists only because it's a police show or whatever. The average police officer never once fires his gun in the line of duty over the course of his career. In fact, I would surmise that there are probably more TV criminals killed by TV police in a single season of television than there are real criminals killed by real police over an entire year.

Mailvox: in adjectives we trust

Papapete assaults the language:

Gregg (and Vox to a certain extent) are technically correct. However, if you ask the proverbial "man-on-the-street" you would get a definition much closer to Chuck's than Gregg's. Therefore Gregg and Vox are technically correct in calling Japanese internment camps "concentration camps". If one uses the popular definition, then the internment camps weren't "concentration camps".

Vox, you know what the connotations of "concentration camps" are as well as I do. To use that term in this instance is less than honest.

And if you ask the proverbial "man-on-the-street" he will also tell you that the Founding Fathers established America as a democracy, that the Federal Reserve is a government institution and that the United Nations is an idealistic force for good. This does not make him correct, this simply makes him ignorant. The fact that Chuck, and presumably, Papapete, wish to mutilate the language of a well-defined word simply to whitewash American history does not make me less than honest.

There have been many concentration camps in the 20th century. The 33 camps in which the British imprisoned the Boers from 1899-1902 were, prior to the National Socialist varieties, the most infamous.

From Wikipedia: "Over the course of the twentieth century, the arbitrary internment of civilians by the authority of the state became more common and reached a climax with the practice of genocide in the death camps of the Nazi regime in Germany, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union. As a result of this trend, the term concentration camp carries many of the connotations of extermination camp and is sometimes used synonymously. In technical discussion, however, it is important to understand that a concentration camp is not, by definition, always a Nazi-style death-camp."

The 1/1/2005 Washington Post report on the federal government's plan to establish camps in the United States as part of the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism might seem alarming at first, but fortunately they are described as "detention camps", so those worried about "internment camps", "concentration camps" or "death camps" need not lose any sleep over them.

If you can't put your faith in an adjective, what can you trust?

Mailvox: word games

Cedarford writes:

"Gregg has recently become enamored of the deceitful language of the Left. He knows the word concentration camp is loaded. It is typically used only in context of Nazis these days."

Yes, that's why it wasn't used to describe the, um, non-concentration camps in Bosnia, right? And why it won't be used again as soon as the French start rounding up Muslims.

The only attempted linguistic manipulation going on here is Cedarford's. Everyone here knows perfectly well that the Japanese-Americans weren't put into ovens.

The larger point, which those who wish to whitewash American history are studiously avoiding, is that a government with the power to dispossess you and round you up without trial is a government with the power to pop you into a Zyklon B shower if it so chooses.

The fact that the American government was less ill-intentioned than the National Socialist government is true, but that is damnation by praise so faint it can barely be detected by microscope.

Eyes opened too late

From the UK Telegraph:

"The feared 'Iron Lady'... played an unfriendly, indeed a dangerous role," in the debate over reunification, he argues in Helmut Kohl, Memories 1982 to 1990.

The book, Mr Kohl has hinted, is his revenge on Lady Thatcher for her snubbing him in her own memoirs as a "provincial politician". His fury and puzzlement at his British opposite number fill large chunks of its chapter on reunification, suggesting that he is still smarting at his treatment at her hands.

He recalls her losing her temper at a dinner hosted by the then French president François Mitterrand nine days after the Berlin Wall was breached in 1989.

German reunification should go ahead because Nato was in favour of it, Mr Kohl argued. "Over dessert the British prime minister started heavily laying into me... I remained calm... with the thought that even Margaret Thatcher cannot prevent the German people from following their destiny," he writes.

"Incensed with rage, Thatcher stamped her feet and screamed: 'That's how you see it, how you see it!'."

On another occasion soon afterwards she threatened to veto reunification and implied that Britain had to stand up to Germany as it had during two world wars. "We've beaten the Germans twice and now they're back!" she reportedly said.

The English did not consider European unification to be a good thing under Philip II, Napoleon or Hitler. It is truly a pity that Lady Thatcher did not see the stealthy machinations involved in constructing this latest revival of monstrosity.

A note from Farmer Tom

My wife and I would like to thank all of you who have prayed for us and for the family. We have been so encouraged by those who told us they were praying for us. We have also felt that Peace that only the Holy Spirit brings to those that know that "Our Faith is Not in Vain". Thank You Again.

Steve Logemann was born in 1960 and lived all his life near the town of Ledyard, Iowa. He loved the farm and went to two years of Community College in an Ag Studies Program after his graduation from the local high school. He also loved working with computers and was constantly updating his system, trouble shooting other peoples systems for them and talking about the latest programs, software and hardware. He tied his love of farming with the love of computers by doing all the record keeping of his operation on the computers, eventually leading to mapping systems using GPS to study soil types, seed varities, and yields of the crops he grew. His skill with computers was good enough that he was hired by a local computer business to assemble, service and sell computers when he wasn't farming.

Steve was very involved in the activities of Raccon River Bible Camp, a independent fundamental Bible camp near Scranton, IA. From the time he was a young boy he was there every summer, learning God's Word, fellowshiping with other believers and growing in his personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He was nominated to the camp board and served as a board member for more than 15 years. Steve met his wife at camp as well and she served as the camp treasuer with her husband.
They were blessed with four children, and they have already mentioned times as camp with Steve as some of the memories they will always treasure. Steve was also very active in his church, was a deacon, a Sunday school teacher, and usher.

Steve was killed in an accident during harvest, somehow he was run over by the combine while his father was unloading corn into a wagon.

Several have asked about contributing to the family. Steve's wife told me, that memorials should be sent in his name to

Raccoon River Bible Camp
875 B. Avenue
Scranton, IA 51462

The Coconut War: comparative forces

PHILIPPINES
US Army troops: 19,147
US land-based aircraft: 231
US carrier-based aircraft available: 0
Japanese time estimate: 50 days
Japanese force estimate: Two divisions
Actual time required: five months
Actual force required: Three divisions in two rounds of transport

WAKE ISLAND
USMC and USN troops: 517
US land-based aircraft: 12
Japanese force required: 1,950 Imperial Marines
Actual time required 15 days

HAWAII
US Army troops: 43,000. 24th, 25th and 299th Divisions
US land-based aircraft: 223 (159 survived Pearl Harbor attack, 77 undamaged.)
US carrier-based aircraft available: 332 immediately, plus another 240 within two weeks.

"The Island of Oahu", due to its fortification, its garrison, and its physical characteristics, is believed to be the strongest fortress in the world."

So, if the Wake Island garrison with only four planes that survived the initial bombardment could hold off a larger amphibious invasion force for 15 days, what are the chances that three fortified divisions with 409 planes could hold off the two divisions the Japanese were capable of transporting for the two weeks required to allow the East Coast carriers, plus the former CV-1 Langley, to converge on Hawaii and sink the entire strike force, carriers and all, even without the help of the 7th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 9th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 11th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), and 22nd Bombardment Squadron (Heavy) flying in from Hamilton Field in San Rafael, California.

Furthermore, the 7th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 35th Pursuit Group (Interceptor), 22d Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 38th Reconnaissance Squadron (Heavy), and 88th Reconnaissance Squadron (Heavy) which were enroute to the Philippines would also have been available.

Even if the Japanese abandoned both the Burma and the Philippine invasions in favor of a futile attempt on Hawaii, they still could only have transported three divisions; their maximum aircraft transport capability remained at 717 planes, 441 of which were already devoted to the historical Pearl Harbor attack, in which Japan lost 29 planes and 111 were damaged, 20 beyond repair.

Mailvox: the wing chun of love

I've seen plenty of hints about the wild and generally ungodly youth of men such as Vox and Bane. Both of these men now have very good wives, to hear their husbands tell it. I'm curious as to whether or not their wives met and married them during their wild and ungodly phases, or if G-d had already begun to work changes in their lives when He introduced their future wives into their lives.

I can't speak for the hulking shadow that is Bane, but although Spacebunny and I determined that we were once at the same fraternity party at the University of Minnesota years before we met, we did not meet until after I became a Christian. I had no intention of entering into a serious relationship, much less getting married, at the time but I found my perspective altering insensibly, much to my bewilderment.

The secret to defeating a hardened fighter is to refuse to fight. The secret to winning a rebel's heart is to refuse to try controlling him.

And when we are fortunate, God gives us the eyes to see another individual, not as they are, but as they can be.

And about those six divisions

If you're not Chuck or are not interested in WWII, don't read this:

The Southern Army was established on November 6, 1941 to control all IJA units assigned to the Southern Operations. The command was headquartered in Siagon, Friench Indochina under Gen. Count Terauchi Hisaichi. The plan was certainly ambitious. The seizure of all of Southeast Asia, the NEI, the Philippines, and regions of the South Pacific would be accomplished by only 11 infantry divisions, four brigade-sized forces, and 700 IJA aircraft - 400,000 troops total. This area stretched across five time zones and was larger than the Continential United States. Japan was counting on surprise, and the relatively unprepared and weak forces fielded by the colonial powers. Its own resources would be stretched to the limit with transport shipping pulling double duty to move troops. Almost half of the IJA's 1,500 combat aircraft would be required....

In December, 1941, Japan possessed 51 divisions supplimented by 59 brigade equivalents, but many of these were non-deployable being garrison and line-of-communications security forces in China. 28 divisions were in China with most engaged in combat or occupation duty. Another 13 were in Manchuria and Korea to protect the Empire’s northern frontier with the USSR. Two of the five divisions remaining in the Home Islands were newly raised and partly trained. The exceptions were the 2d committed to the Southern Operations, the 4th as the IGHQ Reserve and the 7th tied down protecting northern Japan from the USSR.

In other words, there were not six divisions, but five theoretically available for the hypothetical invasion of Hawaii or the West Coast. Two hadn't finished their training. One was required for defense against the USSR, (which they'd been planning to attack until August, 1941), and the 4th was required as a reserve for the 14th Army invading the Phillipines.

"The 14th Army was designated the Phillippines Attack Force consisting of the 48th Division, 16th Division, 5th Air Group (20 air battalions) and the 4th Division (committed later). The operation was scheduled to take 50 days."

Since the Japanese knew it would require 50 days to take the Phillipines, 5516 miles from the West Coast and very difficult to reinforce, they would have to have been completely insane to attempt an invasion that would almost precisely reverse the logistical advantage in the USA's favor. As it turned out, it took them longer than scheduled and they were forced to throw in their reserve division.

There is no way that the Japanese would have been crazy enough to send one solitary division to attempt to take and hold Hawaii. The ease and patience with which American forces went about retaking the Aleutian Islands from the Japanese demonstrates how such an invasion would have been suicidal. The only probable effect on the course of the war would have been to hasten its end.

For details on exactly what units were where in December, 1941, I recommend Osprey Battle Orders #9, which contains copious unit descriptions as well as maps graphically depicting deployments. The deployment of the Japanese Southern Army shown below make it very clear why the US high command was so much more concerned with defending Port Moresby and Australia than Honolulu and Los Angeles.

The Japanese Army in WWII: Conquest of the Pacific 1941-1942, page 11. Osprey Publishing, 2005


Note for Chuck: the map shows the Southern Army only. Most of the units you are talking about were in the General Defense Command, distributed as follows:
Eastern District Army: 52d Division, 2d, 3d, 51st and 57 Depot divisions
Central District Army: 53d, 54th Divisions, 4th, 5th and 55th Depot divisions
Western District Army: 6th, 56th Depot divisions
Northern District Army: 7th Division, Karafuto Mixed Brigade

My understanding is that most of the divisions VG includes in the game were not combat-ready divisions, hence the designation Depot Division. But the bigger problem you face is that you have to account for the USA's ability to reinforce Hawaii once the attack begins. First you have to find your transport and give up the Philippine invasion, then note that your transport capability only allows for two full divisions. For your air, you get the Pearl Harbor force plus two fighter, two light bomber and one heavy bomber regiment.

Remember, the entire Atlantic carrier fleet can be in Hawaii from Norfolk in only 15 days. On December 7, 1941, Wasp, Long Island, Hornet, Ranger and Charger were all available, to say nothing of the land-based aircraft on the West Coast.

The civilized riposte to that damnable Deutschman

I adore P.G. Wodehouse, unabashedly, with much the same vehemence that Umberto Eco reserves for George Schultz and with the same willingness to commit acts of unspeakable violence upon any half-witted fool so despicable as to disagree. The Fraters Libertas, who despite a most convincing disguise to the contrary are truly gentlemen of no small taste and refinement, do us the favor of pointing us to this interesting article on the great English writer.

And write he did, making so much money—from his books, scripts for Hollywood and Broadway, and articles in magazines such as Vanity Fair—that the American tax authorities and the British Inland Revenue united in one of their first joint projects, a trans-Atlantic cooperative effort to dig as much as possible out of Wodehouse’s international royalties. That may have been what finally drove him abroad in 1934, when he and Ethel settled in France.

In retrospect, this proved not to be the ideal time for such a move. Five years later, Hitler’s blitzkrieg swept through the area, picking up the British Wodehouse along the way—or, as he explained, “Young men, starting out in life, have often asked me, ‘How can I become an internee?’ Well, there are several methods. My own was to buy a villa in Le Touquet on the coast of France and stay there until the Germans came along. This is probably the best and simplest system. You buy the villa and the Germans do the rest.”

If you can read that last bit and it doesn't make the edges of your mouth twitch, I have to seriously question your claim on the human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Mailvox: the Marxist libertarian

DH takes some exception:

Vox, with this article you remind me of one of the Marx Brothers. Karl, that is. How in the world can you advocate something to increase the already massive tax load on the childless and not mention cutting some of the lard off the gargantuan federal beast, without throwing some of the child bearing welfare sponges off the pork wagon and onto the work place like the rest of us ? Although you identify yourself as a Libertarian,just as liberals are prone to do, I notice that you do not state how high you are willing to raise marginal rates on us childless vermin. 60? 70? 80? 110? At what levels of income ? 30,000 ? 20,000 ? 10,000 ? Have you ever analyzed what the childless pay into keeping up Social Security, Medicare, and the welfare system as opposed to what we take out ? If you have, I do not know how you can claim that we are not helping to perpetuate the bloated federal sow. If you are ever going to take part in a forum with those of us who oppose you, please e-mail me because I want to listen or be part of it.

It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals expect me to directly address all possible ramifications and tangentially related matters in a single 750-word column. And it never ceases to annoy me how these same individuals will, at the same time, completely ignore everything I have ever written before as well as my general political philosophy in indignantly leaping to point out a seeming, but nonexistent contradiction.

There is probably not a single regular here who is under the impression that I favor Social Security, Medicare or the welfare system. Indeed, I have no doubt that even my most vehement critics are well aware that I oppose such things. DH here displays an all-too-typical conflation of tactics and strategy, of specific policy and general philosophy, which I often see exhibited by godless, left-wing evolutionary dead-ends and God-fearing, freedom-loving Constitutional conservatives alike. He should know better.

The point of Monday's column was not to provide a complete restructuring for the entire federal system of revenues and expenditures from a libertarian perspective, it was to consider ways that governments which already engage in social engineering might do so in a more effective and freedom-enhancing manner. Does DH think he will receive anything from Social Security if the following generations are too few in number to support it? Does he think that in the current American tax model, his taxes will be higher, or lower, if there are significantly fewer taxpayers to shoulder the load with him?

I agree that all parties, childless and parents, are wrongly forced to perpetuate an unjust system. But that is not the matter under discussion here. From a current utilitarian perspective - as opposed to a theoretical libertarian one - the childless have little to contribute except their taxes. Therefore, if society is to perpetuate itself, it should come as no surprise that the financial contributions of the childless will have to be higher, as they contribute less in other ways.

In any case, if one finds the ability of Western society to perpetuate itself to be of no interest or concern, one might as well move to China or Saudi Arabia and get a head start on acculturating oneself to the probable future.

UPDATE: DH considers my response:

Vox, I want to thank you for your graciousness in posting my e-mail to you. First, to put you at ease, I am well aware and appreciate your long term efforts to educate Americans on the unnecessary high taxes we all pay as the result of the government being involved in areas that it should not be. The panic in my e-mail was because I thought that as a result of the Vikings meltdown or some medication that you were taking, that you had suddenly lost it and were drifting over to the other side.While you and I might not agree on the best and most immediate solution to the problem you outlined, your reasoned response lowered my blood pressure to non stroke levels and re-affirmed to me that the real Vox was still there.Also, I enjoyed the posts from your thoughtful readers.

Don't get me wrong. I may still melt down over Daunte. I like Brad, I have confidence in Brad, I still think that Denny was a cretin for keeping Randall over Brad, but Brad is not Daunte. At this point, I'm still deeply in the denial stage, although it's not as if the season wasn't sunk as deeply as... well, let's just say that one could whip out some unfortunate similes involving Lake Minnetonka.

Okay, what were we talking about?

Mailvox: the spankings, the spankings!

Melissa bends over and wiggles her bottom, metaphorically speaking:

It's not that yon chest-beating troglodytes are rejecting the smart women, dearies. It's that none of us has any interest in having sex with you. We don't care whether you're looking for a woman who won't challenge you, because we're busy trying to find men who are smart, motivated, and sexy enough to keep up with us. And frankly, y'all just don't rate.

Oh, really? And yet, it's not the smart men who are complaining that they can't get dates, haven't gotten laid in years and are writing seven-part series in the New York Times about how they've all but given up on the notion that anyone wants to marry them. This statement is nothing but an echo of the classic Sisterhood dogma meant to provide solace for the rejected career woman.

The truth is that except for the golddigger and the desperate-for-attention, there is no one easier for an alpha male to nail on the first meeting than a self-professed smart, strong, independent woman. Her posturing, which is often done in the same dismissive tone that Melissa thoughtfully provides for us here, is primarily a contrarian invitation to conquer her. She snarls, bites and claws, always in the hope that the man is both capable of making her submit to him and interested in doing so. This is why women always focus on the challenge they offer; they are aroused by superior men capable of meeting that.

The man who understands this never lacks for women, of all levels of intelligence. Sex in the City once offered a good example of this, when Miranda complains how she is helplessly excited by an arrogant man she can't otherwise stand. There is, after all, a reason that adult women are so much more fond of Gor novels than those telling tales of Cimmeria.

Alpha or otherwise, however, the wise man will avoid such challenging women in the interest of pursuing a harmonious relationship not subject to inherent stress and conflict. We are not all born wise, however, and some of us only come to wisdom after first experiencing a sufficient amount of foolishness.

A fool's game

From Drudge:

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee sent out talking points this morning titled: “Judge ‘Scalito’ Has Long History Of States Rights, Anti-Civil Rights, And Anti-Immigrant Rulings.” More from the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers: “Alito is often referred to as ‘Judge Scalito’ because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy.”

One outraged Republican strategist claimed, “If Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washington’s media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America.”

What, we're supposed to expect consistency from a maleducated gang of moral relativists who subjectively redefine good and evil according to their momentary whims? Given my own use of colorful ethnic appellations, I'd have to be given to a similar hypocrisy if I were to object to the characterization of President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee.

Scalito actually appears to be very fitting nickname, and Republicans will fortunate indeed if it proves to be an accurate one. I have my doubts, to be sure, but this sort of rote outrage only bores me. I mean, they're Democrats, what do you expect them to do? If they were capable of intellectual consistency and had a handle on basic logic, they wouldn't be Democrats in the first place.

Never bet on the NFL

It is not overstating the case to assert that I am a respectable prophet of NFL results. At 76-39, my record this year is better than any of Yahoo's four so-called experts, and even surpasses what TMQ describes as the Wisdom of the Crowds at 74-41. I feel quite confident that tonight will see a Steeler's victory and provide me with a 12-2 record for the second time in three weeks.

That being said, I somehow managed to lose two of the three games of which I felt most certain this weekend. Tampa was upset by San Francisco and St. Louis beat Jacksonville despite being on the road and missing their head coach, starting quarterback and their top two wide receivers.

Never bet on the NFL. Never.

Discuss amongst yourselves

The feminist's dilemma

Maureen Dowd finally admits to herself that men truly do prefer Pamela Anderson to Harriet Miers:

He had hit on a primal fear of single successful women: that the aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men. It took women a few decades to realize that everything they were doing to advance themselves in the boardroom could be sabotaging their chances in the bedroom, that evolution was lagging behind equality....

Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes' going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.

Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the author of "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children," a book published in 2002, conducted a survey and found that 55 percent of 35-year-old career women were childless. And among corporate executives who earn $100,000 or more, she said, 49 percent of the women did not have children, compared with only 19 percent of the men.

Hewlett quantified, yet again, that men have an unfair advantage. "Nowadays," she said, "the rule of thumb seems to be that the more successful the woman, the less likely it is she will find a husband or bear a child. For men, the reverse is true."

A 2005 report by researchers at four British universities indicated that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to marry, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

I find it rather amusing that when I point out exactly the same phenomenon as Miss Dowd, so many women leap on their high horses. But sometimes one can't hear the message for the messenger. One must commend Ms Dowd for being so brutally open about what is clearly a major societal disappointment for her and overlook the vaguely aggrieved tone that leaves one with the impression that she thinks this has somehow got to be men's fault for not wanting what some women think they should want. After all, what is unfair about experiencing the logical consequences of your choices?

I quite like intelligent women. I've dated them and I married one. But there's no question that they are more difficult, more complex and generally less happy in life than the dumb ones. I speak from experience; the girl I dated throughout high school and college scored in the sixth percentile on her SAT and she remains to this day one of the best and nicest people I have ever known. Girls may be made of sugar and spice, but there's no question that men prefer sugar.

Perhaps the biggest mistake that women make is thinking that men want to be challenged in their relationships. But life is full of challenges, some of which men embrace with enthusiasm, some of which we take on only if we must. An ability to pose a challenge is not on the normal man's list of desirable attributes, far more preferable is someone you know is on your team, someone you trust to get your back when your friends aren't around to do it.

Space Bunny is not my equal and I am not hers. We compliment each other, we are not interchangeable.

NFL Week 8

Last week: 9-5. Season: 65-37, .637. Fantasy 5-2.

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

The big question this week was starting Dominick Davis or one of Pittsburgh's dynamic duo. Since I've started precisely the wrong Steeler the last three weeks in a row - twice it didn't matter, but it cost me the game against the league-leading Wallabies when Fast Willie failed to score a single point - I'm going with Mr. Davis going against the Brownies.

Dallas is my big concern. Mr. Bledsoe and Mr. Glenn have me off to a solid start despite my usual horrendous early drafting, but they performed poorly last week. Arizona should be the cure, but with Atlanta on the bye week I had to pick up the Dallas DEF as well, so one bad game in Texas could sink me.

It's too bad it's not a playoff game. In that case, I'd be completely confident with Denny Green on the other sideline.

Mailvox: Since you missed it the first time

Chuck demands to know where the carriers were:

There were, on 7 December, only three [carriers] in the Pacific. USS Enterprise, USS Lexington (CV-2), and USS Saratoga (CV-3). While USS Ranger (CV-4), USS Wasp (CV-7), and the recently commissioned USS Hornet (CV-8) remained in the Atlantic, Yorktown departed Norfolk on 16 December 1941 and sailed for the Pacific, her secondary gun galleries studded with new 20-millimeter Oerlikon machine guns. She reached San Diego, Calif., on 30 December 1941 and soon became flagship for Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher's newly formed Task Force (TF) 17. The carrier's first mission in her new theater was to escort a convoy carrying Marine reinforcements to American Samoa. Departing San Diego on 6 January 1942, Yorktown and her consorts covered the movement of marines to Tutuila and Pago Pago to augment the garrison already there.

Having safely covered that troop movement, Yorktown , in company with sistership Enterprise, departed Samoan waters on 25 January. Six days later, TF 8 built around Enterprise, and TF 17, built around Yorktown , parted company. The former headed for the Marshall Islands, the latter for the Gilberts — each bound to take part in the first American offensive of the war, the Marshalls-Gilberts raids.

I note that I have already posted this information before.

Internment Order: February 19, 1942

Total carriers in the Atlantic: Nine - Wasp, Hornet, Ranger, Long Island, Charger, Archer, Biter, Avenger, Dasher.

Total carriers in the Pacific: Four - Yorktown, Enterprise, Lexington and Saratoga.

Total carriers assigned to protect the West Coast and Hawaii: Zero.

Clearly the admirals were terrified of invasion.... of New York. Please remember that Michelle Malkin is on record as asserting that there were ZERO carriers in the Atlantic at this time. The Japanese invasion theory is silly and betrays a remarkable ignorance of military history.

Mailvox: affirmative action for the incompetent

DH faces a dilemma:

I don't have a college degree, and yet I am responsible for narrowing and selecting a pool of programmers when my company needs a new programmer (I'm the Senior Programmer). I used to have a programming in three parts test which asked applicants to write pseudo code to solve common problems. After receiving an application or resume I e-mail the first part of the test, and if they do well, they get another part with more difficult questions. After that an applicant would be granted an interview and be asked to do the third part of the test verbally and on a whiteboard.

Word came down from "upper management" that my interviwing procedures were unfair, and so, HR has implemented a standard hiring procedure that grades people "fairly" on 15 criteria. My programming test was eliminated.

Needless to say "my" last 4 hires have been CS degree packing incompetents who actually make more work for me. So I decided last year to simply not fill open positions. Half my department is empty now - 3 out of 6 slots - and I need to fill in the gap before the new year.

Any tips on how to weed out the losers knowing that 100% of them will have college degrees?

You need to attack this problem in two ways. First, I assume that you have documented the incompetence of the people that HR has forced you to hire. You need to find an internal champion at the executive level and use that information to lay your case against HR with him. Remember, many executives are competent and intelligent individuals whose access to accurate information is extremely limited by the managers immediately below them. They often make terrible decisions because their data is bad, not because they are stupid, malicious or solely focused on their personal gain. If you can find an executive who actually cares about corporate performance, you may well have found someone who will cheerfully take a chainsaw to that HR department. Many execs don't think a whole lot of HR and see them as barely competent necessary evils anyhow.

Second, you should refine your interview questions to weed out the tools. Remember that a college degree isn't necessarily an indication of incompetence, it just isn't necessarily an indication of competence either. When I had to weed the tools out, I would ask an interviewee what their favorite game was. If they told me "Doom" or any other obvious game, I immediately asked them why it was their favorite and ask detailed questions about obscure things on difficult levels, the sort of thing that any aficionado could easily answer off the top of his head, but would catch a tool off guard.

Ask what industry magazines they subscribe to, or better yet, what web sites and mailing lists they follow regularly. Ask them seemingly innocuous questions about their familiarity with Linux and smartphone hacks, and other things of the sort that every college programmer worth his salt finds irresistable. A veteran programmer like you should be able to size up a genuine hacker from a classroom pretender without having to see them code; the trick is to trust your instincts.

Third, take the time to build up a pool of potential applicants that you'd like to hire even when you're not hiring. When you have an opening, there should be a few people you can call right away to see if they are available or might be interested in changing jobs.

Finally, if you get it wrong, don't hesitate to get rid of the zeros immediately. If HR demands to know why, you simply tell them that the zero couldn't do his job and you have important deadlines to meet that don't permit the carrying of dead weight. Ask them if they want to explain to upper management why project X isn't getting done on time. Remember, they are usually cowards and busybodies who are used to being unaccountable for anything important, so directing a little pressure in their direction will tend to go a long way.

It can be so tempting to just let things go and look the other way when you've got an underperformer, but that is the hallmark of the weak and ultimately unsuccessful manager, even if it could work to your advantage in the short run. If you are careful to always pick office battles where you have the overwhelming advantage of the facts being on your side, sooner or later, the political types in other departments will learn to leave you alone and let you do your job. If you consistently ratchet up the pain each time they stick their nose in inappropriately, they'll eventually knock it off.