Be Careful Out There!

Several years ago I went riding in the mountains with two of my sons. It was a gorgeous day and we had lots of fun until we had an accident and rolled one of the ATVs into the scrub oak. I was just glad that no one was hurt in the accident. Damage to the Yammy Big Bear was minor compared to what it could have been. We spent several hours of hard work recovering the bike. Our fun day of riding was ruined by a seemingly minor mistake that had bad consequences. Again, the damage was minor compared to what it could have been, and no one was seriously hurt. I was grateful for that more than anything else.

Earlier this year my youngest son Brad and his wife Jodi made a large investment in two Yamaha ATVs and a trailer so they could go camping and riding with their two young boys.

A couple of weeks ago Brad was riding with Jodi's younger brother Bucky when they came to a part of the trail that was, shall we say "technically challenging". Actually, I've seen this place, and I wouldn't have even attempted to go there, but I guess that's neither here nor there. At any rate, Jodi's ATV wound up taking a tumble about 250 yards or so down a steep ravine.

It took Brad several attempts and finally, with the help of 5 other people, some long rope and a pully, they were able to recover the ATV.

Here it is.

This is the front (in case you can't tell). Note that the front wheels are no longer aligned with each other, or the frame.

Well, I think you get the picture.

Having an enjoyable, safe, but fun experience while trail riding on an ATV requires a certain combination of good equipment, confidence and riding skill.

Good equipment isn't cheap. A lot of young people don't have a lot of disposable income to spend on recreational equipment.

If you have low confidence, you won't have much fun because you're always worried about having an accident.

For a lot of young people, lack of confidence is not a problem. Most the time, it's too much confidence that's the problem.

If you have more confidence than you do skill, the consequences could end up looking like these pictures. Or worse.

At least no one got hurt. Thank God for that.

“Pelosi's Armenian Gambit”

In an article online at the Jewish World Review, Charles Krauthammer comments on the recent kerfuffle over the Armenian Genocide resolution currently being considered by our noble Democrats in Congress.

There are three relevant questions concerning the Armenian genocide.

(a) Did it happen?

(b) Should the U.S. House of Representatives be expressing itself on this now?

(c) Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's determination to bring this to a vote, knowing that it risked provoking Turkey into withdrawing crucial assistance to American soldiers in Iraq, a conscious (columnist Thomas Sowell) or unconscious (blogger Mickey Kaus) attempt to sabotage the U.S. war effort?

The answers are:

(a) Yes, unequivocally.

(b) No, unequivocally.

(c) Heaven only knows.

I posted recently here on blog648 about my own reaction to the motivation behind Ms. Pelosi’s determination to bring this bill to the floor. In it I offered my opinion that the resolution is more about obstructing the war effort than about genocide and the Donks know exactly what their doing, and I insisted that it’s a brilliant strategy to bring the war effort to an end without having to defund the troops because passing this bill will provoke the Turks into cutting off our supply lines and bring failure in Iraq by virtue of the fact that we won’t be able to support our troops logistically.

But Krauthammer disagrees.

So why has Pelosi been so committed to bringing this resolution to the floor? (At least until a revolt within her party and the prospect of defeat caused her to waver.) Because she is deeply unserious about foreign policy. This little stunt gets added to the ledger: first, her visit to Syria, which did nothing but give legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad, who continues to engage in the systematic murder of pro-Western Lebanese members of parliament; then, her letter to Costa Rica's ambassador, just nine days before a national referendum, aiding and abetting opponents of a very important free-trade agreement with the United States.

Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer's razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.

Well, okay. I guess I stand corrected, then. She and they aren’t so smart after all.

I don't know. I'm just not 100% convinced.

BHUTTO BLAMES DEADLY ATTACK ON “MILITANTS” (scare quotes mine).

The reason I put the scare quotes around the word "militants" is because I have doubts that that’s the actual word she used. Did she speak in English, and is "militant" the actual word she used? I’m just asking, that’s all. Granted, she may have said it, but I’m just so suspicious of our media elite that I take everything they report with a grain of salt.


And with good reason.


I read an article online a couple of years ago in a publication that’s aimed at publishers, editors and media big shots. It said that the media has a responsibility to stop the war in Iraq, or at least do all in their power to bring it about. Yes, it was an American publication.


And I’ve looked at everything they say with a jaundiced eye ever since.


Merriam-Webster defines "militant" as 1: engaged in warfare 2: aggressively active especially in a cause.


"Soldier" as: a person in military service esp : an enlisted man or woman.


"Military"as 1: of or relating to soldiers, arms, war, or the army
2 : performed by armed forces; also : supported by armed force
Synonyms martial, warlike.


"Terrorism" : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
–ter*ror*ist \-ist\ adjective or noun.


"Terrorize" 1 : to fill with terror : SCARE 2 : to coerce by threat or violence
Synonyms terrify, frighten, alarm, startle.


Soon after 9/11 President Bush declared that our nation was at war, and called the struggle the Global War on Terror. We would combat terrorism with armed force, or in other words, with our military forces.


Almost immediately, our media elite quit using the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" and began substituting the word "militant".


Why? Because it legitimized the terrorists by equating them with our military. It made them merely the opposite side of the same violent coin.


They also began aggressively denigrating our armed forces in order to de-legitimize them by equating them with terrorists. If they couldn’t find actual cases of abuses or atrocities committed by U.S. armed forces, they made them up. Examples: the Haditha non-massacre and the flushed Koran at Guantanamo.


By making U.S. armed forces to appear as evil and villainous as the terrorists, they make the war effort harder to carry out. It’s part of their agenda to stop the war.


Remember, now, 90% of the people in the media are Democrats or Democrat sympathizers. Most of them don’t even know any conservatives, and there are no known conservatives in their social circles. There may be some, but not vocal ones, because it doesn’t pay, if you’re a conservative journalist, to let that fact be known. Conservative journalists don’t get hired, and if they do get hired, they don’t get very far in the corporate organization. In other words, they don’t get promoted.


Liberal journalists are having a hard time living with the fact that George W. Bush was elected, twice, to the presidency in spite of all they could do. They are baffled and mystified by the electorate, and can’t understand how someone like Bush could have come to power in our times. They think the American electorate is mostly stupid, ignorant and uneducated, but if they can just "educate" them, they will become enlightened and brighten up. So part of their agenda is to tell the American people, not just the facts, but what to think about them.


And if the facts don’t fit the narrative of their agenda, they don’t hesitate to make them up. Example: the "fake but accurate" Texas Air National Guard documents that supposedly proved George W. was a shirker of his military obligation that came to light just weeks before the 2004 presidential election.


The 2006 mid-terms in which the Democrats won slim majorities in both houses of Congress have given them hope. President Bush responded by replacing the secretary of defense and changing strategy in Iraq. Robert Gates was confirmed by Congress as the new secretary and General Petraeus was confirmed as the new head of coalition forces in Iraq. Petraeus advocated bringing more troops into Iraq and squashing the insurgency by force of numbers.


Well, Harry Reid, the Democrat Majority Leader in the Senate, wasn’t going to stand for any of that non-sense. He stood on the floor of the Senate and declared that the war was lost and we should bring the troops home because the "surge" was an utter failure. Before it had even started, the surge was a disaster. He tried to kill the baby while it was still in the cradle. The elite media was shamelessly complicit.


He was parodied and mocked in the blogosphere. Someone photoshopped a picture of him dressed as a pre-invasion Iraqi general and posted it on the internet. Here it is.


But recent trends in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disconcerting to the media because things aren’t going as poorly as they led us to believe they would go. The quagmire that is Iraq is indeed a quagmire, alright, but for al-Qaida, not the Coalition.


In spite of everything they could do to see that it didn’t happen, it looks like progress is being made in Iraq.


In spite of everything they can do to make it look as if we’re on the verge of a second Great Depression, our economy is still healthy and robust, with low inflation, low unemployment, strong gross domestic product, and a trade deficit that is plummeting. All the good news about our economy is downplayed or ignored altogether.


The truth is that elite media do indeed consider themselves the elite of America and in fact, the world. They are contemptuous of conservative Americans, patriots and those who serve in the military. They consider all of these people "the great unwashed masses", although they are careful to never put it in writing.


Their problem is that they can’t hide their contempt and condescension. It comes through in all their products. It’s unmistakable, and people see it and reject it. As a result, major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, as well as many others, are losing money as subscribers vote with their pocketbooks and cancel subscriptions and refuse to read their "dead tree editions".


In the meantime, talk radio, especially conservative talk radio, is robust, even riotous, not shy at all about heaping criticism and contempt upon the Democrats and the liberal media. And their audience is growing, while progressive Air America has been on the verge of bankruptcy because they can’t seem to attract listeners, and if they can’t attract listeners, they can’t attract sponsors, and they have to survive by donations and bailouts from liberal fat cats like George Soros.


Well, the Democrats are going to do something about that, by golly, and so they’ve started talking about reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" that was institutionalized in the 60's and 70's when there were only three main networks and so radio and tv stations were required to give "equal time" to opposite sides of political issues. It had a chilling effect on political debate, because producers had to sit with a stop watch and keep track of what one side said and then give the opposition equal air time to rebut. It was much easier to just not get involved.



When the so-called Fairness Doctrine was done away with because there were so many media outlets that all sides had access to the media, right wing talk radio found an audience and a home, and has been going strong ever since.


The liberals and Democrats regret the demise of the Fairness Doctrine because they seem to have lost ground in talk radio. They seem to be doing alright in the other forms of media, although some of them have fallen upon hard financial times. I believe they could cure that if they could cure their liberal bias and get rid of their "progressive agenda".


Okay, well, now that I’ve got that off my chest, I feel better. Thanks for reading.

7 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE CLINTONS

The following is paraphrased from an online article in the Jewish World Review by Bob Tyrell.

1. The Clintons’ corruption in the White House was preceded by an equally scandalous administration in the Governor’s Mansion in Arkansas. A third term in the White House is likely to be every bit as scandalous and corrupt.

2. For years, the Clintons have bullied the press, political opponents, prosecutors and those women who caught Bill's eye. Anyone and everyone who could cause them trouble were harassed and intimidated into silence. A prosecutor was so intimidated he started carrying a gun because of harassment in the street.

3. Rumors of John McCain’s temper have haunted his campaign. Hillary's temper is even more widely documented, by disaffected Secret Service agents, military aides, Arkansas state troopers and others. She has thrown tantrums, flown into rages, thrown objects at agents, even struck her husband, in full view of staff.

4. Hillary is given to what the historian Richard Hofstadter termed "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." She’s the one who coined the phrase "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy®".

5. The Clintons have commercialized the presidency. Bill has raked in $43 million in speakers fees alone in the seven years he’s been out of the White House. During their reign, they rewarded fat cat campaign contributors with overnight stays at the White House, most famously the Lincoln bedrom.

6. In the past, a few in the media have denounced Bill Clinton for his corruption, and even his friends have acknowledged it.

7. But for the most part, the media has been lax in reporting the Clintons’ ethical failings and outright corruption, claiming it’s all "old news".

Again, a third term in the White House is not likely to be much different. But in dangerous times like these, with enemies who’ve sworn to seek our destruction and a madman in Iran who seeks to gain nuclear weapons and has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map", it could be much more disastrous for our nation.

Read the whole article for yourself. Here's a link.

Progressive Talk Show Host Mugged by Conservative Thug...Oh, Um, ...Never Mind.

Randi Rhodes, Progressive Talk Show Host and Non-victim of Conservitive Thug Violence.

I had a good chuckle when I read this post at Captain’s Quarters:

Earlier today, the port side of the blogosphere erupted in righteous indignation as reports that Air America radio host Randi Rhodes got mugged began to swirl. Many bloggers started blaming a nameless conservative mugger, and then began extending the indictment to the entire conservative movement. It served their prejudices to think that conservative meanies would lay in wait for Rhodes just to keep her from speaking Truth to Power, etc etc etc.

The only fly in the ointment? Rhodes never got mugged at all.

It turns out that she wasn't attacked or mugged, but she apparently fell and was injured. She doesn't know exactly what happened.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: was she "self-medicating"?

Hey, I'm just asking, okay? It's an appropriate question to ask. After all, anytime Rush says something controversial his southpaw critics cast similar aspersions.

Notice also, they don’t call themselves "liberal" any more, because they’re anything but. Now they prefer to be referred to as "progressive". Whatever.

Socialist, communist, Marxist is NOT "progressive".

New Feature, a Photo Archive

I know that most of my visitors would probably prefer that I just shut up and post photos instead of posting all these political rants. So, over on the right sidebar, I've added a photo archive that links to all the posts that have my photos in them. So enjoy.


I'm probably not gonna shut up, though.

UNIVERSITY STUDENT SUSPENDED AFTER ADVOCATING LEGALIZED CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS

From the website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education:

ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007—Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory "mental health evaluation" before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

"Hamline’s punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Peacefully advocating for students’ ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation."

Freedom of expression and academic freedom are phrases that ring hollow on American college campuses any more, it seems.

Related material here.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL MORE ABOUT OBSTRUCTING THE WAR EFFORT THAN ABOUT GENOCIDE

AP Photo

Turkish forces transport tanks towards the Iraqi border.

According to this AP story, the tensions over Kurdish incursions into Turkey from Iraq have escalated to the point where Turkey is massing troops and equipment near the Iraqi border in anticipation of counter-incursions into Northern Iraq in order to quell the violence.

But the Kurdish rebels are only part of the equation. Our U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would strongly condemn Turkey for the Armenian slaughter that occurred early in the 20th century as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Most offensive to the Turks, it would define the killing as genocide. Sentiment is so inflamed in Turkey right now that relations with the U.S. are under dire threat, which have been on shaky ground even without this most recent provocation.

Turkey and the United States are NATO allies, but relations have also been tense over a U.S. congressional bill that would label the mass killings of Armenians by Turks around the time of World War I as genocide.

Later Wednesday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21 in favor of the measure, sending it to the House floor.

President Bush strongly urged Congress to reject the bill, saying it would do "great harm" to U.S.-Turkish relations. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkish air space. About a third of the fuel used by the U.S. military in Iraq also goes through Turkey.

"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said.

Turkey has raised the possibility of impeding logistical and other U.S. military traffic now using the airspace.

House Democrats are fully aware of what they're doing. Clearly, proceeding with this bill hinders the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that’s precisely why Nancy Pelosi has brought this bill to the House floor. It’s not about Turkish genocide of Armenians nearly a century ago as much as it’s an opportunity for Democrats and defeatists to further their agenda of obstructing continuing military successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There’s not much that Democrats won’t stoop to in order to achieve their goals of ending the war and bringing defeat, failure and discredit upon the present administration. This is a perfect opportunity, because it creates problems that only effect the war effort indirectly, by provoking the Turks into cutting off our supply lines to Iraq. There’s plausible deniability for the Dems, and it helps to achieve their goals. They don’t have to cut off funding for the troops because the Turks will accomplish the same thing for them.

It’s brilliant, and totally in keeping with their craven and cowardly nature.

The political cartoon below, by Robert Ariail is especially good.

MY TAKE ON THE REPUBLICAN DEBATE 10/09/07

I don’t know who came off looking the best in the debate. Some did quite well, and others didn’t shine at all, while one in particular made everyone else look very intelligent and, um, sane by contrast. Here are my impressions of the candidates, starting with my top three picks, followed by the also-rans and the non-contenders.

(1) Mitt Romney: my favorite. I like his energy, his positive attitude, his confidence. He knows what he wants to do. I believe his pro-life conversion is real. I like his ideas on health care and insurance. He’s smart enough to get up to speed in areas where he might be lacking, such as foreign policy. His negative is that he’s a little murky on the 2nd Amendment. Is he a closeted gun-grabber? And then there’s that Mormon thing, you know, and the fact that they want to be called "Latter-Day Saints". Isn’t that a little intellectually dishonest? "And one more thing," as I heard him say more than once, he needs to lay off Rudy and stick to sticking it to Hillary. Rudy can bloody him at will. Hillary can’t lay a glove on him.

(2) Rudy G.: he’s actually my second choice. I like his positive energy and leadership style. He seems to know what he wants to do. I worry about his apparent willingness to become a gun-grabber, which is a national security issue as far as I’m concerned. His pro-choice stance gives me qualms, but they are secondary to my national security issues. Except for his apparent 2nd Amendment weakness, his national security stance is a point in his favor.

(3) Fred Thompson: Third Choice. I like him. He’s definitely got star quality. I think he’d be a good president, and if he’s the nominee, I’ll support his candidacy enthusiastically. But he’s actually a little too laid back for me, and I wonder if he isn’t a little long in the tooth, so to speak.

John McCain: has my undying respect as a patriotic American who served our country as a brave Navy pilot and endured torture and deprivation as a POW in Vietnam. And he’s an outstanding U.S. Senator, even if he is a bit of a maverick. I think he would serve us better where he is than in the White House.

Mike Huckabee: I liked him. I don’t see him as the nominee, but he’d be a good choice for Vice-president.

Duncan Hunter: Well, he’s right in the middle of the pack, but not a major contender. Possible veep candidate.

Tom Tancredo: I liked him and admire his tenacity on illegal immigration. The problem is it’s his one and only issue about which he’s passionate.

Ron Paul: incoherent, shrill, loud, flailing nutjob. Looks like he’d be right at home on the Democrat debate stage. Makes Ross Perot look cerebral and serene.

Sam Brownback: an empty suit. The exact opposite of Ron Paul, but not in a good way. Dull, lifeless, wind-checker. Why is he still on the stage at these events? Well, he makes the other candidates look better by contrast, as does R.P.

If any of the first three candidates became the nominee, I would support their candidacy enthusiastically.

I think I would be marginally comfortable voting for Huckabee, Hunter, or McCain. Less for Tancredo, and even less for Sam Brownback.

If Ron Paul is the eventual nominee, then the Republican Party will implode and open the door for a third party, maybe even a fourth. I don’t think the outcome would be good for America. The right wing would splinter into different powerless factions while the left wing liberals march triumphantly down the slope towards socialism and take our country with it. And they’d be able to do it with a plurality of voters, but not a majority.

“A LESSON FOR OUR TIME”

TCS Daily illustration

Peter J. Wallison at TCS Daily has a column today about the parallels between the political climate of the American Civil War and the present day conflict in Iraq.

In August 1864, less than three months before the election, Republican leaders visited President Lincoln at the White House and told him that he had no hope of re-election. Their canvassing indicated that the country was so weary of the war that the Democratic candidate would triumph easily. Some Republicans were urging the President, for the sake of the party, to give up the party's nomination—which had been conferred only two months earlier—so a stronger candidate could be nominated.

(The stronger candidates they had in mind were Grant, Butler, or Sherman.)

But rejecting the "counsels of the timid and fearful", the Republican Party stayed the course, while the Democrats nominated George McClellan, the general Lincoln relieved of command because he wouldn’t fight. They denounced the war as "four years of failure", and complained of the administration’s destruction of "public liberty and private right." Their platform called for peace no matter what they had to give up to get it. They were willing to toss out the sacrifice that literally hundreds of thousands of Union troops had made.

But then tragedy struck, at least for the Confederacy and their Democrat sympathizers in the North. On Sept. 1, news reached Washington that Atlanta had fallen to Union forces. That was followed by a string of Union victories and it soon became apparent that the trend was irreversible.

Undeterred, the Democrats stuck to their guns in calling for defeat. And defeat is what they got. In the election, that is.

Alan Nevins wrote a four volume account of the American Civil War. Wallison quotes him:

"[T]he damage done to the Democratic Party by the platform could not be undone. Its silly and evil stigmatization of the heroic war effort as worthless gave the Northern millions an image of the Democratic Party they could never forget. That phrase upon the failure of the war was to echo down the coming decades...and would cost the party votes for a generation."

That was over a century ago. But the Democratic rhetoric sure sounds familiar. Will the Dems learn from past mistakes? It may be too late for them to correct their recent mistakes. Time will tell.

One advantage they have over the Democrats of 1864 is that they have 15 months to recover from their errors, where their historical ancestors only had 3 months.

I've posted about this subject previously here and here.

SHOULD COPS BE ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS?

We’ve all seen or read reports of the tragedy in Wisconsin where a young law enforcement officer lost his temper and went on a rampage, killing several young people at a party who had called him a "worthless pig".

It has been discovered that the young man was never vetted psychologically before his hiring, as apparently it’s not a requirement in Wisconsin for prospective law enforcement officers.

If stuff like this continues, combined with the apparent epidemic of wrong-house no-knock raids across the country, the gun grabbers are going to start a movement to disarm the cops. Then the outlaws truly will be the only ones to have guns.

It'll start out with baby steps. At first, officers and deputies will be required to draw firearms from a department armory at the start of every shift, and return them to the armory as they go off shift. Most departments don't require officers to carry off duty as it is.

Eventually, officers will only be allowed to draw weapons for special occasions, such as serving warrants on known dangerous felons, etc.

A very related (and angry) post here.

Aha! So It Was Nukes, and the U.S. Waffled For Over a Month!

ABC News illustration

Okay, ABC News has confirmed it was a nuclear facility, and the Israeli strike was put on hold for over a month while a high level debate raged about the accuracy of the intelligence and the wisdom or justification for the proposed strike, and the effect it would have on regional stability.

Finally, fearing that the story was about to be leaked, the Israelis acted in their own interest, seeing how the U.S. wasn’t going to. Good for them.

One thing that had American official so baffled was evidence that this facility had existed for a very long time, possibly even years. How was it possible that our intelligence assets had missed this developmentment?

Hmmm. Could it be that our intelligence assets were too busy fighting "out nation's enemies" in the Bush administration to actually do their jobs?

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters had this to say:

The US opposed the raid up to the moment it occurred, afraid of destabilizing the region. Israel, more worried about the consequences of a nuclear Syria -- something that should worry us as well -- simply ignored Washington after weeks of argument and acted in its own self-interest.

And note that Syria has not lifted a finger in retaliation. Assad knows well that Israel would annihilate his forces in a straight-up fight, and the raid confirmed it. They had to know that Israel would attack that facility if they discovered it, and Syria had to have some defense ready against it. In the event, Israel flew unmolested across the widest part of their airspace, devastated their facility, and flew home as if on an El Al jaunt.

More commentary here at Meryl Yourish.

GUNFIGHT ON THE BEXAR COUNTY LINE.

They used to say there are no rules in a gunfight. Then somebody, I forget who, said "No, that’s not right. There’s one rule: HAVE A GUN!"

Well, here’s a news story from Bexar County, Texas where two men got into an argument, and one man left in a huff, but soon returned, with a rifle, and started shooting at the other man’s house.

Taking umbrage at the affront, the other man came out of the house and returned fire with a handgun. Now he’s in the hospital in critical condition. The rifleman is still at large. Police expect to make an arrest soon.

Apparently there’s a codicil to the one rule: Have a gun that’s as big as if not bigger than the other guy’s. Hand gun vs. high powered rifle is not exactly an even match-up. The problem is not the size of the hole but the disparity in effective range.

The news report doesn't mention alcohol or drugs being involved in this altercation, but clearly there wasn't a lot of cerebral activity taking place in this incident.

Not a really surprising outcome, really.

NASA Report: Arctic Ice Melt Resulted From Natural Causes; Anthropormorphic Climate Change Not Mentioned. Media Yawns, Ignores Report.

Sunset Over the Arctic

photo by Jimmy Harbeck

NASA has published a report detailing results of a study indicating the reason for the remarkable Arctic ice melt in recent years is probably due to natural causes. Conspicuous in it’s absence is any mention of Anthropomorphic Climate Change®.

Also conspicuous in it’s absence is any mainstream media coverage of the report.

A team led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., studied trends in Arctic perennial ice cover by combining data from NASA's Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat) satellite with a computing model based on observations of sea ice drift from the International Arctic Buoy Programme. QuikScat can identify and map different classes of sea ice, including older, thicker perennial ice and younger, thinner seasonal ice.

Between winter 2005 and winter 2007, the perennial ice shrunk by an area the size of Texas and California combined.



Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

Naturally, since this study doesn’t fit the narrative, neither you nor I have seen any mention of this reported in the mainstream media. It’s worth reading the whole thing. And thanks to Newsbusters for the link.

Silence From Syria: Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil.

U.S. Air Force photo

This is a U.S. Air Force F-16, similar to the Israeli F-16s that struck Syria on 6 Sep 2007.

There are interesting developments in the middle east regarding the Israeli air raids in Syria earlier this month. I don’t remember hearing much about it, except that there was a wave of conjecture about what the target of the raid was. The Israelis have been pretty tight lipped about it, but the Syrians have been even more quiet, if that's possible. Wonder why?

There’s been some speculation that the actual purpose of the raid was to test the Syrian high tech ground to air missile defense systems.

The Syrians have recently spent about a gazillion bucks updating and bulking up their air defense systems, with what is supposed to be the latest technology from Russia. Check out this excerpt from the report:

"...take a look at the map of Syria: Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries when that penetration took place on September 6th. Nothing.

El blanko. Silence. The systems didn't even light up, gave no indication whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace, zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us) blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians didn't even know they were blinded. Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought they were protected - at enormous expense - only to discover they are defenseless. As in naked. Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out - for this means Iran is just as nakedly defenseless as Syria."
(Bold mine.)

So it was a message raid, a shot across the bow. And the message was very clear:

"Syria, you’re not as safe or formidable as you think you are. And Iran, neither are you. Have a nice day."

It’s a very interesting report. Read the whole thing. Also check out this article at Strategy Page.

Oh, I thought this Dry Bones cartoon was hilarious, too!

Message to Robbery Victims in Richmond, VA: Don't Shoot Back

Here’s a story about a Baskin-Robbins manager who’s facing charges of felony dangerous discharge of a firearm when his store was robbed last month.

Career criminal Jerome Davis, 43, entered the store brandishing a BB gun made to look like a 9mm handgun, demanding all the cash in the till. Manager David Fielding, with his own real hand gun in his waistband, handed over all the money. Then the robber ordered everybody to go to the back of the store with him.

When they reached the rear of the store, Fielding pulled his own gun and opened fire. He shot three times while Davis fled from the store, then followed the robber out into the parking lot and fired eight more times. Davis was later found dead a short distance from his home. No one else was hurt in the incident.

This occurred in a neighborhood in Richmond, VA where armed robberies have been spiraling out of control. The store had been robbed once before in recent months.

It couldn’t be determined if the shot that cause Davis' death was fired inside the store or out. Hence, the charge of reckless dangerous discharge instead of manslaughter. It carries a maximum sentence of 6 years in prison.

The public response to the charge against the store manager has been one of outrage against the prosecuting attorney, Michael Herring. A petition has been circulated in the neighborhood in which nearly 600 signatures have been gathered opposing the indictment.

Mr. Herring has been quoted as saying the petition didn't sway him in his decision to seek an indictment. He didn’t think the trial of the robber should have taken place in the parking lot of the store, but he's willing to accept the decision of the Grand Jury.

He didn’t think the answer to the problem of escalating criminal violence was more guns in the hands of the public. But somehow, disarming the victims seems to be the right thing to do. The man is clearly an elitist.

Message to criminals: Carry a real gun during the commission of your crimes.

Message to armed robbery victims: Don't shoot back, lest you be charged with a felony and face the prospect of serving a long prison sentence.

I think the Grand Jury should do their duty and refuse to return an indictment. This is ridiculous.

Clever Taliban Strategy: Lose the Battle, Win the War

AFP/File/Shah Marai

An Afghan policeman stands guard at a checkpoint in Kabul

I think there’s probably a pretty good consensus that the Taliban can’t possibly achieve a military victory in Afghanistan as long as we maintain sufficient troop levels there. But, apparently, they’re determined to keep trying.

Recent reports, such as this story by Alisa Tang, an AP writer, tell of violent clashes between Taliban fighters and coalition troops in Afghanistan indicating that 165 Taliban were killed in two separate engagements in which they initiated the action.

In one battle, an ambush of coalition troops by "several dozen" Taliban, continued for most the day, while Taliban commanders brought in more reinforcements. By the end of the engagement they had lost 100 fighters, while the coalition lost one soldier killed and 4 wounded.

In the other battle, the Taliban lost 65 killed, while the coalition lost zero killed and zero wounded.

So let me make sure I understand what happened here. Taliban commanders initiated contact with coalition forces, presumably on terrain they chose, and at a time of their own choosing, and engaged in such a way that they were able to bring in reinforcements as needed.

And they lost. Big.

That’s an astounding kill ratio of 165:1.

It looks as if the Taliban is a freakish cult that glories in death and destruction, even if the only deaths they succeed in bringing about are their own.

How can they keep this up? What is the overall strategy behind the horrible ineptitude of these tactics? It can’t possibly be all about the myth of the 72 virgins, can it?

Could it be they’ve studied the Vietnam War and the tactics of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army in the Tet Offensive.

That was an overwhelming military defeat for the V.C. and the NVA, but it scored a major propaganda victory when the U.S. press declared the war lost.

President Lyndon Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for reelection and the U.S. began looking for ways to disengage and withdraw its forces.

The NVA lost the battle, but won the war.

Is that what the Taliban is hoping to accomplish here? To win by losing?

I hope that is their strategy, and I hope they’re persistent enough to stay with it a good long time.

Here’s what’s different about the conflict in Afghanistan today and the Vietnam War back then:

In Vietnam we lost 58,000 killed and many more wounded and maimed. In Afghanistan we’ve lost what? A twentieth of that? All I can tell you is we lost Pat Tillman to friendly fire. Our media has been almost gleeful in reporting military deaths in Iraq, while Afghanistan has been virtually ignored. So, honestly, I don’t know how many casualties American forces have suffered in Afghanistan, and I’m willing to bet you don’t either.

In Vietnam we knew the NVA couldn’t possibly attack us or cause us harm on our own shores. The sentiment that Vietnam was the wrong war to fight eventually gained nearly universal appeal. In Afghanistan, there was a verifiable link between the Taliban and al-Quaeda, and they brought the fight to our country on Sept. 11, 2001.

Basically, the American people have said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So they are resolved to keep fighting as long as it takes.

That’s the difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Taliban commanders don’t get it. And that's okay with me.

Bizarre Catch-22 in Wisconsin Gun Case

A Wisconsin judge has ruled that the state’s concealed carry law prohibiting concealed carry of a dangerous weapon is unconstitutional in view of the fact that the state constitution allows citizens to be armed for the purpose of self defense. The judge issued the ruling while dropping charges against a pizza delivery man who had been charged in the case of an armed robbery in which he drew his weapon and shot his would be robber. He faced up to 9 months in jail if convicted.

I don’t know if this is a situation where the law becomes clearer or more confused. It sounds like the Wisconsin State Legislature needs to take this issue in hand and come up with a solution to the problem. I think the right solution would be to repeal the concealed carry law, or at least make it legal for law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. They can do it like Vermont, which doesn’t require a permit. Or they can do it like 39 other states and issue permits. Or they could just make it a felony for convicted felons to carry concealed deadly weapons, and forgo all the expense of background checks and permits. Just one man’s opinion.

Here’s a link to the story.

ZING!! Ouch!!

(AP Photo)

The president of Iran is nothing if not controversial. His visit to NYC has stirred a hot debate about free speech. In this AP story, Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, defends the decision to give Ahmadinejad a podium, lending credibility and prestige to the embattled Iranian president.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger has promised to grill Ahmadinejad on subjects such as human rights, the Holocaust and Iran's disputed nuclear program. The Iranian leader previously has called the Holocaust "a myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Bollinger said Monday it was a question of free speech and academic freedom.

"It's extremely important to know who the leaders are of countries that are your adversaries. To watch them to see how they think, to see how they reason or do not reason. To see whether they're fanatical, or to see whether they are sly," he told ABC's "Good Morning America."

Hmmm. Don't we already know the answers to those questions?

Among the critics of Columbia U. is Michael Rubin at National Review Online, who points out the blatant hypocricy of giving our enemies a forum, while denying others the same.

The issue we see with Columbia is deeper than freedom of speech but rather the inconsistency with which university faculties choose to support it. If men like Richard Bulliet and Lee Bollinger, and women like Lisa Marie Anderson cared about freedom of speech, they might want to enable those who don't have it, rather than celebrate the men who have taken it away.

Update: an advance list of the questions Bollinger will ask Ahmadinejab has been "leaked" to Instapunk. Some of the questions follow.

Moving on, Mr. President, there are embarrassingly large numbers of Jews in the Columbia student body and alumni ranks. Could you please explain to them how sick and tired the rest of us are of hearing them whine about the so-called holocaust in Europe 50 or 80 years ago or whenever it supposedly happened?

As you may know, Mr. President, Columbia University also has a considerable faculty and student population that specializes in the natural sciences. I'm sure they'd welcome it if you could summarize recent Iranian biological research -- which has, of course, been suppressed here in the Great Satan -- demonstrating the direct genetic link that exists between Jews and pigs.

Speaking of pigs, could you explain to us the redevelopment plans you have for Israel after it has been wiped off the map? I mean, how do you clean, disinfect, and sterilize an area as large as a whole country so that it doesn't, you know, reek permanently of smoked fish and pickels and the baby blood they use in all their filthy rituals? Would a technology that can accomplish such a cleanup have any application in our great global war against climate change?

Yeah, sounds like hardball to me.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CHRIS!

age 6 or 7 months, 1979

1979, about the same age

Christmas '79, 1 year old

Broken leg, age 2 1/2, 1981

Spanish Fork Fiesta Days, City of Fun Carnival

Salem Duck Pond

Off in his own little world


School Pic


Camping

At the Provo Temple


at Disneyland, summer '89



at the MTC, 1998

Uruguay



Our Family

Chris is married to a lovely woman named Susan and they have a cute little daughter named Hattie Mae. She's a year old. They have a blog, check it out.

Happy Birthday, Chris!

ABOVE THE LAW

John Murtha, Jim Moran, Peter Visclosky:

These people are above the law. They’re untouchable, unreachable, unassailable, and they know it. They make muggers and thieves look honest by comparison.

From Don Surber:

You want to make the big bucks? Rent a congressman. Your return on your investment can be as high as $75 for every dollar invested.
Just ask the good folks at PMA Group, a lobbying firm. They sank $1,333,074 into the campaigns last year of 3 Democratic members of the House defense appropriations subcommittee and walked away with $100.5 million in defense earmarks for PMA clients

That means for every buck they spent, their clients got back $75.39. In less than 1 year.

___________________________________________

Money is not the only object. The firm was founded by Paul Magliochetti, who worked for Murtha on the defense appropriations subcommittee. Richard Kaelin went from being Visclosky’s chief of staff to lobbying for PMA.

Culture of corruption? Congressional Democrats seem to have invented it.

(Bold Mine.)

Please read the whole post.

New Zealand Man Shot Himself With "Unloaded" Gun

I just read this incredible story about a man in New Zealand who shot himself while showing a handgun to his room mate. The roomie recoiled in horror when he saw the gun. The erstwhile gunman racked the slide of the semi-auto pistol, ejecting a cartridge onto the room mate’s bed. Assuring his friend that the gun was now safe, and displaying a seriously misplaced sense of bravado, he held the gun to his own head and pulled the trigger. Imagine his surprise when his brains splattered all over the wall.

The room mate told investigators that he was convinced his friend had no intention of taking his own life, he just wasn’t aware that the gun was still loaded and ready to fire.

Guns don't kill people. People who aren't familiar with firearms and the rules of safe gunhandling kill themselves by showing off.

I feel sorry for his family and those who may have loved him. I'm not particulary sorry for him. Anybody that stupid would have killed somone sooner or later. Clearly this person was a danger to himself and those around him. Luckily, he only killed himself.

Dems Continue Valiant Struggle For Retreat, Defeat

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.--Mark Twain


Two articles worth reading in their entirety:

Defeat At Any Price
by David Gelernter at the Weekly Standard

Americans traditionally like their two opposing parties to differ on domestic affairs but agree on basic foreign policy--not because things are nicer that way; rather because foreign-policy arguments are good for our enemies, bad for our friends, and hugely dangerous to ourselves--especially in an age when swarms of maniac, murderous jihadists blacken the Middle East like toxic locusts.

Listen to what the Democrats are really saying. Consider what they actually want. And pray God they never get it.
(Bold mine).


Ready, Willing, and Able
by Thomas Donnelly at the Weekly Standard

For better or worse, it is and will be for quite a while the duty of America's land forces to fight the Long War. Of the three great security challenges of our time--the rise of China, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the dangers of revolutionary Islam--it is the third that requires of us strong land power capabilities. The way to manage the risks of this extended struggle is to rebuild and reshape our land forces to respond to the challenge.

While not all the battles of this war will be exactly like Iraq, the bitter experience of the last four years should serve as a reminder that we must adapt to the war as it is rather than pretend we have the option of fighting a war we would prefer. Nor should we pretend that there's something more important for U.S. ground troops to do. If they are ordered to retreat from this battle, their next battle is likely to be a lot harder.
(Bold mine.)

The Hearings Are Not about "Hearing"

I posted a couple of days ago about the clever tactics resorted to by Democrats (and RINOs) in the Senate hearings.

I was unable to see most of the hearings, but I watched with contempt as Barbara Boxer (D-CA) lectured Petraeus and Crocker, using up all her time and agreeably suggesting that she would be happy to accept their answers in writing, and Chairman Biden cheerfully accommodating her.

I’m not the only one who noticed this trend. Apparently, later in the day, Barack Obama spent his time lecturing the witnesses and then using the last minute to pose a 266 word question. Unfortunately, there was no time for the witnesses to respond, and he expressed regret. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) didn’t let the moment pass unremarked, however. Opening his remarks he observed dryly, "As you have found, our hearings are more about listening to ourselves than listening to our witnesses."

Touché.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit says the best Bush strategy is to put Congress on TV as often as possible.

Politicians who resort to such clever tactics don't appear intelligent or astute, but rather shifty and craven in their attempts to frame the debate without giving their "opponents" an opportunity to rebut them. I don't believe it's lost on the American public.

If You Support Our Troops and Their Mission in Iraq, Please Sign the Victory Caucus Petition

You’ll notice I’ve made some additions to the sidebar. I’ve added two links to the Victory Caucus petition to support the military mission in Iraq; One near the top of the sidebar, and one at the bottom. They both take you to the same place, so there’s no need to click on both. I only added the one at the bottom for convenience, in case readers missed the top one.

I agree with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that the achievements we are hoping to accomplish in Iraq are by no means certain, but they are obtainable if we press on. If we choose to disengage in Iraq, the consequences are dire for the entire Middle East. Civil war, chaos, and genocide will rule the region as all the different ethnic groups and neighboring nations rush to take advantage of the power vacuum that is sure to follow. If we abandon Iraq, we must abandon all our interests in the Middle East, including our allies, even Israel. Iran is sure to become more powerful and influential, but nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Egypt are not likely to stand idly by and let that happen uncontested. If Iran gains control of Iraq’s oil fields, the price of oil will skyrocket, affecting global economies, including our own. We have so much of our own national interests tied to Iraq and the entire region that abandoning them is idiotic and insane. Those who claim nothing bad will happen if we get out are shortsighted, shallow, craven and immoral. Yes, immoral. To abandon the millions of Iraqis to civil war and ethnic cleansing is akin to firefighters letting a house burn down with women and children still trapped inside. It’s unthinkable.

So, please, click on the link and sign the petition. Add the link to your own blog if you like. Instructions are here. It's amazingly easy. I did it, for crying out loud. Or send emails to your contacts.

Democrats have often pointed to our failure in Vietnam as justification for pulling out of Iraq. They don’t see the irony in the fact that Osama Bin Laden used our Vietnam retreat as part of his rationale for declaring war on the U.S. and attacking our interests wherever he could.. He assured his followers that we were cowardly and weak, and we proved him right, for a long time. All the attacks of terrorism were ignored and went unanswered until Sept. 11, 2001. When the Twin Towers fell, Bin Laden got our attention, because we realized that we could no longer ignore him.

And now, six years on, we are at the crossroads, trying to decide if it’s worth it to press on, or should we turn back and retire from the field. If we turn back, we prove Bin Laden right, we are cowardly and weak, and lack the resolve necessary to remain a great nation. If we abandon the Iraqis in their struggle to establish a stable country in which they can live in peace and safety, we will deserve whatever evil comes of it.

But what about the Iraqis? Will they be deserving of the chaotic hell that is sure to descend upon their heads? I think not. They were powerless to prevent Saddam Hussein from rising to power. They were impotent to depose him once he gained power. He reigned in terror for decades. They were powerless to stop the U.S. led invasion in 2003. Once elections were held and a constitution ratified and representatives selected to the Iraqi Parliament and government, the ball was in their court. For the first time in history, the fate of the Iraqi people was in their own hands, if they would take the opportunity and not waste it while America and others in the coalition spent blood and treasure on their behalf. True, they haven’t made as much progress as we would like, and there’s too much bickering and infighting, as well as violence, assassinations, suicide bombs, and attacks against innocent and unarmed civilians, including women and children. But for us to throw our hands up and walk away in despair would be reprehensibly cowardly, weak, and cravenly immoral.

Democrats are claiming that this is "Bush’s War" or perhaps "the Republicans’ War", but its an American army and Marine Corps that’s fighting in Iraq, for vital American interests. If we choose to quit the fight, we lose so much more than just a war. The Democrats don’t see that, and are eager for our defeat, because they see it as a political victory for them. They believe it will lead them to the White House in ‘08. What they apparently don’t see is that if we are successful in Iraq, they won’t share in that victory because they’ve worked so hard against it. But if we fail, the American people will lay it at their feet, and the stench of treason will be carried by the Democratic Party just as it was after the Civil War, and it will be a generation or more before they come back into power, if ever. People won’t trust Democrats to look after American interests, and rightly so.

Caroline B. Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, wrote this:

Governmental competence is imperative because as Petreaus explained, "the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources." Petreaus continued, "The question is whether the competition takes place more — or less — violently."

What is notable about Petreaus's statement is that it can be equally applied to all countries. Politics and warfare are both about the relative distribution of power. What separates democracies from tyrannies and failed states is that democracies determine power's distribution through deliberation and debate while tyrannies and failed states are governed by the rule of the gun and the laws of the jungle.

That the political party now in control over both houses of Congress, and well-positioned to form the next administration seems to have discarded this basic truth is far more dangerous for Iraq, the Middle East and indeed the entire world, than the chronic weakness, incompetence, double dealing and corruption of the Maliki government or any successor government.

The strategy that the US has adopted in Iraq, that has met with such success even in the brief time it has been operative is a long-term strategy. Unless the Democrats regain their senses, it will be difficult for anyone to trust that the US won't simply abandon Iraq and with it, its responsibility as the leader of the Free World in the midst of a global war. (Bold mine).

What If The Current President Has Found His Grant and a Better “Strategery”?

Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist adding that little bit of embellisment to irritate the defeatists.

I remember with disgust on election day in November 2006 when the Democrats won majorities in the House and Senate by decrying the Republican "Culture of Corruption"®, and claiming that we needed to take a new direction in Iraq. Well, the Culture of Corruption was clearly bogus, at least in terms of being exclusively a Republican product. But the "new direction in Iraq" apparently resounded with the president, because on the very next day he accepted the resignation of Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld, and within mere weeks, General David Petraeus was installed at the head of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, and General Casey was relieved. The complete turn around of the president had me concerned, because it seemed so out of character. It seemed as if he was caving in.

And now here we are 10 months later, with Gen. Petraeus reporting to Congress how things have changed in Iraq, making victory possible if we don’t now shun the fight, but press on. So they’ve changed course in Iraq, but they’re still saying press on. This is not quite what the Democrats had in mind, and they’re clearly irritated and panicked.

Donald Kagan at National Review Online has a long article highlighting the similarities between the current conflict in Iraq and the Civil War. It’s well worth reading the whole thing, but here are some long excerpts.

The results of the recent change in leadership and strategy in Iraq have made it plain that the war there is not lost nor is defeat inevitable. And yet, the war’s opponents, even as the situation improves, have rushed to declare America defeated. They offer no plausible alternative to the current strategy and take no serious notice of the dreadful consequences of swift withdrawal. They seem to be panicked by the possibility of success and eager to bring about withdrawal and defeat before events make it too late.

__________________________________________________

So it was, too, in the midst of America’s Civil War. As late as 1864, after three years of fearful casualties, victory for the Union forces was not in sight. Lincoln was determined to continue the fight to restore the integrity of the Union and to abolish slavery. Original opponents of the war were joined by great numbers who were simply weary, and others who were ready to seek peace at any price, which was for some the persistence of slavery and for others the dissolution of the Union. One English friend of the Union cause expected such politicians to compromise with the South in order to take it back, slavery and all. Such an event would be shameful, he said, but still "it would leave the question to be settled by a similar process of blood by another generation."
In 1864 Lincoln changed generals, and undertook a more aggressive strategy, but the war continued to drag on. A hostile newspaper, wrote, "that perhaps it is time to agree to a peace without victory." Like Pericles, Lincoln was assailed by attacks on his policies and by personal vituperation. At the Democratic convention in August 1864 a speaker told a crowd in the streets that Lincoln and the Union armies had ‘‘Failed! Failed!! FAILED!!! FAILED!!!!" The loss of life ‘has never been seen since the destruction of Sennacherib by the breath of the Almighty and still the monster usurper wants more men for his slaughter pens."

____________________________________________

No one would have predicted that within a matter of months the war would end with a total victory for the Union forces, slavery abolished and the Union restored, but events took an unexpected turn. A series of Union military victories changed the course of the war. The Democrats, having declared or predicted defeat were, as one historian has written: "Tarred as traitors, regardless of their actual positions on the war, Democrats were … roundly thrashed in November. In fact, the stench of treason clung to the Democrats for years; nearly a generation would pass before another Democrat, Grover Cleveland, occupied the White House."

_____________________________________________

Victory in the war Americans confront today is not certain. If it comes it will arrive only after long and hard effort, but it is well to remember that the United States has lost war only when it has chosen to fight no longer. There are defeatists aplenty among us today, and they too, shout that the war has been lost, that the government that conducts it is stupid and incompetent, that the war is not necessary and that our leaders lied to us in bringing it on, that nothing terrible will ensue if we abandon the fighting. They, too, bewail the casualties incurred in the war and proclaim their support for the troops even as they delay voting a budget to sustain the military.

Such stratagems may work so long as a war goes badly. But what if the current president has found his Grant and a better strategy? Like the Copperheads of the Civil War, today’s defeatists have a huge investment in defeat and live in dread of success in the field, which could turn into disaster at the polls. In this, they would do well to understand that they are at odds with most of the American people, who are tired of the war and deplore the casualties and expense that goes with it. They want peace, but not one that is an illusion and will not last. Nor do they want a peace at any price that will bring fearful consequences and disgrace. If the defeatists have their way that is the kind of peace we will get; the American people will know whom to blame and will not quickly forget.

(Bold mine).

Well, I couldn't have said it better myself, and I didn't. But this is pretty much what I had in mind when I posted last week about Frederick W. Kagan's article about the likelyhood that the recent successes in Anbar represent the Gettysburg of this war, that we've turned the corner and achieved at least the possibility of victory.

Live Blogging Petraeus/Crocker Report to Congress

7:55 a.m. Amb. Crocker is reviewing his statement. It sounds like he's going over ground he covered yesterday. It's hard to tell if the Congressmen are listening. Chris Dodd looks skeptical. John Kerry is stone faced. Others have heads down, reading the statement.

Iraqi provinces don't have the power of taxation, so they must receive all their resources from the central government in Bhagdad.

My overall impression is that this is not so much a report as a televised debate. Clearly a lot of Congressmen have already made up their minds where they stand, and they're eager to rebut whatever Petraeus or Crocker say.

Crocker says failure in Iraq will be followed by massive human suffering beyond the magnitude that has been suffered already, and that other nations, particularly Iran, are poised to fill the vacuum that would be created. He says our present course is hard, but the alternative is even harder.

At the conclusion of Ambassador Cocker's remarks a Code Pinker stood and made a loud, incoherent statement and was led away by Capitol police. Goofs.

8:10 a.m. General Petraeus is giving a statement. Sounds a lot like what he said yesterday.
(Well, duh--he gave the same statement to both Houses of Congress!)

The source of the conflict in Iraq is the competition between all the different political and ethnic groups for power and resources. This competition will take place. The question is will this competition be less or more violent?

He's busy "cherry picking" statistics now to show the declining trend of violence and attacks in and across Iraq. In other words, he's emphasizing the positive.

More disruption. A red faced, white haired man in a white suit is apoplectic, loud but still incoherent. He too is escorted from the room.

8:30 a.m. C-SPAN has switched coverage to something else. CNN and MS-NBC are only providing partial coverage. They're not really interested in anything Petraeus or Crocker have to say, I'm sure.

8:44 a.m. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) is questioning Petraeus and Crocker. He is minimizing the effects of the surge. He's emphasizing the hardships of the Iraqi people, and the incompetence and ineptness of the Iraqi Parliament. Sounds like he's cherry picking, to me.

I suspect Lugar is a RINO.

Crocker says that Iraq is unlikely to come out of this conflict looking like a smaller version of America, and we shouldn't expect that.

8:10 a.m. Chris Dodd (D-CN) has his turn now. He's cherry picking, using an anecdote, because he doesn't want to go back and forth debating the statistics that Petraeus has presented. This situation is not going to get better. How can we justify extending this effort?

Petraeus points out some of the smaller intermediate steps that have been taken toward where we want to go.

8:59 a.m. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) points out "bright line contradictions" between his report and the GAO report and others. He concludes that the Iraqi government is disfunctional. Flooding a zone with U.S. troops, it's logical to assume that there will be some success there. We've lost the four southern provinces to thugs and militias. We're paying tribute to these thugs to keep the ports open. British troops are huddled in the Basra airport. He's citing the 7 NCOs who wrote an article in the New York Times desputing the progress that has been reported in Iraq. Are we going to dismiss their report? Are we going to continue to pour blood and treasure into Iraq when there is so little real progress, especially on the political front? He lays the blame for the lack of progress on "this administration". He's clearly a RINO. I'm glad he's announced his retirement.

9:15 a.m. Senator Kerry (D-NY) says this is a historic moment. Not since General Westmoreland addressed Congress during the Vietnam War has an American General addressed the Congress; a clever reference to the quagmire that was Vietnam, similar of course to the present quagmire in Iraq. Is it acceptable that the British troops are stationed at an airbase and militias are fighting it out in 4 southeastern provinces under the influence of Iran?

What I see is a general unwillingness to give the Iraqi government any more time to get their act together. I think the U.S. Congress is extremely hypocrital to criticize Iraq's parliament and government as disfunctional when our own government is nearly as corrupt, inept, and disfunctional. Add to that a measure of cravenness. There's a clear reluctance to keep pouring American blood and treasure into this conflict. No one is talking about the alternative, and what would happen if our forces were to withdraw by next spring.

9:30 a.m. General Petraeus is reponding to Sen. Biden (D-?) He misspoke, saying that he was going to "go home"--meaning go back to Iraq and work on some things. I thought that was an interesting little slip of the tongue. Clearly, Gen. Petraeus is fully invested in Iraq and it's outcome. Nothing wrong with that. In spite of that investment, he has responded to all the questioning and quibbling dispassionatley and respectfully, and yet, I believe, he has responded to every question with an answer.

9:45 a.m. General Petraeus was responding to a question and Sen. Biden cut him off because he was taking too much time. He cut him off and called on Russ Feingold (D-WI) to pose his questions. Feingold is going on and on about all the bad things that are going on in the world other than Iraq, and has now asked for a response. Which is more important, Pakistan or Iraq?

This is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters. What are we going to do, redeploy to Pakistan?

Feingold calls this "myopia", "the myopia of Iraq". His point is that we're over committed to Iraq at the expense of the overall effort against al-Quaida.

When can we tell the American people that combat deaths will go down in Iraq?

What a grandee.

10:00 a.m. It strikes me that Petraeus and Crocker need to be careful to not paint too rosie of a picture in Iraq, lest Congress use that to justify a precipitous withdrawal of our forces from the region.

Crocker is saying that to threaten the Iraqis with our withdrawal will have the effect of pushing them in the wrong direction. Self-preservation, instead of reconciliation, will become a priority, as Iraqis prepare for a massive civil war.

10:03 a.m. Biden cuts off the general again citing time constraints, gently chiding the general and the ambassador, saying it's in their own best interest to shorten their answers. Incredible arrogance. He's not interested in the answers, it's more important that they get the opportunity to be on television, making their own points.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is making a statement. I haven't heard a question yet. She'll use up all her time and then give them a minute or two to respond. She's accusing them of cherry picking, again. Now she's quoting the BBC poll of Iraqis.

Sen. Boxer has taken up her time and Petraeus and Crocker will have to respond in writing. Great job. Pose questions on T.V. and deny the witnesses an opportunity to respond. Craven. Not interested in answers, but eager to grandstand and rail against the present administration.

They say that war is politics by other means. Apparently, conversely, politics is war by other means, but still war, all the same.

10:20 a.m. I have to sign off. Today is my wife's birthday, and I need to turn my attention to that. Also, it's election day here in Spanish Fork, and we need to do our civic duty.

Loud, Hysterical, Incoherent and Shrill

I’ve been watching the Petraeus/Crocker Report on C-SPAN.

As General Petraeus concluded his remarks several protesters erupted in the back of the hearing room. I was struck by their apparent hysteria and loud incoherence. Do these people have no idea how idiotic they look by resorting to these tactics of disruption and anarchy? They do themselves and their cause a disservice by resorting to this kind of thing because it makes them look buffoonish and moronic. Apparently, that’s not obvious to them, but it is to me. If I was a Code Pinker or a MoveOn.org sympathizer, I’d be embarrassed. What a bunch of goofballs.

Understand, I’m not upset by the fact that these people are dissenting. What I object to is the manner of their dissent. The only thing that can be said for it is that it’s at least non-violent. But it’s clearly shrill and idiotic.

Strict Gun Control Works---To Empower Criminals

Richard Munday in the London Times Online has a column decrying the failure of strict gun control in Great Britain, which has totally disarmed its law abiding subjects (I almost said citizens, but unarmed subjects aren’t truly citizens, at least in the eyes of their government). The author points to recent events in the U.S. and cites differences and similarities in the violent crime rates in both countries.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has "banned" pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).

-----------------------------------------------------

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

------------------------------------------------------

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

(Bold mine)

So, in the U.S., in states where law abiding citizens can legally carry firearms for self defense, crime rates are much lower than areas where it's strictly forbidden. And in Britain, where it's people are totally disarmed, they're suffering an even worse epidemic of violent crime. It's an interesting article, worthy of your time to read the whole thing.