Rebuild the Towers, Dammit!

Deroy Murdock at NRO makes his case for rebuilding the Twin Towers at least as tall as they were before the attack. Honestly, I've been feeling exactly the same way. Yes, I know that tall skyscrapers have proven to be economically dubious. Yes, I know that this would make them targets again for those pathetic whackos from the Middle East. But you know what? I don't fucking care. I want them back. I want them back as the tallest buildings in the world. Install a nice Phalanx CIWS on the roof, if that'll make folks feel a little better. I want that to be America's symbolic "Fuck You" to Osama and his looney band of medievalist reprobates.

The Left and Arabia: A Duet

In a previous post I opined that there is a similarity in the positions of the Arab nations and the American Left in regards to any action against Iraq. The Arab nations attempted unsuccessfully to put a precondition on American action by insisting that the US first deal with the Palestinian problem. The Anti Whatever Left in America has attempted to do something similar by insisting that the President make his case to the American people before undertaking any action against Iraq.


Where the Arabs are concerned this is a spoiling ploy that has been attempted before with some success. By casting success in the Middle East as dealing with the Palestinian problem they have been able to focus US and world efforts on the attempt to rectify a situation that the Arab nations continuously ensure will never be rectified in any way that the West would accept. By stirring up and supporting militant Islamists amongst the Palestinians, encouraging the rabid anti-semitism and fundamentalist fanaticism of their proxies, the Arab nations ensured that any peace plan that did not include the elimination of Israel would fail. Surely there were those who believed otherwise, but amongst the fanatics any plan that sought to make peace without the destruction of the Jewish state was an invitation to build more bombs and annihilate more pizza parlors and cafes. The escalation of violence is the Arab nations’ guarantee that no real progress will ever be made.


President Bush sidestepped this entire quagmire by first stating that there can be no real progress until there is new leadership for the Palestinians, then moving forward with plans to move against our enemies in the Middle East. While the Arabs, Europeans and American leftists all sputter in indignation, those with a more sanguine view of the world recognize that this policy offers the best hope for real peace in Israel. Once the power structure of the Middle East has been torn down and rebuilt and there are no longer any deep-pocketed provocateurs goading the fanatics in to action in Palestine, then and only then is there a chance for the sides to come to an agreement that both can live with. In dealing with Iraq and other nations that support terror, we deal with the root-cause issue of the Palestinian problem. Anything else is just applying band-aids.


In the same vein the current calls for President Bush to make the case for invading Iraq are nothing more than an attempt to forestall any action at all. There have been noises about the War Powers Act, etc, all of which are moves to tie the President’s hands and limit his ability to act. The Anti Action Brigade on the Left is desperate to prevent a President they despise from engaging in a war that the American people seem to support; hence all the wailing, the repeated distortions of the costs and casualties of the Afghanistan campaign, the slanted polls and reporting of such, and the calls for the President to “make the case” and consult with Congress.


There is actually nothing wrong with all of this politicizing- quite frankly it is The American Way. Lacking any further large-scale attacks on America and her interests, the Left feels free to start making noises and taking actions geared towards increasing their own power come the mid-term elections. The only thing that must be kept in mind is that they are flat-out wrong, and not just in one way, but in at least two.


First, the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and invests in him the responsibility of managing American foreign policy. In these respects Congressional power is limited to approving ambassadors, ratifying treaties and appropriating funds. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional and this is likely the situation that will make that official. Yes, only Congress can vote a Declaration of War, but it has been clear for a very long time that the President does not need a Declaration of War to unleash the military (whether this was by design or an oversight in the construction of the Constitution is an intriguing question, but irrelevant in this context). Given that, the only thing Congress can do to reign in the President is to refuse to fund the military. This is not a meaningless power; however, it is fraught with danger for those who elect to wield it. The President can order the troops in, begin the invasion and then congress can step in when more money is needed and say “No.” Regardless of whether the invasion is going well or is bogging down Congress runs the very real risk of being seen as failing to support the troops at a crucial point, raising all the negative ghosts of Vietnam and the ant-war left of the 60’s. Make no mistake- if Congress honestly feels that the President has launched us on a foolish and ill-considered course then snapping the purse shut would be an act of immense moral courage; however, I don’t believe that Congress a) possesses such courage, and b) honestly believes that invading Iraq is such a bad idea. Hence, the calls for consulting Congress, asking for authorization, etc are no more than meaningless noises. Congress gets to act after the fact, not preemptively.


Second, the President has no responsibility, moral or otherwise, to “sell” the invasion of Iraq to the American people. Sure, it would be a nice thing to do, but it is not required before action is taken. If the President orders the invasion and in the course of events the American people decide it was a bad idea, then in 2004 G. W. Bush will join his father as a one-term former president of the United States. That is where the voice of the people is heard, not through opinion polls and NY Times Editorial pages, nor even through Web Logs. Unlike a recent Presidency, history does not define leadership as riding the crest of public opinion polls. Leadership often demands that those in power make decisions that the people may be decidedly against. It has been eight years since the American people have seen a President make a decision without first sticking his finger in the wind to see if it will hurt his numbers in the opinion polls. It is a somewhat refreshing experience and the Left is justifiably terrified that the people might decide they prefer this to kind of President to one who always has a damned excuse ready in his breast pocket. It doesn’t help matters that the American public seems ready to support a war, rendering the question of making an unpopular decision a moot point.


In both cases, the Arab nations and the American Left/EU, those doing the job of distracting the President from his course are committing the egregious error of failing to recognize the objective realities of the situation they face. They are playing on tactics developed for a game that ended several years ago with the demise of the Cold War- the Arabs do not have the option of cozying up to the Soviet Union and they are no longer the only game in town where oil supplies are concerned. Likewise the Left/EU hasn’t got the specter of Global Nuclear Destruction to wave in front of the US populace as a method of reigning in a President they are desperate to portray as both clueless and reckless. The Europeans are particularly fond of telling the US that it has to stop living in the past and recognize the emergence of the post-modern era as embodied by the EU and its Bureaucratic Utopian Nanny State- give up reliance on outdated military power and embrace diplomacy and compromise, even with murderous thugs. Never mind that the EU only exists because nearly 60 years of American military occupation of Europe kept that continent from marching on in its habit of cyclical slaughter.


Two World Wars (courtesy of the oh-so-enlightened Europeans) have taught us the recipe for lasting peace: utter destruction of the enemy and reconstruction under more open and democratic government. We dropped the ball in WWI and had to do it all over in WWII. We were prevented from finishing Saddam in 1991 by the very factors the EU would have us embrace now. We are not interested in attempting Chamberlain-style appeasement and compromise with the opportunity to fight a truly horrific and devastating war a decade from now. It is time for some folks to wake up and smell the coffee…

The Western Media, Dupes of the Palestinians?

There is an excellent article in NRO by Daniel Doron about how much of the western media believes most of what the Palestinians and their supporters tell them without question. The media seems willing to accept whatever it is fed, making them nothing more than a mouthpiece for Yasser Arafat and his cronies.

More Musings On Iraq

So there has been an awful lot of hand wringing and assorted angst over what will or will not happen with Iraq over the next six months or a year. I’ve been following this for a while so I’ve got a couple of observations to make.


1)No October Surprise. I don’t think Bush is prepared to take the kind of heat such a move could generate, particularly if the invasion did not move as swiftly as the Afghanistan operation did. Either it happens soon, like by early September, or else it’s more like Christmas or after the New Year.


2)Palestine will not distract the US from acting. It was a worthwhile ploy by Arafat’s masters, but I think we’re done dancing to that tune.


3)Israel will play a larger part in the Iraq operation than anyone currently expects. In my opinion there is simply nothing to lose for either Israel or the US here. Regardless of what we do, Israel will be attacked. Regardless of who is involved, the “Arab Street” will be enraged. Regardless of that rage the Arab nations that choose to oppose us will get their asses kicked. Furthermore, Israel recently stated that Iraq is the nation that poses the greatest threat to Israel today. Since we seem determined to turn the Middle East on its ear, why not involve our most capable, most experienced, most dependable ally in the theater? Let’s stop allowing the Arabs assume that they can neutralize Israel just by making unhappy noises.


4)We may not need to invade at all. Saddam is making noises like he’s preparing to move his troops in to the cities in order to fight a far more expensive (for the US) urban style of campaign rather than deploying his troops in the desert where they can be handily destroyed with little muss or fuss. Jesus, I sure hope he does that. There are reasons why Saddam has kept his troops out of the cities- he does not trust them or their commanders. Once in the cities the army could very easily choose to impose its own brand of Martial Law and take control of the country. This becomes more likely as the prospect of a US invasion grows more certain and those troops face the prospect of fighting a nasty, bloody war that they still cannot hope to win. Add to that the idea that any cadre of officers who chose to put Saddam’s head on a post could probably count on getting at least initial support from the US and the idea becomes even more conceivable. Yes, Saddam has been ruthless in purging the ranks of officers he feels might be disloyal, but such actions seldom produce the desired results. Those who remain generally are loyal out of fear, and harbor a true hatred for the leadership. Put that in the crucible and turn on the heat and the results are likely to be volatile to say the least.


5)The Iraqis are making moves to shore up relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. This could actually work in favor of any plan to shake up those regimes. As positive as any move to remove Saddam would be, the idea of taking down Iraq when numerous enemies in the region are actively supporting it is even better. Several people in blog-land and elsewhere have made the point that Radical Islam need to suffer a thoroughly humiliating defeat, one where there is just no way to put a happy face on the result, before there is any chance of breaking its grip on the hearts and minds of the Arabic Third World. They have to fight and lose, undeniably, or else it is just one more act in the play.


6)One of the major unspoken targets of all this action is Pakistan. Pakistan has a nerve-wracking mixture of Nuclear Warheads and insurgent Militant Islam. Whatever else is accomplished, Pakistan’s slide in to the hands of the Islamofascists must be preempted. The current government leaves a bit to be desired, but they are infinitely preferable to what lies in the wings. If we prove unwilling or incapable of dealing with Iraq the groups agitating to usurp the current government in Pakistan cannot help but be encouraged. I have to wonder if the ultimate goal of al Qaeda was not in fact to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear warheads? They started in Afghanistan because it was easier. They tripped on their dicks by attacking the US in a big way, but the plan likely remains the same.


That’s my take on things as they stand right now. The political situation here in the US is somewhat in flux. I think that most of congress has simply forgotten what is at stake and instead is focusing on the interminable turf wars and power plays that constitute American Representative Democracy. Democrats and leftist intellectuals are moaning that President Bush has to sell the idea of invading Iraq to the American People before he can act, a demand that is akin to Arab nations whining that the Palestinian situation must be resolved before any other action in the Middle East can be attempted. They have it backwards- the President must act, and let the results show Americans that it was a good idea. If the evidence is not there the voting public will react appropriately in 2004 and then Albert or Hillary can take a crack at it. Like the Arabs regarding the Palestinians, the American Left fears that a successful action against Iraq will render their protests irrelevant. Which is just the way it ought to work.

Tested by a Great Evil

It is said that every generation is tested by a great evil. During the twentieth century alone the world faced evil, great and small.

From the late thirties through the mid forties Nazism and the militaristic Empire of Japan threatened freedom throughout the world. The depraved beliefs of the Nazi hierarchy led to the deaths of millions of innocents throughout Europe. Untold numbers died under the rule of a harsh Japanese military regime. Both the Nazis and the Japanese believed that all other races were inferior and lived only to serve or die at the hands of the master race. The niceties of civilization belonged only to those in power. But through force of arms both of these evil empires were torn asunder and wiped from the face of the earth.

Starting in 1917, the Communist threat came in to being during the Bolshevik Revolution. For a short while after the revolution it appeared that the downtrodden had finally had found champions. Then the terror began and the killing continued. The gulags were filled with the disillusioned and those brave enough to speak out. The Great Stalin killed more of his own people than the Nazis ever did. Over four generations lived under the repressive rule of tyrants until the Soviet system collapsed under its own weight, unable to compete against the free peoples elsewhere in the world. Another evil empire gone, with Communism thrown on the trash heap of history. Only a few Communist nations still exist and even they have had to make changes in their ideology in order to survive. Soon enough, they too will fade away.

Though the roots of the problem started in the twentieth century, it is during this century that we now face another of the great evils -- extremist Islamic fundamentalism. Dennis Prager defines some other great evils and the pattern that these evils follow. There are four parts to that pattern that he outlines:

1. The evil takes hold.

2. The evil has myriad defenders even among otherwise decent people.

3. The evil is vanquished after destroying an uncountable number of lives.

4. After the evil is vanquished, there is virtually unanimous agreement that it was indeed evil.

Extremist Islamic fundamentalism certainly meets the first two criteria. While I personally don't paint all Muslims with the same broad brush, I do believe the extremists have taken the tenets of the Faith and twisted them to their own nefarious ends. Of my Muslim friends and acquaintances, all decry and condemn the twisted evil that has infiltrated their faith. And before some of you slam me for that statement, allow me to remind you that extremist militant Christian fundamentalists have committed acts as evil as those of the Islamofascist pinheads. Remember the Crusades? What about the Inquisition?

Mind you, I am not an apologist for Islamic extremists. I find religious fanatics of any stripe to be dangerous as they will find ways of justifying any act, no matter how horrific. Genocide is not out of the question for fanatics such as these.

Actions that horrify us are rampant in the Middle East. As Dennis Prager mentions in his column, many in the West deny extremist militant Islamic evils.

"Afghanistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Palestinian society have created totalitarian regimes that, in each or all cases, have terribly oppressed women; enslaved and slaughtered a million blacks who refuse to be subjugated to Islamic totalitarianism; use religious police to whip men who drink alcohol; torture Christians who live or work there; have developed a unique theology of cruelty in which God is depicted as a provider of scores of young women to all Muslims who blow themselves up while murdering Jews and Americans; and, like Nazism, it has made Jew-hatred its centerpiece. And throughout much of the Muslim Middle East, girls are murdered by fathers and brothers in 'honor killings' if they are so much as perceived as having spent time with a male unapproved by the family."

"It should not be difficult to call all this evil, but just as with the previous evils, many Western voices not only defend these regimes and doctrines, they reserve their condemnations only for those who oppose the evil. Apologists like best-selling author Karen Armstrong, the professors of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), professors in other fields, the leftist European and American press -- all these deny Islamic evils. Just as their predecessors blamed America for the Cold War with Communism, and dismissed anti-Communists as 'war mongers' and 'fascists', today's deniers of evil blame America and Israel for Islamic terror and label terror's opponents 'bigots', 'Islamophobes' and, of course, 'war mongers'."

How many must die, how many atrocities must be committed, how much suffering must take place before we face the test of this Great Evil and end it? How long before the apologists see that they are wrong, even if they will never admit it to anyone but themselves?

It's the Logistics, Stupid!

Stephen Den Beste has an excellent post about how wars are won with logistics. It illustrates that the Allies battles against the Germans in WWII were won by the fact that the Allies simply had more war materiel and the means to get it to the front. It isn't necessarily how good your weapons are, it's how many of them you have and where they are that count.

The Persian Gulf War was a war of logistics: The Coalition simply had more of everything and knew how to move it when and where it was needed.

Bottling the Genie

Shoving the genie back in the bottle is not a task anyone willingly contemplates, particularly in regards to nuclear weapons, but that’s essentially what the US is going to be trying to do over the next few decades. We’ve tried non-proliferation, SALT, START, etc, but all of this has failed to keep the nuclear club from growing. India, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa (remember them?)… Slowly but surely the list grows.


We can’t make the knowledge go away- science just doesn’t work that way, but we certainly have to do what we can to keep the club small, and perhaps even shrink it if we can. One important step in this is the coming confrontation with Iraq.


I am growing increasingly tired of people who argue, in effect, that since we are unwilling to invade China, we have no right to invade Iraq, that Iraq has not directly attacked the US so we cannot invade, that Saddam Hussein is too fond of his own survival to ever launch an attack against the US, etc.


To those folks I say: bullshit.


Saddam Hussein has made no secret of his desire to be the Big Power in the Persian Gulf. The invasion of Kuwait was to be step one in a plan to dominate the region by force of arms and gain leverage over world affairs by directly controlling large portions of the world supply of crude oil. Yes, the US and a handful of allies laid a serious beating on Iraq in the Gulf War, but the desire of Hussein has never changed. At that time he had chemical and biological weapons, but refrained from using them for fear of a nuclear response. That deterrent remains, but the rules of the game change if and when Iraq is permitted to obtain nukes.


Let’s not bother with the idea of Iraq surreptitiously slipping a warhead to some Islamic Terrorist group. Instead, just imagine that Iraq scrapes together a dozen or more small fission bombs; say 10KT’s in size (slightly bigger that Hiroshima, IIRC). We now have a proven hostile nation, nuclear armed, with missiles that can reach the entire Persian Gulf Theater. That takes the current situation and turns it in to one gigantic mess.


A nuclear-armed Iraq is more dangerous than a nuclear-armed India or Israel, and it is far more dangerous than a non-nuclear Iraq. We have to remember that Iraq has already repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use Weapons of Mass Destruction both in war and against its own people. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Iraq will regard a nuclear warhead as something mystical and dangerous- to Hussein, it is just another weapon. He would likely never use or even threaten to use such a weapon against the US, but what about Kuwait? Or Qatar? Or any other nation within reach? Would the US be willing to extend the nuclear deterrent umbrella to protect regimes we don’t particularly like, such as the rapidly-descending House Of Saud?


No, I do not envision Iraqi Nuclear Scuds reigning destruction all over the Persian Gulf. I envision threats of Iraqi Nuclear Scuds reigning destruction all over the Persian Gulf. How do we deter that? If Iraq begins to pressure Kuwait to get US troops out, what do we do? And if it turns in to a shooting war between the US and a nuclear-armed Iraq how do we deploy troops, naval forces, etc? Those small warheads change everything.


The risks of Nuclear Iraq are great, but there are those who argue quite cogently that the increased threat is not enough to justify attack. After all, we didn’t invade China, or India, did we? The problem with this argument is that it is stuck in the past. We didn’t do anything about China or other nations obtaining nuclear weapons because we simply couldn’t. We did not have the power, the political situation was too complex and the risks were too large- we are talking potential World War III as opposed to an angry “Arab Street.”


The US can prevent Iraq from obtaining nukes and I propose that we actually have a moral obligation to do so. We cannot allow simple precedent stand in the path of circumventing a scenario fraught with ghastly uncertainties. The fact that we did not act in the past is not binding on our actions today or in the future.


UPDATE: Steven Den Beste dose a much more detailed job of making this point. It's a long read, but as with all things Den Beste it is well worth it.

The Bill of No Rights

Though this has been floating around for quite some time, I figured it couldn't hurt to post it here as a reminder. What prompted me was a post from Cold Fury slamming the poor wretches bewailing the state of their investments in the stock market. Some were upset because now they might actually have to work until they're 65 rather than retiring at 50 or 55.

So, without further ado, here is The Bill of No Rights

****************************************************

We, the Sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, Restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our Nation safe, Promote positive behavior and Secure the Blessings of debt-free Liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, Hereby try one more time to Ordain and Establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.

We hold these Truths to be Self-evident, that a whole lot of People were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I - You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth.

More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II - You do not have the right to never be offended.

This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III - You do not have the right to be free from harm.

If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you ,and all of your relatives, independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV - You do not have the right to free food and housing.

Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V - You do not have the right to free health care.

That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI - You do not have the right to physically harm other people.

If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.

ARTICLE VII - You do not have the right to the possessions of others.

If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII - You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.

We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX - You do not have the right to a job.

All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X - You do not have the right to happiness.

Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.


Copyright © Lewis W. Napper

The Way of Power and Abundance Will Prevail

I saw the above on a bumper sticker during a drive to Vermont the other day. And it struck me as oddly appropriate to the world situation today. I know, it’s a religious reference, but that is not the direction I’m heading in. Instead we have to look at how we define Power and Abundance.


One would think that Abundance would have a straightforward definition, but we have to couch that definition in terms of the Human Condition. Rather than being simply a more than plentiful quantity of something physical, Abundance in this case is a more than abundant supply of freedom and opportunity. America is steeped in the way of Abundance- anyone, yes anyone, can succeed here if he or she is sufficiently determined to do so. There are those who fail in our society, but society in general did not force them to fail. They fail for any number of reasons, mostly finding the crux in an inability or unwillingness to accept responsibility for themselves. Do that, mean it, and accept the hard work required, and anyone can succeed.


Power is another term that needs to be carefully defined. It can be seen as economic prowess or military might. Often these are the two familiar faces presented whenever one discusses American Power, but they are not the source of power, they are the result. The core of American Power is political freedom and the right of the people to replace a government they find wanting, and to do so without bloodshed, without violence, without savage revolution. It is what the Founders meant when they wrote so famously:


"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


The key phrase here is: That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.


Consent of the Governed is the absolute core of American Power. It is from this that all the rest flows. Consent of the Governed, tempered by a system of checks and balances designed to protect against both a tyrannical Executive branch AND the tyranny of the Majority is what has made this nation the sole remaining superpower in the world today. The phrase that started me on this tonight quite rightly put Power before Abundance, for it is from the Power that Abundance grew. The Power of a population unleashed from the yolk of oppressive government, a population built of the best, most adventurous, most daring people the Old World had to offer.


The question is, in what shall the Way of Power and Abundance Prevail? I have no uncertainty regarding America’s ability or determination to reign in the rogue nations and extra-national entities bent on stripping the world of freedom and diversity. The only uncertainty is in how, and how long and at what cost in blood and treasure? I firmly believe that as the next two years unfold America will see more clearly what the cost will be, and will come to understand that is shall not be in any way negligible. It will be a price paid in blood and tears, and treasure be damned. And I have no doubt that we as a people will choose to pay it. Power and Abundance will brook no other course for us.

Random Thoughts on a Sunday Afternoon

Borrowing a page from Thomas Sowell, I hereby offer some thoughts that have been running around in my mind most of the weekend.

*****

Why is it that when we come back from vacation we need a vacation to recuperate from the vacation? It always seems to me that I need a couple of days to rest once I get back from vacation, even if I didn't go anywhere!

*****

According to a source (which I don't happen to recall at the moment. After all it is Sunday), there are approximately 850,000 words in the American English lexicon and 450,000 words in the British English lexicon. I'm not sure why that disparity exists unless it has something to do with American willingness to make up a word when existing words just won't do. Or maybe it's because America is such an acronym-loving nation, even when things are, at times, FUBAR. Then these acronyms become a word in and of themselves, and that's no SNAFU. It seems that most English speaking nations also have the propensity to borrow words from other languages when it suits. But one must remember that English is something of a bastard language, being a mixture of Germanic, Latin, Celtic roots. Now add all of the bits and pieces we've borrowed from Asia, the rest of Europe, Africa, Australia, the Pacific Islands, and North and South America. (In New England, where I happen to live, there are many towns, rivers, lakes, ponds, streets, and even states that borrow their names from the Algonquin-speaking tribes. For instance, in Massachusetts there is a lake called Chauggagogmanchauggagogchauggbunamungaggog. Today they call it Webster Lake. I guess too many people were cramping their tongues trying to pronounce it.) Even with its rather bass-ackwards grammatic structure, English is a language spoken by more people in more places on this earth than any other. (Yes, I know there are over 1.2 billion Chinese speakers, but most of them are located in one area on the Asian continent.) English is everywhere.

*****

Why do we park in a driveway, but drive on a parkway? Does one get high on a highway?

*****

Have you ever noticed that the small packages of nuts or potato chips or Cheez-its are damn near impossible to open easily without causing the contents to fly all over the place, while the large bags of the same thing seem to open all by themselves when you don't want them to?

*****

One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to driving on the highway is when somebody rushes past you and cuts across three lanes of traffic to beat you to the exact change lane at a tollbooth. Then, when it's finally their turn to drop their 75 cents in to the coin chute, they realize they don't have any change. Some will sit there for quite some time, checking pockets, purses, and under seats to find enough change. Others will just pull away after 30 seconds or so and take their chances. And on one occasion I witnessed someone stuffing a folded dollar bill into the bottom of the coin chute, plugging it up. Unfortunately I see this behavior all too often, and mostly it's folks from Massachusetts and New York heading up to the lakes and mountains on Friday afternoon/early evening or heading home on Sunday (or Monday, if it's a three day weekend).

*****

I happen to be fortunate enough to live on the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee in central New Hampshire. Most times it's a joy. But once the summer season rolls around it becomes a mixed blessing. The summer people arrive. Those of you that live near summer tourist destinations know what I mean when I say 'summer people'. There are two kinds.

The first kind are the folks that come for a week or two and stay at one of the resorts, rental cottages, or camp grounds. I'll also include the folks that only spend weekends at family owned cottages. They are, for the most part, pretty nice people, friendly and giving. They enjoy the area and have a good time.

The second kind, however, give the rest a bad name. They are the 'summah people'. This term is spoken in such a way as to be unmistakably derogatory. These are the folks that come to one of the summer resort areas and act as if everyone having the good fortune to live there year round are their servants and underlings. They have no concept of private property, except that their property is private and yours is not.

I've had the misfortune to have to deal with one of the second kind since the weekend after Memorial Day. He rents a boat slip located behind my home. On one occasion he left his dog tied up to a tree in my back yard for the entire day while he was out on his boat. The dog was a Boxer, and not particularly friendly. Due to the length of the rope he used to tie up his dog, access to my back yard and the rest of the boat slips was impossible as the dog would lunge at anyone approaching the dock or entering the back yard.

The local police department was called when one of the other slip renters couldn't leave his boat because the dog would snap and growl at him and his family every time they stepped on to the dock. Just as the Animal Control Officer was about to slip a control noose over the dog's head in an effort to take him away, the owner arrived back at the dock. The invective that followed would have made a longshoreman blush.

His attitude was "I rent this damn slip and I'll do what I want!" It didn't matter to him that the only thing he was renting was the slip and access to it through a private yard.

This fellow has also parked in my driveway, blocking access to my garage and everything inside. On one weekend his SUV was there from Friday afternoon until Sunday evening. I didn't know it was his until he returned and I saw him loading his gear into it. I asked him to please park on the side of the road like all the other slip tenants. His response was "F**k YOU!" He then got in to his SUV and drove off.

My neighbors have use of the driveway when they have relatives or friends visiting for the weekend. On one particular weekend, this fellow again parked his SUV in front of the garage, blocking access. My neighbor's relatives were also visiting, so they parked their cars in the driveway, blocking the SUV in.

Late Sunday afternoon rolls around and the fellow arrives back at the dock. After loading his gear in to the back of his truck, he pounds on my door and demands that the other cars be moved so he can leave. I told him I had no way to do that. I explained that the cars belonged to the neighbors and that they had permission to park there. I also reminded him that he did not.

He left, went to the neighbor's door and pounded on it. He got no response as no one was home. He was then back at my door demanding to know where they were. I told him that they were out on their boat. He then wanted to know when they'd be back.

My answer: "How the hell should I know?"

After he sat around and stewed for a while, he called his wife on his cell phone so she could drive up to Lake Winnipesaukee and pick him up. She arrived a couple of hours later. Not more than five minutes after they left, my neighbors pulled in at their slip.

When I got home from work Monday afternoon the SUV was gone.

Since then, his SUV has been towed from my driveway (once); the Marine Patrol has cited him for dumping oil into the Lakeport Channel when he pumped his bilge (twice); and the city billed him for the clean up of the oil slick by the fire department.

He just doesn't get it.

*****

I've ridden motorcycles for years. For years I had no opinion one way or the other about loud pipes on motorcycles. Then, last year during the annual Motorcycle Week, I became a firm believer that too many motorcycles are TOO DAMN LOUD! The old adage that 'Loud Pipes Save Lives' is just so much crap. I don't need to hear somebody on their Harley at 2 in the morning while they're still three miles away. I don't need the ear shattering blast of exhaust at a stoplight when the rider twists the throttle less than three feet away from me. In many cases the only time a driver might hear such a motorcycle is after it's already passed them. Only now are the state and local police around here starting to enforce ordinances already on the books dealing with loud exhaust systems.

The War on Drugs

Watched the Stossel piece on ABC tonight and it was pretty predictable. That does not mean it was bad, or that I didn't happen to agree with the premise, but it's going to take alot more than that to get things moving in the direction of a more sane policy regarding drug abuse in this country. The problem is many faceted, but it mostly boils down to money and power. A war on drugs means lots of money for police, lots of money for companies that supply prisons, lots of money and power for politicians that keep the cycle turning in the direction of harsher laws, more siezures of property, more inmates for the prison industry. Until that dynamic is addressed reform of drug laws in this country is a pipe-dream (no pun intended...)


Also, anyone who is tempted to down-play the threat to civil liberties inherent in a crack-down intended to "increase security" ought to take a close look at the way the War on Drugs has steadily erroded civil liberites in this country. Here's one example (via Instapundit), but there are lots more.

Rejecting the Franchise

It has suddenly become clear to me that I probably won’t vote this November. Hell, I probably won’t even register to vote. Part of this is the aftermath of a recent relocation from the People’s Socialist Utopia of Massachusetts to Live Free or Die New Hampshire- I am still plugged in to a foreign political reality. The intricacies of New Hampshire politics escape me at the moment even as I still cringe at Massachusetts’ One Billion Dollar tax increase to cover the exorbitant spending wracked up during the Clinton Bubble Economy.


Still, there is more to it than just relocation dislocation. Quite frankly I can’t see the difference between the separate flavors of political candidates today. No, I don’t think it’s time for a third party- we had enough of that crap with Perot and Buchanan, but I grow increasingly cynical. This cynicism is fueled in large part by the political parties of this country as they seem incapable of passing up even the most miniscule chance to tear down whom ever is in a position of power at the moment. In the 90’s it was the Republicans from the far right of the party who fueled an almost carnival atmosphere of scandal mongering regarding Bill Clinton. They pilloried that man at every turn and in the end wound up creating such a sense of fatigue that when something truly scandalous (perjury) did arise, the best they could muster was a sham Impeachment and show trial in the Senate.


The next step for me was the 2000 Presidential election. I’m not going to waste a lot of time with that episode except to say that the Supreme Court was correct- the attempt to count, recount and re-recount was illegal according to election law at the time. The Democrat’s attempt to change the rules after the votes were cast, the screwed up ballots and instructions put in place in Democrat-controlled polling districts, these are all object lessons in how not to run things. One would hope that we’ve learned a lesson from this, but somehow, I doubt it.


Finally, we have the war. I saw recently where some congress-critters are pushing legislation to force the President to get congressional approval before moving against Iraq. EVERYONE knows that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional- it just awaits a challenge in the courts to be tossed in to the “unmarked grave of discarded lies.” So why the move in congress to clip the President’s wings? Can’t have him doing something so provocative as the mid-term elections come up, can we? The Democrats need to be able to scream about something and so far they haven’t been able to make the corporate accounting scandals and death-spiral DJIA stick.


I could accept all of this if I thought the Democrats believed they had a better idea of how to destroy our enemies, but they don’t. They just want control of the House and a shot at the presidency in 2004: if it comes down to a choice between defeating America’s enemies or gaining political advantage, then the war be damned. Furthermore, if we were talking President Gore I am certain that the Republicans would be behaving in just as dastardly a way.


Put all the above together and suddenly I can’t seem to find the time to stroll down to City Hall and register to vote. Every time I think to do it, something always gets in the way: change the cat’s litter box, rearrange the paper plate holders in the cabinet, oh, and there is that Mayberry RFD marathon on the local cable channel…


Come 2004, I’m sure I’ll be ready. All that “First In the Nation Primary” crap will doubtless suck me in. By then the Poison of the Mandatory Collective of Massachusetts should have left my system and I ought to be in tune with New Hampshire politics. Perhaps I’ll finally be able to give a damn. Still, if I could just get them to replace the current House of Representatives with my idea of a drafted body- but I doubt there are enough pictures of congressmen and senators in compromising positions with farm animals to make that happen…

War with Iraq

Isntapundit has an interesting view on war with Iraq, as well as a link to his commentary on editorials in The Nation and the L.A. Times, against and for invading Iraq.

Future Shock

This is simply awesome. Way to go, N.Z. Bear!


Wonder if he's ever read Brunner's Shockwave Rider...

Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the Dogs of War....

It seems that some of the media pundits have been saying that the only way the Bush Administration will be able to take away attention from the ongoing corporate corruption scandals, and the shrill allegations from the left of wrongdoing by Bush and Cheney, is for the U.S. to invade Iraq.

Though the motivation behind such an invasion is less likely to be what Liberals imply and is more a pre-emptive action to prevent greater chaos in the future, I have to admit that it has a certain appeal.

Mind you, I'm no warmonger. I'd be the next-to-the-last one to say "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." (My dear brother isn't quite so...umm....magnanimous.) But removing Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party is looking more attractive all the time. Despite the anger from the Muslim world that such a move might create, I believe that many of Iraq's neighbors will quietly applaud our actions and breathe a sigh of relief.

Of course many of the Liberals in the U.S. will bewail the death of Iraqi civilians, but that's what happens in war. During the Gulf War, Saddam had civilians moved into and around Iraqi military installations and weapons facilities in an attempt to prevent their destruction by Coalition air power. It did give pause to the Coalition military commanders, but in the end those installations and facilities were destroyed. Civilians did die. The Coalition couldn't allow the use of hostages, and that's what these civilians were, to deter the campaign against Saddam and the Iraqi military. It is a horrible fact, but civilians are always killed in war, either by accident or by design. The U.S. military tries hard to limit civilian casualties, but it's impossible to avoid.

Despite the pasting Iraq took during the Gulf War, it is still a formidable military power. Saddam Hussein still has designs on becoming a major player in the Middle East, if not the outright overlord. He covets Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and many other Gulf states. He wants to be the Great Leader of the Arab world. I believe he's willing to kill as many people as necessary to achieve that end. I also believe he'd be willing to use weapons of mass destruction in his bid for power as he's used them in the past against Iran during the nine year war with Iran, and against the Kurds within Iraq. I doubt it would bother him in any way if the people of Iraq have to die in order for him to attain his goals. He certainly seems to be willing to kill his own people if he thinks he will gain some advantage in doing so. He has done so to stifle any opposition to his rule within Iraq.

Were the U.S. to invade and conquer Iraq, what should America do once the war is won? Maybe it's time to do some real nation building along the lines of the Marshall Plan after World War II. Perhaps if we had done that after the Soviet Union had withdrawn from Afghanistan, the Taliban would have never come to power and Al Qaeda would not have had a secure base of operations. We must do that in Iraq, for the consequences of not doing it will be far greater than we can probably imagine.

Conservative vs Liberal...

I've always believed that the difference in attitude between Conservatives and Liberals is best described by the following statement:


Conservatives believe they are right and Liberals are wrong. Liberals believe that they are Righteous and Conservatives are Evil.


It turns out that Charles Krauthammer agrees with me.

Responsibility

I decided I needed a couple of days to get my head around the recent bombing by Israel which sent Sheik Salah Shehada to meet his 72 virgins and took nearly a score of civilians with him. What made me pause was my initial reaction to the collateral killings: “Gee, that’s too damned bad, isn’t it?” It just seemed so damned cold. Then today I saw NZ Bear’s article regarding a mainstream media blogger’s initial reaction and later backpedaling.


It really does remain “too damned bad” with me. Others have argued that the Israelis cannot avoid taking responsibility for this “tragedy” and the apparent reality of the situation is that they have done just that. This was a mistake, intelligence indicated there were no civilians in the building, and there was no intention to kill civilians. What will infuriate those who believe this places Israel on the same moral footing with the Palestinians is that it does precisely the opposite: It demonstrates Israel’s immense moral superiority to her foes.


This is so basic that it should not need repeating, but here it is nonetheless: Palestinians deliberately target Israeli civilians and cheer when they are successful in the slaughter of shoppers, businessmen and children. Israelis do not deliberately target civilians, but recognize that they are at war and that any action they undertake will likely result in civilian casualties. When civilians die in an attack such as the recent bombing, they regret it, investigate it, and try to prevent it from happening again. The brutal calculus of war dictates that when you rain fire and hot steel from the sky, people will die. You do your best to minimize it, but beyond that it truly is just “tough luck, fella.”


To summarize the above: One side uses suicide bombers and ambushes to slaughter innocent civilians as their primary military tactic. They surround themselves with “innocent” civilians, counting on the civilized nature of their foe to protect them from attack. The other side uses military actions targeted at capturing or killing enemy combatants and disrupting their logistics. They employ tactics that often lead to civilian casualties, but they do everything they can to minimize this, short of deciding not to defend themselves. Couched in those terms, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Palestinian militants, in making the conscious decisions to a) slaughter civilians, and b) house themselves in the shielding embrace of civilian populations, bear the responsibility for bringing about the circumstances that led to this unfortunate loss of life. Unfortunate. Nothing more, nothing less.


The pacifists amongst us tend to cite such events as proof that war is intrinsically evil, unjustifiable and at best counter-productive. My own opinion is that people who espouse the view that all war is immoral are simply incapable of making moral judgments. I’ll grant that they abhor violence, that killing cuts to the center of their understanding of what constitutes “big-H” Humanity, but to transform that feeling of revulsion in to a blanket proscription of conflict of any kind begs the question: if you are not willing to fight to defend yourself, do you have the right to exist? Asserting the right to exist implicitly recognizes the right to defend your existence. Pacifism denies this and so is at its core both self-denying and self-destructive.


And one final note regarding the deaths of “innocent civilians” in this recent Israeli action- I have made this point before and I will quote the relevant part here:


It does not matter if the “ordinary Palestinians” are not so committed to the fight as the death-warped “martyrs” who bring their brand of righteous murder down upon school children and secretaries, the fact is that they tolerate these animals, and by tolerating them they are complicit in their actions. After the Second World War the Allies did not accept the protestations of German civilians who clamed not to know about the atrocities of the Holocaust so no thinking, reasoning person can give me any damned reason to start accepting excuses now.


To the “ordinary Palestinians” I say: “If you are not actively opposing those of your people who would sow random death then you are guilty of murder. You are damned.”


So enough about “innocent civilians.”

Malpractice- Kill All The (Tort) Lawyers, Redux

An earlier post of mine mentioned the problem some states were having retaining doctors, and specifically obstetricians. A report on ABC's World News Tonight shows that the problem is worse that I had originally thought.

ABC's report focused on two OB/GYNs in the town of Cleveland, Mississippi forced to close their joint practice because their malpractice insurance premiums rose 500%. (No, that isn't a typo- five hundred percent!). They couldn't afford the premiums and the only choice they had was to close the practice, abandoning a number of patients, one less than three weeks away from delivering her child. Women in Cleveland will have no choice but to travel 40 miles to another OB/GYN, and the worry is that he may not be able to practice much longer for the same reason. The average premium increase in the Mississippi delta region was 400%!

This problem reaches far beyond Mississippi. Nationwide, malpractice premiums for OB/GYNs have risen over 160% in the past 10 years. The increasing number of malpractice suits and large settlements over those same ten year period are to blame. The American Medical Association says there are nine states in the U.S. that have reached crisis proportions when it comes to malpractice premiums and doctors leaving their practices. Another 18 states are showing signs of the same problem.

Dr. Thomas Purdon, former president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports, "In the past year, at least 10 to 20 percent of all OB/GYNs in the country have either stopped delivering babies, stopped doing gynecological surgery, or even given up practice altogether."

Some may argue that the malpractice suits were justified, that the doctors being sued screwed up. In some cases, I'd agree with them. But I'll bet a lot suits were filed because a patient or family wasn't happy with the way things turned out. Maybe a newborn had some health problems that didn't become evident until the child was born. Maybe a new mother had health complications from the birth. Some of this would have been unforeseeable. Some of these problems could have been caused by the mother herself for not following the doctor's orders during her pregnancy. And sometimes, shit just happens.

But don't fret! Here come the lawyers! They'll get you a load of cash to ease your suffering!

So your baby was born with a club foot? Not a problem. Sue the doctor!

Labor was brought on prematurely because of a traffic accident and the baby later died? It must be somebody's fault. Sue the doctor!

It was a boy rather than a girl? I guess somebody screwed up. Sue the doctor!

There were unexpected complications during and after the birth? Somebody should have expected them. Sue the doctor!

And so on, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

If this isn't a call for tort reform, I don't know what is. If it doesn't stop here, then one medical specialty after another will fall. And then we'll really be in trouble.

And so the chickens have come home to roost.

I'll go out on a limb here and bet that female lawyers and the wives of lawyers have a really tough time finding an OB/GYN that will take them on as a patient.

Maybe payback is a bitch.......

UPDATE: On Thursday, July 25th, ABC's World News Tonight reported that the two OB/GYNs in Cleveland, Mississippi were contacted by an insurance carrier that offered them short term coverage. Their practice will remain open for the time being, but this is only a reprieve. Their coverage will expire in a couple of months.