1.23.2006 | The clock is ticking

"24" with Kiefer Sutherland as agent Jack Bauer is what I wish my government service could've been like.

That is to say, action-packed, extreme clarity of vision as to who the bad guys were (except, of course, the moles and insiders who turned), and minimal remorse about doing what had to be done. Oh, and all of it accompanied by essentially zero paperwork, which is the actual grinding reality of most government service.

Jack Bauer gets it done. Period. He is not given to internal conflicts and dithering, although the character clearly shows he knows the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. Jack is a man of action, as anyone who ever served anywhere near the sharp end of our national security biz wished they could be.

I've no idea to what extent, if any, George Bush is a fan of the show, or has ever watched it. If I had to guess, I'd guess that to watch such moral clarity at work might be frustrating for the commander-in-chief, who knows that the government, and the wider world, is just chock full of much smarter folks who dwell in the analysts' world of nuance and contingency plans without end.

Well, "24" is fiction. More's the pity. But it's the best action show I've ever seen, and it's maintained its sterling quality from its debut in 2001.

1.20.2006 | "security and stability"

I'm sure that bin laden's latest tape will appeal to a majority of Democratic lawmakers. It will certainly have great sex appeal to the deep-blue lovers of terror and haters of George Bush in New York, Boston, Hollywood, and the various academic enclaves such as Madison, Wisconsin, and Berkeley, California.

The missive from weird beard obl tells us, trust us terrorists, would we lie to you? We promise you, if you just get out of Iraq, there'll be some sort of a "truce" under which (via the NYT)

both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, Iraq and al qaeda have no connection, whatsoever, right? At least according to our pro-terrorist minions in the media, politics, and Hollywood. After all, to admit such a thing would be to allow that Bush might have been telling the truth. Well, at least partly...And the reason that we were attacked by al qaeda long before we overthrew obl's new-found best bud Saddam is...what, exactly?

Getting past name-calling (Bush lied! People died! Halliburton!!!), isn't it curious that if, as bin laden said, "Our situation is getting better while yours is getting worse," that his "side" would be the one suing for a truce. Well, among other things, Islamic terrorists lie. The truth is foreign to their tongues.

The trump card in all of this is the entire notion of even dealing with this sort of evil. Even if bin laden could control the terrorists in Iraq (a doubtful enough notion), why would it ever be a good thing to allow this man to live? Dick Cheney had it exactly right:

I think you have to destroy them [terrorists]. It's the only way to deal with them.

Those who think otherwise might wish to think about the nature of good, and evil. And ask of themselves if one should ever compromise with evil, and, if one does, does that not make you, too, a partner in evil?

One makes deals with the devil at the peril of one's soul.

1.19.2006 | Federalism trumps life?

Among those who have an inalienable right to life are the elderly, the infirm, and the terminally ill. Since our very life is a gift from God, it is not ours to dispose of, without good and sufficient cause. Therein lies the crux of the debate: what, exactly, constitutes "good and sufficient?" Whatever else it may mean, it surely can't mean that a physician, or anyone else, should be able to intentionally kill a patient.

The recent Supreme Court decision (typical story here) was hailed by the Gray Lady as a victory for federalism. Which might come as a surprise to those who regularly read the New York Times and note that it's never shy about the federales trumping the states when it comes to liberal causes near and dear to the Timesmen's black, shriveled hearts. From the Times editorial, here's a bit of the flavor:

The Supreme Court smacked former Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration when it ruled 6 to 3 that the Justice Department had gone beyond its authority in trying to undermine an assisted-suicide law in Oregon.

You've gotta love it: "smacked" John Ashcroft, who used to be the left's favorite Bible-thumping troglodyte. It is clear that their hatred of John Ashcroft and George Bush counts for at least as much as any newly-found fidelity to Constitutional principles.

They do have half a point, however. It is not usually a good thing for the Federal government to attempt to overturn what the constitutionally sovereign people of the individual states enact. In this case, however, Oregon enacted a law that denies the sanctity of life to a certain class of people deemed to be a burden.

But, the liberal might say, "what if someone is in such dire pain and that they truly want to die?" This is never an easy question, and those who glibly ignore it ignore reality. But the answer can not be to allow a physician, whose oath requires them to do no harm as a first principle, kill a person.

As a God-fearing man, I believe that suicide is an offense against the Almighty, a slap in His face. Take your stinking life; it's no good to me any more. I don't want it.

Those who do take their own lives are to be pitied, and, for extreme cases, perhaps forgiven by God. But there can be no forgiveness for those who kill in some mistaken belief that they are better arbiters of what constitutes a meaningful life than is God.

1.17.2006 | "chocolate New Orleans"

Thus spake God Almighty, if one is to believe Ray (I never make mistakes) Nagin. As in, to provide the full context (from today's WaPo):

It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans -- the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority-African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Nope. Can't have it "no other way." Nagin is the current mayor of Nawlins, to give it the annoying Texan pronunciation that used to provide NOLA natives yet another reason to feel superior. Or at least this is the way it was when I lived in New Orleans for a time, when we were instructed to give it the French pronunciation, Nooo Or-Lee-Ahns. More or less.

I haven't check my latest e-mails from God, but my sense is that He doesn't really care if NOLA is a majority black, yellow, white, or purple city. In fact, the last time the Big Guy checked in with me, He pretty much told me that anyone who takes His name in the service of racism isn't really doing His will.

One of the perhaps less-well-known facts about New Orleans is that it was one of the largest slave ports in the Americas, a mega-mart for buying and selling people. Was this, too, "the way God wants it to be?" If not, He surely took His sweet time correcting the situation.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but to claim that God mandates that New Orleans, or any other place, be "chocolate" is, at the very least, racist. If not plain stupid. Ray Nagin, of course, isn't Pat Robertson, and his idiotarian remarks won't get the same play in the media. Pity, because they're just as shameful.

Which kind of also says something about the pass that idiots can get in the MSM if they're the right color or ethnic group. Once a victim, always a victim, eh Ray? The serious point is that if blacks consider themselves to be permament members of a class of victims, then they are doomed to the pitiful dependancy that leads to cesspools like NOLA's Ninth Ward. And to whining idiotarians like Ray Nagin to "lead" them.

We can do much better. New Orleans deserves much better. And let's not claim that "God is on our side" when we rebuild. God's on everyone's side. Even Ray Nagin's. Just that my sense is that God gives us the tools, but then leaves us alone to do the job...or fail.

Both options are open.

1.16.2006 | John Knox, call your office...

...you're sorely needed in your native Scotland. Found, via LGF, this little gem of a story at Scotsman.com. Seems that some members of the religion of pieces would like a Catholic school in Glasgow to become Islamic. From the story:

Osama Saeed, co-ordinator of the alliance of Glasgow's main mosques and Muslim organisations, said he could see no reason why the main faith of the [Catholic] school should not change.

No reason at all. Except, perhaps, because, as the leading Catholic cleric in Scotland, Keith Cardinal O'Brien (hmmm, sounds Irish, ye asks me...) is quoted as saying something along the lines of "Scotland's core faith was Christianity and that other faiths should recognise they were living in Scotland as a Christian country."

According to the Scotsman.com story, this statement of obvious fact (see, for example, this sampling of writings by and about the various "Scots worthies" of the Reformation) "sparked controversy." Hmm. Bet it did. Among RoPers and their natural allies, the useful idiots who are ashamed of their Christian backgrounds.

Scotland, for those who lack any sense of history, was, arguably, the engine of the Protestant Reformation. I don't know what proportion of 21st century Scots consider themselves to be Christian. But I'd wager it's a fairly large proportion, if the other choice was to be a muslim.

This may seem a trivial example, but it's indicative of the continuing war against the West. By which I mean a war to finally defeat us Jewish and Christian "infidels," and bring us under the yoke of a world-wide caliphate. Only this time with some serious sharia mojo.

Public stonings will take place at Giants Stadium, Sundays at noon, for people who've been caught attending any synagogue or Christian church...

1.15.2006 | "cheek-by-rhetorical-jowl"

This is how Jim Hoagland, the Washington Post's reliably centrist foreign affairs columnist, describes Pat Robertson and Iranian president Mahmoud (moonbat) Ahmadinejad. Hope I didn't give away anything by the parenthetical note on the Iranian felow.

Mr. Hoagland makes an amazingly inaccurate comparison between the two. Pat is famous for sticking his foot in his mouth, and chewing loudly. The most recent such meal for him was when he commented, foolishly, on the massive stroke suffered by Ariel Sharon, suggesting that this was holy payback from the Lord. As reported by CNN, here's part of what Pat said:

He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone.'

Now, shock of shocks, I happen to think that God did, in fact, promise all of what is now Israel, "Palestine", and Jordan to the Jews. That opinion is merely what Scripture states. Merely. And there's the nub of the problem in the public square. Pat Robertson surely knows his Scripture, just hasn't much of a clue about how to preach in public with love.

Pat may have been right, but he showed a mean and black heart, an unchristian heart, in praising God for striking down Sharon. Assuming, of course, that this is why Sharon suffered his stroke. As opposed to him being grossly overweight and being 77 years old and eating mounds of God knows what kind of anti-health foods.

There's an overarching difficulty, however. How does Pat Robertson know what God's plans are for Ariel Sharon? Perhaps taking Ariel Sharon was God's way of denying the path on which Sharon has started down. Perhaps God knows that by taking Sharon, his country will become even stronger in the long term. Perhaps God really doesn't care much about how insignificant spits of land are divvied up in the year 2006, but the important thing is the survival of am yisrael, the People of Israel, and this is the way to best ensure this in the long term. Now there's a radical thought. God taking the long view and carrying out salvation history at His pace and His methods, not Pat Robertson's.

Now, getting back to the Iranian idiot, he's not just about praising God for actions taken by God. Oh no, this guy doesn't trust the Almighty to do the bidding of the mad mullahs. He's got a better idea. He's going to lead Iran in the building of nukes, and then they'll wipe out the Jews. Give them enough firepower, I'm certain he'd want to, in his heart of hearts, then start wiping out the Christian infidels in Europe.

At the very least, Pat Robertson bases his stupid remarks on valid Scripture. The Iranian nutjob bases his stupid remarks on what appears to be pure vitriol, hatred of God's Chosen People. Pat Robertson loves the Jews too much. Ahmadinejad of Iran hates them too much. Beyond operating at the extremes, the comparison between the two is invidious.

If you doubt this, if you could only choose one of these guys to be the all-powerful king of the world, and had to choose one (no write-in votes, please), which would it be? Robertson, who still has some vestige of humility (he did apologize), or, as Jim Hoagland points out, the very seriously "nuts" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

1.06.2006 | Heading south

For any regular readers out there (ha, as if...), me and the missus are getting out of town. Heading south. Waaaaay south. 12.3 degrees north of the Equator. Warm. No snow. Aruba, for a week's vacation.

Be back on January 14.

Thanks for stopping by.

| A Mensch

The previous post talks of the small-minded and nasty Palestinians. In sharp contrast, consider this from a former enemy of Ariel Sharon, as reported by the Jerusalem Post:

[Egyptian Chief of Staff Salah] Halabi wants Sharon to live. "He was my enemy during the time of war. Now he is an agent for establishing peace. He is now needed to create peace in the region. Our best wishes for Mr. Sharon. May he be well."

This is exactly how one acts towards a former enemy, or even an enemy who is no longer a threat. It is what makes a man like Salah Halabi a mensch. And some Palestinians maroons.

| Maroons

Growing up, we couldn't quite pronounce "moron" correctly, so we used to call people who didn't measure up to our exalted standards "maroons." Or, if we were feeling especially ironic, "macaroons." You know, a sweet treat, verging on the sickeningly sweet, made of (coco)nuts.

To this day, me, and many people my age (give or take a few) know that "maroon" is actually a pretty nasty way to categorize someone. It means they're dumb, and nasty. A bad combo. And applied to idiots who don't even deserve the appropriate "moron" title.

Cue the Paleos. These Arabs just don't know who their friends are, and they continue to act like maroons. Ariel Sharon unilaterally gave these undeserving clods more than they a) deserved, b) earned, or c) were strong enough to take from Israel. Sharon has done more to create a viable Paleo state that Yessir Arafish, terrorist extraordinaire, ever did.

But the Paleos never miss an opportunity to screw up. They cheered Saddam on when he raped Kuwait, they cheered 9/11, and they're doing it again now that Arik Sharon looks like he's down for the count. Of course, calling him "Sharoon" cued "maroon" in my twisted mind.

Lack of English I hold not against them; lack of sympathy, even for a fallen enemy, I do. And, looking at this objectively, Arik Sharon was the best friend the Paleos have in the Middle East. They could be forgiven for not seeing this clearly. But for acting like Satan's minions and dancing, figuratively speaking, on Sharon's grave, even before he is in it, they should not be forgiven in this world.

These people have no grace. They do not deserve a state, and they surely haven't earned one. Let Jordan and Egypt take them in. But this won't happen, either. Egypt and Jordan had many years over which to exercise this option. They're smart enough to know you don't take in garbage.

Note: the picture in this post, and others like it, may be found at Boker Tov, Boulder! That's "Good morning, Boulder!" for you goyim...

1.05.2006 | Hack hack cough cough

This is a sound you'll be hearing less of, if you are silly enough to spend any money in bars or restaurants in Washington, D.C. I realize that some people who have disposable income actually live in the confines of the People's Republic of Columbia, but hopefully you've enough to pack up and leave the city to the wolves.

The City Council of DC has now voted, 11-1, to ban smoking in just about anyplace that serves alcohol or food. From the People's Pravda (Washington Post) story, the ban

would apply immediately to all restaurant dining rooms and would be extended to bars, nightclubs, taverns and the bar areas of restaurants in January 2007

Oh, there's good news if you're a hookah smoker. Seems there was a tussle over "whether to exempt the city's eight hookah bars." How about opium dens? After all, doesn't one smoke a pipe in those dens?

The serious point is that people should be free to choose their environments. Those who smoke should be able to toss down a shot and a beer, or whatever suits their fancy, with a cigarette or pipe or cigar. If you or I don't like to be in a smoke-filled room, then let the market show the way: if there's enough of us who don't patronize smoky bars, they'll change to stay in business.

Don't get me wrong. Smoking is a nasty business, and is almost certain to cut your life short. In nasty, painful ways like lung cancer. We may have all heard apocryphal stories of someone's Uncle Ned who smoked like a chimney and died in his sleep at 110. But for every Uncle Ned there's dozens if not hundreds of others who die prematurely due to the noxious weed.

Over against the health risks is the notion that we, each of us, should have the freedom to smoke. Or not smoke. If I don't want to inhale your smoke, then I should be free to go to a place where smoking is not allowed. Given that only slightly more than one-fifth of the American population smokes, I suspect that there would be many establishments that ban smoking, or at least offer non-smoking areas.

Given market freedom, that is. If there can be "hookah bars" then why could there not also be "smokers' bars?" The DC way, following in the liberty-constricting way of other cities, is too simply tell us all how to live; another step in the march to the complete nanny state.

It is reasonable to allow bars and restaurants to provide non-smoking areas, if that is what the market will bear. It is unreasonable for any government to tell me that I can't smoke in a bar.

Oh, and for the record: I don't smoke. But I'd want to be able to.

1.04.2006 | "honest services"

In headlines more appropriate for the outbreak of war or the discovery of a cure for cancer, we learn of the improprieties to illegalities of another scumbag lobbyist, one Jack Abramoff. Joy reigns supreme this morn among the Democrats and their in-house propaganda machine, a/k/a the mainstream media.

There are many stories in today's WaPo, but the gist seems to be contained in this graphic. One amusing story, with a headline that is almost a parody of the obvious, tells us in its headline that "GOP Leaders Seek Distance From Abramoff." Shocked I am, I tells ya.

In the category of isn't-it-amusing-that-this-is-a-crime, one of the charges against Abramoff is that he was "depriving the public of the honest services of Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio)." No, Ney wasn't kidnapped and held for ransom by Abramoff. Rather, Abramoff got Ney to forget about his "honest service" by "corruptly offering" money, meals, trips and entertainment.

Bob Ney apparently did not have free will. He apparently was so enthralled by Abramoff that he simply couldn't say no. Not that I'm defending Abramoff; he comes across as just another bottom-feeder. But how can you cause an otherwise honest man to go crooked?

This is the ultra-cynical view that says that every man has his price. I'd normally agree with this view, but the low price paid simply paints Bob Ney as easy and crooked. I hope he gets to serve some hard time and becomes best buds with some Aryan brothers in lockup. Along with his angel Abramoff.

1.03.2006 | "It all comes down to preference"

In federal hiring, that is. The latest complaint from the racialist lobby is that Hispanics are, in the words of the WaPo story headline, "Underrepresented In the Federal Workforce." The Cliffs Notes version? Hispanics comprise 13 percent of the private sector (and, of the general population), but only seven percent of the federal "work" force.

Sorry, didn't mean to give away any hint that I think that most federal workers do anything useful. Having been one, myself, in a manner of speaking... Regardless, it is a very good thing to serve one's country, and I personally encourage more of the best and brightest to go for it. Especially in the national security realm. But I digress.

If a man, or woman, is qualified, and motivated by duty to serve, then who gives a fuzzy white rat's behind what their ethnicity, skin color, etc. may be? It is wrong to insist that every group be represented in (at least) their numbers in the general population in every endeavor.

The feds, to be certain, have a greater perceived need to, in the well-intentioned but disastrous-for-competent-governance phrase of Bill Clinton, "look like America." Perceived need. A greater need is to hire the very best that they can, every single time. If that means a workforce that is 99 percent Anglo and white, so be it. In reality, and in my experience, I had to fix the mistakes of a lot of dumb white guys who were hired because of who they knew. So if the feds only hired the best, I suspect the result would not at all be all Anglo and white.

In the real world, the feds get a skewed workforce, with, it is alleged, too few Hispanics, and too many blacks -- blacks in the federal worksforce being several percentage points above their presence in the general population. Of course, it would take a very brave manager to publicly state such a truth. If exact proportionality were the goal, then the feds should be firing blacks and hiring Hispanics until the "right" numbers are achieved.

This will not, and of course, should not happen. As for the need to have the same proportion of each race or ethnicity in the any national-in-scope workforce, why are blacks so over-represented in the National Basketball Association? Why, in fact, are they so over-represented in what has become our national pastime, the National Football League? And talk about a scarcity of Hispanics, in both leagues. It's positively racist, I tells ya. But, of course, it isn't. The NBA and the NFL are what all employment should be: based on merit.

In reality, the only racism is that which considers a man as part of some group as his first identity. And then, maybe, treats him as an individual. Should the federal government make efforts to increase the proportion of Hispanics? Yes, but not to reach some mindless numerical goal.

Rather, hiring should be on merit. Merit in terms of ability to do well at the job for which he's being considered, and merit in terms of potential for doing other, related jobs -- both up the promotion ladder, and in related fields.

The simple fact is that Hispanics represent a relatively untapped pool of talent and industry. It is in the best interests of the federal government to reach into that pool and grab the best. Along the way, perhaps get rid of some slackers who've been on the dole, er, federal payroll, for far too long.

Both things would be in the interests of us long-suffering taxpayers.

1.01.2006 | The wrong issue

Some Christians will no doubt get their knickers in a twist over the latest anti-Christian ruling to rain down from an out-of-control judiciary. And, well, they should. We are being told by an obnoxious federal judge that the Indiana state legislature may not offer a prayer to Jesus Christ as part of its traditional invocation. Other prayers, to Allah, and to an unspecified deity are just fine. Just not the Christian God.

A prayer invoked in Jesus' name, which is standard, and required of all Christians, is not "sectarian" in the sense of establishing one denomination. Which was the first (and many would say only) purpose for the so-called separation of church and state.

The founders of our nation did not want the Church of England grandees tussling with the Congregationalists, Quakers, and other denominations. So they wisely said, "knock it off, we're not going to have an established Church of the United States."

In the meantime, those of different faiths, or none at all, were protected. That's all she wrote. Judge Hamilton says otherwise. The story of how Hamilton is attempting to bully the sovereign legislative branch of Indiana may be found here. This judge, is attempting to dictate how a sovereign state's legislature opens its sessions. With not even the hint that the Federal Constitution is being violated.

Let's keep this simple: an invocation by a Christian in the name of Jesus is no more a violation of anything than is any othe invocation. By a Jew in the name of God; by a Muslim in the name of Allah; by a Hindu in the name of Ganesha. Some may be inflamed by hearing the name of Jesus; our Lord did, after all, battle Satan. Not that I'm making comparisons, mind you...

And that is the real issue for Americans: can a federal judge dictate what a state's legislative branch deems an acceptable form of public prayer?

My take on the separation of church and state is that Indiana, as an overwhelmingly majority Christian state, can invoke Jesus Christ in its public prayers. Just so long as non-Christians are not forced to participate. Of at least equal importance, liberty dictates that no judicial hack dictate to a sovereign state.

That's really what the issue is. Judge Hamilton, the article notes that you're "the son and grandson of Methodist ministers." Isn't that just typical of a PK (preacher's kid) to rebel against the faith. Or maybe it's just that you're a typical liberal hyperthyroidal judicial activist.

Regardless, a federal judge has no business meddling in the sovereign affairs of Indiana. Sic semper tyrannis, your "honor."