White House Aide Angers Pagans (washingtonpost.com)

Pagans Help the Poor:

Reader MB sends this story along and asks for some commentary. The story is of the director of the White House's "Faith Based" programs, who was asked if pagan groups could get Federal money for charity efforts. His reply was that he hadn't heard of any such groups:

I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work, and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.

It turns out there have been quite a few Pagans for the Poor:

In the past three years, Pagan Pride groups have collected 74,000 pounds of food and donated $51,000 to homeless shelters, interfaith food banks, the American Red Cross and other charities, according to the Indianapolis-based International Pagan Pride Project.

In Chicago, pagans support a battered women's shelter. In Massachusetts, they have given $20,000 for children with AIDS.

$51,000 is a pittance compared to what Christian groups donate to charity each year, it is true; but then again, the numbers of people who are professed pagans is quite small. The estimate in the Post story is 300,000, which is just about one tenth of one percent of the US population.

This, of course, points the way forward here. There's no reason to ban Pagan groups, as there aren't going to be very many of them because there aren't very many Pagans. There's no reason they shouldn't participate in charity, as long as they're held to the same standards as everyone else--a good one is the one cited, i.e., that the money can't go to promote ideology.

Of course, that's the problem with the Faith-based program anyway: no one trusts their neighbors not to preach while they feed the hungry and soothe the sick. The sick are still suffering, though, and the hungry are not fed. I should rather take the risk that some preaching might get done, than prefer that the ills should continue with no better treatment than that which the government can provide. If we have learned anything, it is that the government is the worst choice for caring for the poor. Anyone does it better.

Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus on National Review Online

Errata:

Blogger's been down for the last couple of days. As a result, I was unable to post anything in honor of Pearl Harbor Day. Just for the record, though, it was not forgotten.

Jay Nordlinger, writing today for the National Review, has this item on the use of language:

You'll be pleased to know that Murder, Inc., the rap-record company, has changed its name — to, simply, "The Inc." The company's founder told a press conference, "People have been focused on the negative energy of the word 'murder.'" You don't say? "Negative energy"?

This reminds me of something I once heard David Letterman say: "'The Washington Bullets' [a basketball team, I think] has decided to change its name to something less violent. From now on, they will just be called, 'The Bullets.'"

Heroic Epic Warfighting

Heroic Epic Warfighting:

Michael Ledeen argues that we need a new strategy to win in Iraq. I happen to agree with him that far, although I differ on the practicalities. Ledeen wants to widen the war to Iran and Syria. I want to change the form of the war in Iraq.

Consider this post from the Mesopotamian, addressed to President Bush:

The bones in the mass graves salute you, Avenger of the Bones.

Hail, Friend and Ally, Hail, Sheikh of Sheikhs, GWB; Descendant of the Noble Ancient Celt.

Islam is not, as it has become fashionable to call it, a religion of peace. Islam is a heroic epic. The core ideal of Islam is that the Muslim is joined in a great war to bring the whole world under the peace of rule, not according to fallible human rules, but according to the revealed design of God. That is an epic struggle, and the Muslim is encouraged to think of himself as a mujahid, one of the holy warriors in the fight.

It happens that this fits perfectly with tribal culture. The philosophy of the tribe is informal--that is, it is the natural philosophy of mankind. The bonds of family are to be defended; the power of the family, extended. Peace can finally be had only by destroying those outside the family, or by bringing them within the family. This is the mujahedeen's ethic. It is the ethic of jihad. This is why the tribal parts of the Islamic world have been a strong recruiting ground--Baluchistan, for example, and the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan.

It is also why Islamism is appealing to those radical young Muslims who have been educated in the West. In the Western philosophy, they see an abandonment of this older, traditional ethic, this natural ethic which feels so very right because it comes from our evolved nature. That is a core problem that needs to be fixed if we are to achieve a lasting peace.

The road forward, for the West, is to reinvigorate our own tradition of the Heroic Ethic. I have argued this before, in a piece suggesting the outlines of a new philosophy, one that would answer the Islamist writings of Qtub, on which al Qaeda's on arguments are based. The core of this argument is this: a man who has familiarized himself with the Beowulf, the Iliad, the Odyssey, or the Icelandic sagas, knows exactly what he needs to know to treat with Islamists, both tribal and modernist. A man who has learned all of these epics can not only treat with them, but give them better than they ask. He can convert them--not away from Islam, which there is no cause to do, but away from Islamism, and toward the West.

Let us return to the specific example of Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Iraq. What does it mean to be "Avenger of the Bones?" It seems little notice has been taken of it by the administration; they may think it is an honorific, that it means nothing at all. The opposite is true. It is a title, one that personalizes the American effort and brings it within the circle of the tribal ethic. 300,000 dead fill Iraq's mass graves. The tribal ethic of vengeance requires that the families of those dead take revenge as they can. The Avenger of the Bones is a formal, natural ally--a man to whom loyalty and gratitude are owed. If I were the President, I would be trumpeting that new title from the rooftops. It is one that every Iraqi will understand, and very many--the families of 300,000--will feel called, by their own culture, to respond to with alliance.

Consider the "humiliation" issue. We have heard from everyone that our acts are humiliating the Iraqis. It's humiliating to be searched; to have your house searched; to have your women and children searched; etc. All that may be true, but we have no option--the enemy has chosen to use women and children as bombs.

The way forward? Avenge the bones. The humiliation of the living can't be avoided. We can make up for it by showing honor to the dead. By making the identification of bones, and their return to their families, a priority of our operation in Iraq, we can show the dead a respect that we can't affort to show the living. Think on the positive effect it would have on US operations for us to stage ten public funerals every day, with military honors, for the bones of those dead and identified in Saddam's mass graves. For one thing, it would reduce recruitment for attacks on US convoys--you would not know which ones contained a funerary detachment that might be coming to your own home, to return a brother or a cousin. For another, showing the Iraqi dead the honor we show our own fallen heroes can overcome the humiliation issue. We can solidify our position as "Avenger of the Bones," a friend to the dead, an ally in the duty of vengeance.

Consider also hospitality, another heroic duty. What does it mean that there are many areas of tribal Iraq where Americans only travel in heavily armed convoys? CENTCOM ought to be arranging dinners with tribal chiefs. Go and take dinner with the chief of a tribe, in his home. Take your bodyguards as far as his door, but not into his house. Eat his food, and share his water. Then, make it a point to push this behavior down the chain: so that soldiers regularly accept invitations to dine, trusting in their hosts to protect them, and so that tribal figures are regularly asked to dine with Americans in our tents. Do this, and their honor will be concerned with protecting you. Hospitality will fight the war for you: their honor will demand it.

This is what I wrote about in the essay above, under the heading of "frith." There is an Islamic mirror. It is called the "Covenant of Security". This is how you build a state that even the Islamist must feel obliged to protect. Personal honor, and the heroic ethic, alone can do it. They can do it because the ethic is already native to the men and women of Iraq. Nothing need be changed, except on our end.

On our end, the change is easy. The U.S. military is the segment of American society best suited to undertake a renewal of the Western heroic ethic. Very many of them--particularly in the Marine Corps and SOCOM--already believe in it. Even outside of SOCOM and the USMC, the military is disproportionately Southern, and American Southerners believe in the old heroic ethic, and love it. All that is necessary is to explain the particulars: the general standards are present and accounted for.

The heroic ethic will take us forward to victory, in Iraq as elsewhere. It is the best kind of victory--not the one that destroys our opponents, but the one that brings us all within a family. Just as Saladin sent his personal physicians to treat Richard the Lionheart, as he had come to respect and love that man's courage and chivalry, so can we today win the hearts of our enemies. It is time to make right the opportunity missed between Saladin and Richard, who almost concluded a marriage pact that would have joined Islam and Christendom in friendship.

It was only between warriors that such a peace could be made. It is only between warriors that it can be made today.

Maryland

Maryland:

Several of you have written to ask me after the snow. The snow is quite deep--nine or ten total inches in the last few days, by my unscientific measurement. However, temperatures remain reasonably warm, and the community has made adequate provisions against such weather. As a result, roads are clear and there has been no trouble about basic services. There's nothing to worry about up here.

I did have to borrow a snowshovel, as every one commercially available has been bought up in the last few days. It took more than an hour to dig my truck out of the frozen ice sculpture created by the snowplows, which was three feet high and frozen to the frame of my vehicle. Still, mission accomplished: all is well.

It occurs to me that this would be a good place to issue a public apology to the state of Maryland. I've spoken and written slander about it on several occasions, most recently that there were only two things to like about it (number one being, the road out).

In fact, exactly the opposite is true. There are only two or three things to dislike about Maryland. They are important matters, and serious complaints. Nevertheless, in fairness, there is far more to like about the state than not. It is a pleasant place, full of pleasant people (except when they are driving, when they unaccountably become ill-tempered monsters. Not sure why that is). If one could but banish the government from existence, it would be as fine a place as Georgia, almost.

I certainly have enjoyed taking long runs through the Black Hills, where the deer are so docile that they aren't bothered by you unless you run right into their herd. If you are fleet of foot, and enduring, you can start a herd by running right into the middle of it, and run with it for quite a while. I've started deer in Georgia afoot many times in the mountains, but one rarely gets so close there.

So, there's much to be said for the state of Maryland. She's not as bad as I've said in the past. Actually, there are parts of her I like perfectly well. My apology for overstating the case.

Un celebration!

Une fete de la culture francaise:

So, I have a new song to sing while practicing my French: Chevaliers de la table ronde. Who can argue with these sentiments, which translate loosely as: "Knights of the round table, let us drink to see if the wine is good!" (You can tell it is a French tune originally, not only because the rhymes only work in French, but also because of the verse which translates "two feet up against the wall, and your head under the tap!")

Clark Attacks

Clark Attack:

The lads at Southern Appeal are reporting on Wesley Clark's newest campaign promises: to bring the troops home at once, to always consider military force the "last resort," and never again to attack anyone pre-emptively.

Drug discovery - biotech, pharmaceuticals, research, clinical trials, etc. In the pipeline - Corante

Anthrax:

The other big attack on America was the Anthrax attacks. It happens there's news about that too--or, at least, a new piece of investigative reporting. Needless to say, the FBI doesn't get off easy. They don't deserve to get off easy. The biggest question in the piece is, "could this stuff have been civilian-made?"

So Matsumoto concentrates on the processing of the spores: their particle size, and their possible coatings and treatments to make them disperse better. This is where the homebrew/high-tech distinction should be clear, and this is just where the available information has the most contradictions. Initially, reports were that the spore samples had very small, very uniform particle sizes, and may well have had additives to them to keep them from aggregating. Alan Zelicoff, of Sandia, was quotedat the time saying that whoever made the Senate anthrax had "the keys to the kingdom." (I remember reading that, and having a sudden, terrible vision of just what kingdom that was.) But you can now find leaks and reports that dispute both of these contentions, though. The difference is especially marked in statements the FBI has made in the last few months, which make the spores sound much less well-processed than their earlier reports. As Matsumoto puts it:

The reversal was so extreme that the former chief biological weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission, Richard Spertzel, found it hard to accept. "No silica, big particles, manual milling," he says: "That's what they're saying now, and that radically contradicts everything we were told during the first year of this investigation."

Hat tip: LGF.

9/11 Questions

9/11 Question:

Many of you may not be aware of the yeo-woman work being done by Sovay McKnight on 9/11 questions. In spite of her liberal nature (and occasional editorializing), her penchant for fairness and complete research often puts her in the position of defending the administration against wild-eyed claims. There are a number of questions you've probably never heard about, if you haven't been following the business closely.

Here's a question I hope she'll look into sometime, from Dr. Dean himself: was Bush tipped to the attacks by the Saudis?

NBS

NBS:

This week I will be voting for, in the political category, "BarkBarkWoofWoof", whose entry compares Justice Moore with Sir Thomas More. In the nonpolitical category, I vote for Vegan Marshmellows Roasting over an Open Fire.

NASCAR

NASCAR:

It's official: NASCAR rules.

Nasi Lemak

Nasi Lemak:

So here is a left-liberal blog called Nasi Lemak attempting to slander George Bush, and Republicans generally, as racists. The occasion for doing so is what must be the least racist remark of recent political history, when GWB said that he and Dr. Rice had, while sneaking to their plane, looked "like a normal couple." How can this remark be turned into a vision of racism? Well, it's a little complicated:

1) Two conservative bloggers (OxBlog and the regrettable Andrew Sullivan) said they thought that GWB's remark was awfully nice, and a positive step.
2) Both of these two bloggers had quoted the Honorable Zell Miller at length on occasion.
3) Zell Miller worked for Lester Maddox, who was a racist, and...
4) ...also said some kind words at Maddox's funeral.

Therefore: Miller is a racist by association with Maddox, the conservative bloggers by association with Miller, and GWB (and conservatives generally) by association with the bloggers. Quod erat demonstrandum.

There's a small problem with the analysis (leaving aside the larger problem, which is that it is an ad hominem attack which is furthermore guilty of the fallacy of guilt-by-association, when the association is extremely tenuous). The small problem is this: Zell Miller is not a racist. Miller, in spite of being the most popular governor in Georgia history, very nearly lost his 1994 bid for re-election for one reason: he pushed with all his political capital to remove the Confederate battle-flag from the Georgia state flag. This was the least popular position any politician could undertake in Georgia. Support for the battleflag remains extraordinary. In fact, when it was finally removed from the state flag, it was done by a legislative trick that precluded debate or a public referendum. The governor who executed that trick was voted out at the next opportunity; his successor, who ran in part on restoring the flag, has instead pursued several tricks to prevent a public referendum. It is without doubt that, should there ever be a public referendum, the battleflag is going right back up on the state flagpole.

But Zell stood up for changing it. It almost cost him the election, and would have sunk any other politician. Yes, he ran against the Civil Rights Act in 1967--most Southerners were opposed to it, including very many black Southerners, as it promised radical change in a hurry in their states, which is always a frightful prospect. Yes, he worked for a racist--it was hard not to in Georgia, once. Yes, he said kind words over the grave of a dead man, as a gentleman ought.

When it counted, though, he put his weight in the right place. He did, and still does. He has earned the respect that we show him who hold high his opinion and counsel.

Just what we've been saying...

Communists:

Just what we've been saying all along, but now the Guardian agrees: the Commies have hijacked the peace march movements.

Say, How Much Does A "Uranium Enriching" Laser Cost?

Say, How Much Does A "Uranium Enriching" Laser Cost?

It's a question worth pondering:

"Follow the money" is an old adage, and it means that economic interest will eventually explain much human behavior. That France opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because he owed millions to French banks is proof of this. Less well known, but much more troubling, are key French financial links with other U.S. enemies. They raise the belief that the Franco-American conflict over Iraq was just one slice of the action. For France was not just Baathist Iraq's largest contributor of funds; French banks have financed other odious regimes....

In Castro's sizzling gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, a third of all credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq is $415 million. But these pale in comparison with the $2.5 billion that French banks have lent Iran.

Not that this is a terrible surprise.

This is an Attack Site?

This is an Attack Site?

Dick Gephardt is running a website called DeanFacts. It's meant to show that Howard Dean is unsupportable for the Presidency by citing Dean's actual positions on issues. If I knew nothing else about Dean than what's here, though, I'd be half-inclined to vote for the boy. Dean on Medicare, Social Security, balancing the budget, and so forth and so on: it all sounds pretty good to me.

The only issue is that, even on this site, there's the constant invocation of the need to cut defense spending. That is, in the middle of a war, insane. And the war is, of course, why Dean can't win this upcoming election. There's simply no way that a majority of Americans will vote for the anti-war candidate, or for cuts in military spending at this juncture. The GWOT trumps everything right now, and rightly so.

Need more proof that Dean is doomed? Try FundRace, which has this handy money-map. Dean--or any other Democratic candidate for the Presidency--will need to split the South. It doesn't have to be a big split, if they do well everywhere else, but they will need to win at least one Southern state because, if they win no Southern states, they have to win fully 70% of the races in the rest of the country to get enough electoral votes. Donations are a good indicator of where the candidates are going to find solid support--people who send cash will support you at the polls, too. Select "Howard Dean" in the money mapper, and then compare with GWB. There are two things to notice:

1) Dean, at his darkest, is a full shade lighter in every area from Texas to the Carolinas. In most parts of these states, he doesn't register.
2) The only reason it's even that close is that the money-mapper uses different scales for different candidates. GWB has to raise $3.2 million from a county to get the darkest green; Dean only needs $1.4 million, less than half that. If you plotted it on the same scale, Dean would hardly register in the South at all, excepting a few urban areas like Dallas and Atlanta. Some of that will be because Dean is having to compete with the other Democrats for monetary support, whereas Bush is getting all the Republican money. Even factoring that in, though, it looks like a solid South again in 2004.

I think Dean could have won in a non-wartime election year. I don't think people will take him seriously as a wartime candidate. Excepting those who were always opposed to the war--if we're talking about the Iraq war instead of the GWOT, which is where anti-war sentiment was highest, that's about twenty percent--Dean's not going to draw a lot of support. He's certainly not going to win in the South.

UPDATE: I'm apparently not the only one who thinks this way. This is from the Seattle Times:

"Anybody could win," said Merle Black, political-science professor at Emory University. But "right now, with the economy improving as it is, if Howard Dean is the nominee, he'd have a very hard time winning any of the Southern states."

And more...

"There's a lot of money in Texas to be donated to both political parties, so Dean had to come drag the bag," said Court Koenning, executive director of the Harris County Republican Party. But "he's gonna get his clock cleaned in the general election. I'll run around naked and you can call me Sally if Bush loses Texas."

And then there's this, from the world's most trusted news source.

NBS:

This week I vote for Joe. It's a simple thought, but good enough.

My Endorsement:

The exclusion of Joe Lieberman from the recent presidential debates seems to have doomed his candidacy. Of the nine Democrats currently running, and the others who might consider running, he was the only one that I believe could have saved the party from electoral disaster.

The Honorable Senator Zell Miller endorsed George W. Bush in early November. Zell and I represent the same wing of the Democratic party--the James Jackson wing. Even so, I have held off following in the good Senator's footsteps, in the hope that the Democratic party might be saved.

I still hope it might be, but I do not think it will be in this election. It may be that, in the aftermath of the loss the Democratic party is racing toward, the survivors will finally be willing to listen to their Southern cousins when we say, "The party of the American people must love America with all depth and purity of heart; for the American people do. The party of the American people must trust the American people with their freedom and their money; for the American people trust themselves." Not this time, but perhaps the next.

I might have waited longer, but today a man did something brave, to warm the hearts of fighting men. Consider our President:

With the president out of sight, L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. civilian administrator, told the soldiers it was time to read the president's Thanksgiving proclamation and that it was a task for the most senior official present.

"Is there anybody back there more senior than us?" he asked. That was the cue for Bush, who promptly stepped forward from behind a curtain, setting off pandemonium among the troops.

"I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere," Bush joked to some 600 soldiers from the 1st Armored Division and the 82nd Airborne Division, who were stunned by the appearance and applauded wildly while giving Bush a standing ovation.

"Thanks for inviting me. I can't think of finer folks to have Thanksgiving dinner with than you all."

That it was courageous to take Air Force One into Baghdad only a few days after the DHL flight was attacked goes without saying. That it was the right thing to do, to greet our fighters as they spent a lonely holiday on a distant front, goes likewise. What impresses me is not that; it is the humor. A brave but stern man can be terrible. A jolly coward is useless. A brave man with a laughing heart, though, is a man indeed.

In light of this act, I have now no more trouble than our Senator had in endorsing George W. Bush for re-election to the Presidency in 2004. Zell Miller was correct, as he usually is: Bush is the right man, at the right time.

Let us be thankful to have found him. Enjoy the holiday.

The Crusades:

Historian Thomas F. Madden speaks to the Crusades as wars of defense instead of wars of aggression:

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman�s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression�an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity�and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion�has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed�s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt�once the most heavily Christian areas in the world�quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne�er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders� expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

But were they worthwhile? In his summation, Madden gives two reasons that we should be grateful for the Crusades:

Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished.

There is more, if you like. Hat tip: LGF.

NASCAR:

John Derbyshire reports from Talladega. It was his first NASCAR race, and he provides a description with all the insight of a genuine newcomer. My favorite line comes from the part describing the appeal of the sport, which is in rooting for favorite drivers, he says:

A few [drivers] are widely disliked. Kurt Busch, a fast-rising young star known for . . . unorthodox driving tactics, is a villain to traditionalists, and to the kind of Southerner who believes in maintaining the exquisite manners of the region even when you are trying to kill someone.

Ah, yes. That kind of Southerner. It's a description that seems somewhat familiar to me, although I can't think just why.

The Raving Atheist:

The Raving Atheist has decided to break lances with me over this post. I've promised him a reply, and I am a man of my word. It will be a bit lengthy.

The Easy Stuff First:

First, RA suggests I "didn't get" his point, which was that if Forn Sidr should spread into the USA, "American schools might soon be compelled to 'respect' ridiculous gods such as Thor and Odin in the same way that they now respect the ridiculous Christian god �- they would no longer be able to disparage the Norse deities as 'mythical.'" I did get the point, but did not bother to reply to it, since it is wrong on the facts:

1) "Forn Sidr" does exist in the United States, and has for about thirty years. It's recognized, under a variety of names, by the US military--you can find the chaplain's reference guide here. So, in fact, it's been around for quite a while, and no such troubles as RA forsees have erupted. I might have spent more time explaining this point, if I had expected to draw an audience who was unaware of heathenry.
2) Furthermore, as I did point out, I recall from my own schooling that the Christian Bible was taught as "literature," or as a source in history that could be questioned and analyzed as other sources. In those classes, the "Christian creation myth" was in fact discussed, using exactly that term--except that it was not "myth" but "myths," as there are two of them in Genesis. Analysis included an examination of why these two myths were probably not written in the order presented, and why the first one in particular was probably the work of a formal priestly class rather than a single author (such as Moses). Now, I went to school in the great state of Georgia, way down South in the Bible Belt. If Georgia can handle doing it that way, I think RA's complaints against the system may be a bit overheated.

Second: there is not in fact a constitutional right to avoid being disparaged. RA demonstrates this fairly clearly by carrying on as he does every day. No one has yet arrested--nor even sued him, so far as I know. The First Amendment protects my right to believe as I wish, but also his right to call me "crazy," which he does a bit later on down the blog. (A tip: if you are going to cite logic as the core of your belief system, it is a good idea to avoid the better known informal fallacies, e.g., ad hominem).

Third: I hardly suppose that "all religions are equally true." I do assert that Atheism is false. We'll get to that momently.

What I assert on the question of the truth of religion is this: excepting Atheism, it is not possible to say with certainty that any religion is false. That does not mean that they are all true; in fact, it does not mean that any of them are true. It means, only, that so long as the believer behaves himself honorably and doesn't cite his beliefs as a good reason for attacking me, my family, or my country, I'm glad to extend him the benefit of the doubt. If he does cite his beliefs as a reason for attacking us, I am glad to extend him the benefit of a burial according to the tenets of his faith.

With the easy stuff out of the way, we'll carry on to the harder stuff.

Forn Sidr:

Since it was Forn Sidr that was the inspiration for his original post, we'll start with that. RA links to his "proof of Atheism." I'll quote the first point in full, since the argument hinges on it:

First, there is no God. In fact, all definitions of the word �God� are either self-contradictory, incoherent, meaningless or refuted by empirical, scientific evidence. Although the nature of the disproof will necessarily vary with the god under review, I will usually be raving against the modern monotheistic (or triune) Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, having (in various permutations) the characteristics of being, conscious, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-good (omnibenevolent), immaterial, transcendent. immutable, immortal, infinite, omnipresent, disembodied and eternal.

Such a god is as much a contradiction in terms as a square circle, and thus logically impossible, for numerous reasons including the following:
1) Omnipotence is impossible because God would, at a minimum, be unable to limit his powers, e.g., make a stone he cannot lift; if he could make such a stone, then his inability to lift it would defeat his omnipotence;
2) God's omnipotence conflicts with his omniscience, because if God knows everything that is going to happen in advance, he cannot do anything in the present; he must simply watch the future unfold as previously foreseen, because changing anything would falsify his prior belief concerning the future;
3) God's omnipotence precludes him from having knowledge of any sensations or emotions associated with weakness, e.g., fear, frustration, despair, sickness, etc., and thus conflicts with him omniscience;
4) God's omniscience precludes him from having knowledge of any emotions associated with surprise or anticipation, and thus conflicts with itself;
5) God's omniscience conflicts with his disembodiedness, since a being without a body could not know how to drive, swim, or perform any activity associated with having a body;
6) God's omniscience conflicts with his omnibenevolence, since a morally perfect god could not have knowledge of feelings of hate, lust, or envy, or cruelty, etc.
7) God's omniscience and omnipotence conflict with his omnibenevolence, since a god who could prevent evil would do so unless he were unable to do so or unaware of the evil.

The gods of Forn Sidr--the Aesir and the Vanir--actually take part in none of the categories RA finds demonstrably impossible. None of them are all powerful, all knowing, all good (some of them, in fact, aren't particularly good at all), immutable, immortal, infinite, ominpresent, or eternal. They may be transcendent, depending on what you meant by the word; and as to whether or not they are immaterial or disembodied, that is I gather the subject of some debate.

Regardless, the various "omni-" aspects, on which the "proof" relies, simply aren't a problem for Forn Sidr. They make no claims to those properties. This "proof" that they do not exist doesn't touch on them at all.

Yet RA's original post on the subject said that this was "the one form of theology that can safely be declared false." Now, I understand RA himself is prepared to declare all forms of theology false. Still, it's interesting that he's chosen to pick on one that is not touched by his arguments.

On Atheism Generally:

RA holds: "To disprove atheism, one would have to prove the existence of a particular God of a particular religion." That is not true, however. The claim that "you can't prove that God exists" belongs to the Agnostic, an honorable fellow with whom I have no quarrel. The Atheist's claim is that "We can prove God does not exist." I admit that I am not able to prove the existence of any god. However, I can prove that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of God.

Let's return to the claim that "god is as much a contradiction in terms as a square circle." Indeed. Here's the problem, though, lad: where can I find a square, or a circle?

This is not a flippant question. It touches on the limits of human knowledge. Both the square, and the circle, belong to the realm of mathematics. Mathematics only models the world. If you hand me a child's puzzle piece, and say that it is square, I'll point out that it is not, as it has three and not two dimensions. If you draw one on paper, it will still have depth (if you draw it with ink, which soaks into the paper) or height (if you draw it with a graphite pencil). Examine it closely, and you will find that its edges are not perfectly straight, as a the sides of a "square" must be. Draw a "line," if you will, and you'll append arrows to each end to show that it goes on forever--which it does, but only in theory.

The mathematical certainty you want to apply to the world applies only to the realm of math. In fact, it doesn't even apply there:

Thus, it came as a great surprise in the 1930's when it was formally proven that there exists an unlimited supply of math problems that fundamentally cannot be solved, whether by human or machine. Furthermore, it was shown that the very problem of determining if a math problem can be solved is undecidable.

Even in the realm of math, which is a wholly human creation, and deals exclusively with human concepts, certainty about the absolutes is not possible. Mathematics is a tool--it is, as I said above, a model. Its categories, though, do not accurately portray the world--they only model the world, simplifying it to keep the calculations manageable to human minds and such tools as we can build. Still the ultimate questions are beyond us, even in the simplified realm of math. Things become far more complicated when we pass beyond math into physics, biology, or history.

By the same token, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God. Yes, it's true that "omnipotent" is a contradiction in terms. The terms, however, are human. They are limited, even as mathematical concepts are limited; and they break at the limits, even as our mathematical concepts prove finally unsolvable. Like mathematics, too, these concepts only attempt to model the world: they are not, in fact, the world. Not only are our concepts imperfect in themselves, but they are imperfect in their attempts at modelling reality. If you find that there are questions about the world you cannot answer, not even in theory, it is foolish to speak of proving that there is nothing beyond the edges of the universe. It is whistling past the graveyard.

The world is too big, and too strong, for us to hold it in our heads. Faced with that, there are no alternatives but three: to pretend it is not so, and that you can possess ultimate knowledge; to shriek in despair; or to bow your head with reverent awe. The first--Atheism falls here--is falseness and self-deception. The second is madness. The third alone allows proper respect for the power of the truth of the world, without destroying the man who recognizes it.

It is therefore the case that none of the religions of Men can be proven false, except Atheism, which has been.

No, You Asked For It:

So, a young lady has been suspended for a pseudo-lesbian highschool kiss:

Inspired by a high school assignment, Stephanie Haaser leaped onto a cafeteria table, shouted "End homophobia now!" and kissed classmate Katherine Pecore.

Not actually a lesbian, the girl in question was suspended for two days. The principal offers what is, at first glance, a reasonable explanation:

"It's highly inappropriate to stand on a table in the cafeteria and make out, whether the kiss was heterosexual or homosexual," said River Hill High School principal Scott Pfeifer. "I don't think there's a school in the country where parents would consider that appropriate behavior."

Right. No problem. Except...

Haaser, a junior, said she chose to make the statement as part of an English class assignment, which required that she engage in a nonconformist act in the tradition of Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Ah! I see! So, the school officially tasked teenagers with engaging in an act of rebellion. What brilliance! What an astonishing grasp of the teenage mind!

Sorry, bucko. You asked for this, and now you can reap the whirlwind. You're lucky this is the worst you got.

For Sovay:

I thought you'd like to see this other entry into the Last Words of Uday & Qusay contest. It's in the style of Dr. Seuss.

My favorite Seussian poem, though, will always be "Norse, Of Course."

Happy National Ammo Day!

Today's the day. Go out and pick up some ammo.

Any Stick:

Today, Mark Steyn defends America:

The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lapdancing and gay porn; the secular Europeans despise America because it's all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it's controlled by Jews. Too Jewish, too Christian, too Godless, America is also too isolationist, except when it's too imperialist.

This echoes G. K. Chesterton, defending Christianity in the masterful sixth chapter of Orthodoxy:

One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, "the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands," hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise. . . .

I felt that a strong case against Christianity lay in the charge that there is something timid, monkish, and unmanly about all that is called "Christian," especially in its attitude towards resistance and fighting. . . . The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep. I read it and believed it, and if I had read nothing different, I should have gone on believing it. But I read something very different. I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned up-side down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much. Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars. Christianity had deluged the world with blood. I had got thoroughly angry with the Christian, because he never was angry. And now I was told to be angry with him because his anger had been the most huge and horrible thing in human history; because his anger had soaked the earth and smoked to the sun. The very people who reproached Christianity with the meekness and non-resistance of the monasteries were the very people who reproached it also with the violence and valour of the Crusades. It was the fault of poor old Christianity (somehow or other) both that Edward the Confessor did not fight and that Richard Coeur de Leon did.

It is well to love those, and defend them, who are beaten with every stick. At the least this practice exhibits the virtue of mercy; and, as no one is so bad that any stick is good enough to beat them, it is apt to exhibit the virtue of justice as well.

NBS:

I'll vote with the Alliance this week.

Uday & Qusay Speak:

The last words of Saddam's sons:

Uday: "Good news! I just got off the phone with the Information minister! He says all the Americans have been routed from Iraq by a popular uprising! Mobs are roaming the street, chanting our names!"

Qusay: "Great! That must be them at the door, even now."

Credit for this really belongs to Sovay McKnight, who is much better at parodies than I am.

Who is John Derbyshire?

Why, a friend of mine, and a correspondant, bless him for the time he wastes on it. Certain persons who hate him have set up a page about the fellow. You may find a link to his own web page listed to the right, under "Admired Voices," on Grim's Hall.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that John has given an account of the reasons why the author of the above page hates his guts.

Gay Marriage! Today!

Well, 180 days from yesterday. You've probably heard that the Mass. State Supreme Court has construed a Constitutional right to gay marriage. I am astonished, as always I am when the court finds a constitutional right to something that has been illegal since long before the Founding--a capital crime, in this case, since long ago.

I have argued before that, as marriage as an institution predates the Federal Constitution and the various state constitutions, the power to alter its basic nature is one of the powers reserved to the people by the 9th and 10th amendments.

Since the judiciary has decided to take it upon itself to do so, I see nothing untoward about putting the question to the people. The amendment process it the proper one for assigning new powers to the state that have hitherto not belonged to it; or, if the state is arrogating powers it does not deserve, to clarify the limits.

I personally feel that, whether we decide to legalize or to ban gay marriage�I will abide the democratic process with only an idle eye, having no interest in gays either way�the constitutional amendment is the only legitimate way to do it. The power to alter marriage as an institution was never granted the state; and if it is to become a function of the state, it must be sought, and granted or denied, by the people.

Human Decency, II:

I send thanks to everyone who joined in contributing to the Lester Campbell self-defense fund. The pictures through that link show the old fellow getting his money order, which hopefully will help him out in days to come. It is not the state but the citizenry who have righted this wrong, just as it was the citizen--Mr. Campbell--and not the state who fought against the mugger.

This story has a mostly happy ending, but the neighborhood in which Mr. Campbell lives is not secure. The state will not, and apparently can not, fix that larger problem. It is imperative, then, for the good of the people, that men like Mr. Campbell be allowed to exercise their right to self defense. Those of you who have a voice in the elections of that legislature ought to join the effort to make that right unencumbered by burdensome regulation.

Human Decency Rights A Wrong:

Last week, we learned that an 89-year-old woman had her farm sold out from under her by the county to pay about $600 in back-taxes. The county sold her property, worth more than a million dollars, to a land developer for $15,000. Mrs. Shue was to be evicted at the age of almost ninety, and also robbed of about $984,000.

Today, we learn that the deal is off: the county will reimburse the land developer, and the widow gets to keep her farm. Whose work was this?

The developer's own, who gave back the land even before he learned that the county would repay him. I don't recall having ever said a kind thing about a land developer before, but this was an act of fine, human decency.

Conclusive Proof of EU's Evil:

It's too late to be forgiven. Nothing but the complete destruction of the EU bureaucracy will do.

"Oh my God! It's got Ralph! Shoot! Shoot!"

The ad copy says, "This is the perfect gift for rendezvous black-powder re-enactment enthusiasts."

Allow me to suggest: Maybe not.

The Memo:

You will by now have seen this story on a memo offering evidence of a Qaeda-Iraq link. It is worth noting that the Department of Defense has issued a statement about it. The statement is charmingly verbose. The short form of it is this: "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asked us a question: 'What sources and reports tend to suggest a link between al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq?' This memo was our reply. It was not a conclusion that such links existed, just a compilation of reports that suggested it, most of which were raw data. As the question was 'what suggests a link?', data which suggested otherwise was not included."

I haven't seen most of this stuff before, and I don't know what conclusions were drawn about any particular report. Still, it's worth noting that this memo only opens new questions, it doesn't close the case.

Intelligence Agility:

An excellent article by Bruce Berkowitz focuses on the 9/11 intelligence failure. In explaining it, he concludes that the kind of threat posed by terrorist groups can't be met by the CIA as it is currently structured, and proposes a new model for intelligence, based on agility:

For an intelligence organization, agility can be defined as having four features. First, the organization needs to be able to move people and other resources quickly and efficiently as requirements change. Second, it needs to be able to draw on expertise and information sources from around the world. Third, it needs to be able to move information easily so that all of the people required to produce an intelligence product can work together effectively. And, fourth, it needs to be able to deliver products to consumers when needed and in the form they require to do their job. Taken together, these features provide a benchmark for measuring proposals to make U.S. intelligence more agile.

His further recommendations are worth reading. They provide a model for what we should ask our representatives to demand of the executive branch.

Hail a Hero:

Capt. Harry Hornbuckle, bred of the state of Georgia, raised to arms at Fort Stewart, GA. Hero of the Iraq war, and still in service, training heroes yet to come.

...But I Remember My Oath:

It was long ago, and dissolved by law, but I remember and maintain my oath:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Forn Sidr:

One of my least favorite bloggers, The Raving Atheist, has this to say about the recognition of Forn Sidr in the Dane-Mark:

Denmark yesterday recognized the worship of Viking gods such as Odin and Thor as a religion. Although the request -- by a group called Forn Sidr -- was originally turned down in 1999, worshippers of the Norse deities will now be allowed to celebrate legal marriages, receive donations and get tax breaks.

American public schools still teach that the Norse, Greek and Roman gods are �myths.� They are the one form of theology that can safely be declared false. Hindu, Wiccan and Christian mythology do not receive the same deserved disrespect. There�d be bloodshed in the classroom if they did.

So it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Forn Sidrites made their presence known in this country. Faced with a First Amendment challenge, the schools would have three choices: (1) stop teaching mythology (2) include Christianity, Judaism, etc. in the mythology curriculum, or (3) create a comparative religion curriculum which included the Norse �theology.� I think the first alternative would be the most likely. The second would probably be ruled unconstitutional because the government isn�t supposed to take a position on the truth of any religion. The third would simply be unpalatable -- no good Christian would tolerate having their faith compared, even indirectly, to a religion which �everyone knows� is really just a myth.

This being the case, I can see a day when the schools are also compelled to ban any children�s fiction containing a supernatural element. Cults may one day form around Harry Potter and The Wizard of Oz and declare themselves to be religions. And they�ll have the same constitutional right against disparagement as every other disparagable belief.

As usual with the Atheist, there is more wrong here than can easily be addressed. (For example: the only religion which can actually be proven false is not Forn Sidr, but Atheism.) Besides, I recall the few classes I had that mentioned the Bible always approached it as "literature," so I'm not sure the problem hasn't been addressed in advance.

I'll just ask this: where, exactly, is that Constitutional right not to be disparaged? Maybe what the schools will be compelled to do is stop being pushed around by whiners, and assert their obligation to teach what students need to know, whatever it may be.

An Important Warning:

The Scotsman reports that the Qaeda agents who carried out the bombing in Riyadh were dressed as policemen. There is no reason they could not use a similar tactic in the United States. Keep your eyes open always.

Happy Birthday, USMC

I raise a glass to the 228th year of the United States Marines. I now yield the floor to the Commandant:

This year we celebrate the 228th anniversary of the founding of our Corps. As always, it is an occasion for remembrance, proud traditions, and joyful camaraderie. The events of the past year have called for great sacrifices from many Marines and their families. While the Global War on Terrorism will continue to demand the best from each of us, it is important that we join with our fellow Marines, families and friends to celebrate our Corps' special culture and unique warrior ethos.

This past year, Marines demonstrated once again that they are the most important entity on any battlefield. Lethal weapons and advanced technologies provide us unique advantages, but educated warriors ultimately determine victory in combat not machines. During Operations IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM, our small unit leaders' skills, adaptability and flexibility produced victory on uncertain and at times chaotic battlefields. We proved once again the power of integrated ground-air-logistics teams as well as the importance of every Marine being first and foremost a rifleman.

Our special spirit is evident not only in battle; it is evident in the faithful performance of demanding duties by countless Marines at home and abroad. Every Marine makes a vital contribution to the ability of our Corps to project and sustain credible combat power. Moreover, the willingness and readiness of all Marines to accept and accomplish any mission is central to our success and a hallmark of our warrior ethos.

The culture that defines the Marine Corps is nurtured by our traditions. In celebrating our heritage, we strengthen the linkages to a glorious history and recommit ourselves to upholding the standards and values given to us by past generations.

In commemorating our 228th anniversary, remain true to the spirit of the occasion. Reflect on our fallen with deep respect, observe our traditions with justifiable pride, take care of one another, and of course, celebrate those special bonds that exist among United States Marines.

Happy Birthday Marines, Semper Fidelis, and keep attacking!

M. W. Hagee
General, U.S. Marine Corps

Ooh-rah!

Here find links to the Marine Corps Hymn and the Marine Corps Prayer. If you feel inclined to have some cake, go right ahead.

Update: General Lejune's birthday wishes are preserved online:

On November 10, 1775, a Corps of Marines was created by a resolution of the Continental Congress. Since that date, many thousand men have borne the name Marine. In memory of them, it is fitting that we who are Marines should commemorate the Birthday of our Corps by calling to mind the glories of its long and illustrious history.

The record of our Corps is one which will bear comparison with that of the most famous military organizations in the world's history. During 90 of the 146 years of it's existence the Marine Corps has been in action against the nations foes. From the battle of Trenton to the Argonne. Marines have won foremost honors in war, and in the long eras of tranquility at home. Generation after generation of Marines have grown gray in war in both hemispheres and in every corner of the seven seas that our country and its citizens might enjoy peace and security.

In every battle and skirmish since the birth of our Corps Marines have acquitted themselves with the greatest distinction, winning new honors on each occasion until the term Marine has come to signify all that is highest in military efficiency and soldierly virtue.

This high name of distinction and soldierly repute we who are Marines today have received from those who preceded us in the Corps. With it we also received from them the eternal spirit which has animated our Corps from generation to generation and has been the distinguishing mark of the Marines in every age. So long as that spirit continues to flourish Marines will be found equal to every emergency in the future as they have been in the past, and the men of our nation will regard us as worthy successors to the long line of illustrious men who have served as "Soldiers of the Sea" since the founding of the Corps.

NBS:

For the new blog showcase, I'll vote for Patriot Paradox - I Pray Daily. Am I an Extremist? as the political entry. For non-political, the neurotech entry. I can't say I'm as excited about the non-political entries this week, but what the heck.

We Love You, Milt, But...

The New York Times has an article today from Milt Bearden, CIA "quartermaster" to the Afghan mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation. Milt's an Iraq pessimist, and he argues that the Iraqi insurgency follows Sun Tzu's principles of war.

Now, Milt, we here at Grim's Hall love you for everything you've done for the cause of freedom. I have to say, though, that your assessment of the Iraq situation is off. There are several problems with the analysis:

The insurgents' strategy could have been crafted by Sun Tzu, the Chinese military tactician, who more than 2,500 years ago wrote, in "The Art of War," that the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's strategy.

So it was probably no accident that as American forces approached Baghdad, expecting tough street fighting, the bulk of the Iraqi forces melted away.

I agree that it was no accident that their forces melted away. But I would think it too far a leap of faith to say that they planned to do so. It seems to me much more likely that the thing that caused this "no accident" was the sudden descent of 3 ID and I MEF on Baghdad, and the repeated slaughters of Fedayeen Saddam irregulars in the chevauchees of early April.

Is there any evidence that Saddam intended his forces to melt away? The best reports I've seen suggest that Saddam thought there wouldn't be a war at all, and if there were one, that he would win. Take this interview, for example, from one of Saddam's bodyguards, who held that Saddam was shocked by the fall of Baghdad and met with his sons to plan the resistance after the Marines were encamped in the Summer Palace. But you're ex-CIA, so maybe you know something I don't.

Next, according to Sun Tzu, you attack his alliances.

This, again, is what the Iraqi insurgents did. Presumably acting on the assumption that the Jordanians were being too helpful to the United States, insurgents detonated a car bomb outside the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad on Aug. 7, killing 11 and wounding scores. Less than three weeks later, as an increased role for the United Nations was debated, suicide bombers attacked the organization's headquarters in Baghdad, killing 22 people, including the United Nations special representative to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Then, in mid-October, as proposals for an expanded peacekeeping role for Turkey were argued, a suicide bomb detonated outside the Turkish chancery in Baghdad, killing one bystander and wounding a dozen others.

When Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, began in late October, Baghdad was rocked by a series of suicide bombings that killed dozens and wounded hundreds, including an attack on the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

In addition, there have been countless attacks against individual Iraqis viewed as allied with the United States, whether police recruits, members of the Iraqi Governing Council or figures in the judiciary. A pattern of attack against American allies seems clear.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this claim. On the one hand, terrorists usually do hit soft targets--say, ones that refuse protection. On the other, the insurgents have been hitting hard targets too. If there's a pattern, it doesn't seem to be one of 'hit their allies,' so much as 'hit whatever we can hit.'

Additionally, it's not clear to me that some of these are allies in any meaningful sense. The Poles are our allies. The Brits are allies. The Aussies--allies. The ICRC has repeatedly referred to us as an occupation force, and refused any protection on the grounds that it didn't want to be associated with the effort to liberate Iraq. Meanwhile, they've issued statement after statement harshly critical of US and Coalition efforts. An insurgency that drives such a group out of the country isn't acting on a brilliant plan--they're removing a source of friendly propaganda, while convincing those outside the battle zone of the relative moral purity of the Coalition.

Consider the following: Since the focused attacks began, most Arab League missions in Baghdad have distanced themselves from the coalition; the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, has withdrawn his international staff from Baghdad; the Red Cross followed suit, prompting other international aid organizations to pare down in Baghdad as well. The Turkish government, for a number of complex political reasons, has now reconsidered sending troops.

OK, I -do- know what to do with this. The Arab League has "distanced" itself from the Coalition, but while making room at the table for the Coalition-backed Iraqi Governing Council. Kofi Annan is no friend to the Coalition, but he never has been. The UN Security Council, however--that is to say, "the UN that matters"--voted unanimously in support of the rebuilding efforts, and to legitimize the "occupation," or reconstruction. The Red Cross we've discussed--their departure is a blow to the insurgency's information war, and the attacks on them a propaganda victory for the Coalition. We'll miss their practical aid--but not all that much. As for the Turks, those "complex" reasons boil down to a pretty simple one: the Iraqi people refused to have them.

Now, take a minute to focus on that last point. The Iraqis refused--and the Coalition--who, we are told, is "desperate" to give the impression of a multinational force--bowed gracefully to their wishes. We are making a free society in Iraq. That means we have to honor their wishes--and we have. As, in fact, we have in Afghanistan, whose new constitution makes clear that it is going to be an Islamic republic, with a legal system founded on the principles of sha'ria.

"So what did we achieve in Afghanistan?" mutter the anti-warriors. We achieved this: we turned a theocratic government into a republican one, restored the loya jirga, and turned a haven for terrorists into an ally in the terror-war. If we can do as much in Iraq, it will be a positive victory--and a free republic, not a puppet on America's string.

Where Milt Bearden sees failures, I see shining success. But then, I'm not a former CIA man--maybe he knows better.

Next, Sun Tzu prescribed, attack their army.

This is occurring with increasing lethality. To misread these attacks as desperation is dangerous. In the last two weeks, there have been multiple attacks on the coalition headquarters in Baghdad, with mortars and rockets landing inside the secure green zone. Shoulder-fired missiles have brought down a Chinook helicopter, killing 16 soldiers. The crash of a Blackhawk helicopter, killing an additional six, is still under investigation, but according to some reports a rocket-propelled grenade may have brought it down. One or two casualties are logged almost daily.

Shooting down a helicopter with an RPG is not especially difficult--the Vietnamese learned, quickly enough, that you lead it just like you lead a bird with your rifle. Based on the tilt of the rotor, you can tell how much you need to lead it. This is something the Coalition is going to have to keep in mind.

It's true that attacks are becoming more dangerous. On the other hand, our counterattacks--and non-military counterinsurgency techniques--are also improving. That is part of the theory of war as well: refer not to Sun Tzu, but von Clausewitz. War tends to escalate, and enemies, as they learn each other's ways, become better at killing each other.

Even so, we're winning this one, and are going to have the victory. As you will see below, in northern (Kurdish) and southern (Shi'a) Iraq, the populace is fighting a counterinsurgency of its own. The Sunni Triangle remains dangerous, but there is not any shortage of Iraqis ready to put these insurgents down. They just need the time and training to do it--and we've got people providing both. Iraqi police figure in more successes every week--just last week they stopped a suicide bombing, for example. The Iraqi army is being trained in US methods by US corporations, and will soon be able to be integrated into operations.

For every mujahedeen killed or hauled off in raids by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, a revenge group of perhaps a half-dozen members of his family took up arms. Sadly, this same rule probably applies in Iraq.

The difference being that the vast majority of the Iraqi people are on our side. That was never true for the Russians, as you know: most of the Russian allies in Afghanistan were mercenary, and swayed by the passing about of cash.

There were two stark lessons in the history of the 20th century: no nation that launched a war against another sovereign nation ever won. And every nationalist-based insurgency against a foreign occupation ultimately succeeded. This is not to say anything about whether or not the United States should have gone into Iraq or whether the insurgency there is a lasting one. But it indicates how difficult the situation may become.

Sorry, but on this point we part company entirely. Nations launched successful wars on sovereign nations repeatedly in the 20th century: the Soviet Union swallowed nations like boiled eggs. Japan took China and Korea without real difficulty. The Nazis took Czechoslovakia, and the rest of the world said, "Well, OK." China, in turn, took Tibet.

What happened repeatedly in the 20th century was that nations, having taken one nation, moved on to take another. At some point this forced a response from the other great powers. In the Soviet case, it was the Cold War, and even so, it took fifty years to set those nations free. In Japan's case, it was us that finally knocked them about; and you'll remember what happened to the Nazis. China, by contrast, still has Tibet, and probably will have Taiwan pretty soon--we've passed the point at which we can afford, diplomatically or as a matter of force, to defend Taiwan in the face of a Chinese military assault.

What the Coalition allies are doing in Iraq, though, is not like the Soviet conquests or the Japanese, or the Nazi, or the Chinese. It is like--well, like the Allies' conquests of the Second World War. We have destroyed a fascist state, and will now rebuild it, and then we will set it free.

Which brings us to the other "every," that "every nationalist-based insurgency against a foreign occupation ultimately succeeded." That doesn't work, unless you count the end of the Allied occupation of Germany as a victory for the Werewolves.

"Know yourself and know your enemy," you counsel, with Sun Tzu. Very well, then, know this: we are the breakers of tyrants, and tyrants are our foes.

Tomorrow is the Marine Corps birthday, Milt. Drink deeply--but not of the cup of despair.

Tyranny:

At home, this time. In South Carolina, police with drawn guns stormed a high school and put the entire student body face-down in the halls while they searched the school for drugs. (And did they find any drugs? No.)

This is not the way American citizens ought to be treated by anyone, but least of all by our own public servants. These officers have demonstrated that they do not understand the principles of a free Republic, and do not merit the honor of the badge, nor the power of the gun, with which they have been entrusted. Everyone involved in this operation must, for the good of the Republic, be fired at once. Prosecution for civil rights violations should follow. I should be glad to see them all sent to prison on felony charges.

These students are being trained to be free citizens. This is no way to train them in how a free man's government relates to him. There is now only one way to save the lesson: by showing the students how free men deal with tyrants.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

One hears a lot about Coalition casualties in Iraq, especially since the onset of Ramadan. You would almost get the sense that our boys are being picked off one by one, but that the Saddamite insurgents and terrorists are enjoying safety and freedom of operation.

That is not the case. In southern Iraq, regime members attempting to recruit have been assassinated by dozens by members of the local populace:

Dozens of Saddam Hussein's followers in Iraq's southern capital have been assassinated as they try to regroup and attack the coalition, the city's security chief told AFP.

"There have been too many political assassinations, dozens of them," said Colonel Mohammad Kazem Ahmad al-Ali, police director of internal security in Basra.

Yes, I'm sure we all deplore these extrajudicial killings. You'll be taking steps to stop the cycle of violence, right?

"These were liquidations of senior members of the previous regime who had committed crimes against the people," Ali said in an interview.

He declined to identify the perpetrators. . . . "Arresting people involved in the assassinations is the task of the coalition. We focus on maintaining security on the streets."

'A focus on security in the streets' appears to mean 'we protect normal Iraqis. The Baathists can go to hell.' The chief of security knows who the hunters are, and he plans to do nothing whatever to stop them. That sounds like, 'If you folks from the coalition really want them to stop, you go stop them.'

Ali says there are between twenty and thirty political parties operating in southern Iraq who have united to cleanse their country of Saddam's fascists.

And, the good news just keeps coming in this story:

A large colour portrait of Saddam Hussein was found hanging from a major pedestrian bridge in downtown Basra early this week, eyewitnesses said.

The portrait was removed and torn into small pieces by dozens of activists.

Ali charged that "remnants of the deposed regime" were coordinating with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to carry out attacks against vital institutions.

"Just five days ago, a group of terrorists hurled several hand grenades on a school in Jomhuriya neighbourhood. Thank God, no one was hurt and there was no damage.

"A group of people were arrested. They are members of the former regime, but were found to be linked to Al-Qaeda," said Ali, declining to give further details.

It's heartening to see people spontaneously ripping apart Saddam's image. It is even more heartening to catch former regime men with Qaeda connections. Every one of those caught is an intelligence treasure: they provide insight into both groups of insurgents.

Finally, we have these two quotes on the effectiveness of the terror war in Iraq:

According to Ali, coalition forces in the Basra area have arrested a large number of suspected "terrorists" and Saddam loyalists. . . .

"Terrorists try to come through Basra. . . They include members of terror networks like Al-Qaeda and organized crime gangs. They try to infiltrate through the southern region also because of its long land borders," with Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, he said.

The coalition forces in coordination with the Iraqi police have launched an offensive to crack down on oil smugglers and others involved in illegal activities. Hundreds have been arrested.

Take heart: our dead are not wasted men, but warriors in a noble cause. We are winning. There can be no better proof than this. You can be sure that Iraq will be free, for her people are freeing themselves.

Death to the Patriot Act:

The Chicato Tribune ran an article today in defense of the Patriot act. Unintentionally, they provided quite sufficient justification for revoking the act:

[I]t's a voluminous measure with dozens of provisions, many of which are exceedingly complex and technical. But its impenetrability has made it vulnerable to caricature by critics of the administration who portray it as the monster that ate our privacy and liberty.

Easy to fix, that. Repeal the damn thing, and bring up the laws on a point-by-point basis that isn't impenetrable. Then we can evaluate every point and decide which parts of this 'voluminous monster' we actually want.

A free citizenry ought to be able to understand the laws that apply to it. If it can't, the laws are too complicated. We've been there in America for quite a while, and it's a serious problem.

It's a problem because, if you can't understand the law, you can't do a citizen's duty. You can't perform your duty to obey the law, because you don't understand exactly what the law is; you can't perform your duty to hold the government to the law, because you don't know what the limits are; nor can you perform your duty to serve as a juror, which requires that you judge both the question of whether the law was violated as well as the question of whether the law ought to apply. Every duty you have as a citizen passes beyond your means.

A citizen who does not and can not perform his duties is not a citizen, except in name. Those duties, and the powers that go with them, must still be executed. That power therefore passes to a class other than the class of citizen: to the class of lawyers, perhaps, or political operatives, or jurists. The power to interpret the law is as great as the power to write the law, and in such a society, that power passes away from the citizen jury, and comes to rest in the hands of the mandarins.

The health of the Republic requires us to guard jealously not only our rights, but also our duties. I oppose the Patriot Act, and all similar acts, "merely" because it is too complicated. The consequences of that fact are as great a threat to the Bill of Rights, and to the nature of the Republic, as exists.

Shame!

A certain puppy blender should be ashamed of himself for this. A twinge in the gut is the mark of an effective pun, but this one is a bit too effective.

Ask a Question, Get an Answer:

Two days ago I asked where we could send a check to help out the 80 year old man who defended himself from a mugger. It turns out that, while they aren't taking checks but rather credit, you can follow that link and make your donation there.

Where can we send a check?

A mugger is driven off by an 80-year-old man with a .38 Special, and the cops prosecute--the old man. Lester Campbell, 80, got robbed of his Social Security money, and now has had the gun he used to protect himself confiscated stolen by the cops as well. Plus, he has a court date, all because the Bronx doesn't think an elderly man ought to be able to protect himself without their prior permission.

Is there an address where we can send this fellow some money to replace what was stolen? How about some more money, for a new revolver?

Psychology is Witchdoctory:

Here's an article called "Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading". I am always glad to see a respectable publication agreeing with my general assertion that psychology is not a science:

Psychologists have been quarreling over the Rorschach Inkblot Test for half a century. From 1950 to the present, most psychologists in clinical practice have treasured the test as one of their most precious tools. And for nearly that long, their scientific colleagues have been trying to persuade them that the test is well-nigh worthless, a pseudoscientific modern variant on tea leaf reading and Tarot cards.

That is just so.

Zell Miller for President:

It's too much to hope for, alas for our nation. But if you want to know who he thinks should stand at the helm in his place, it is George W. Bush. If you want to know why, today he tells us.

Another Saddam-Qaeda Link:

This one is particularly strange. According to CommonDreams, the Iraqi construction firm Sadoon Al-Bunnia is a founding partner of MIGA (Malaysia-Swiss-Gulf and African) Chamber. MIGA is on the US Treasury Department's list of groups that funneled cash to al Qaeda before 9/11.

Yet, somehow, al-Bunnia didn't get on the same list. To make things even more amazing, al-Bunnia is now doing major contract work in the US-led reconstruction of Iraq. They are apparently subcontracting for Bechtel and others.

Nobody seems particularly bothered by this. Of course, corporations are mercenary by nature. Maybe they just work for whoever is paying the bills--Saddam, who wants them to launder money for al Qaeda, or us, who wants them to build schools and repair power lines.

A Protest of which I Approve:

In Britian, it is High Noon, according to Samizdata.net:

Thousands of people have gathered around England and Wales to protest against moves to outlaw hunting with dogs.

Organisers said 37,000 protesters at 11 rallies on Saturday and one on Friday, to mark the first day of the new hunting season, signed a pledge to ignore any ban.

Does that sound familiar to my British readers? If not, it should:

28 February 1638: The National Covenant is signed, eventually by thousands of Scots. It seeks to preserve distinctive Scots cultural and religious practices against the increasingly arbitrary and Kingdom-wide approach of Charles I.

The Covenant was an oath sworn between men to oppose any "innovations" from London, specifically on the matter of how worship services would be conducted in church. Not taking this as seriously as he might have done, Charles I continued to assert his authority, with the result that the Covenanters hardened into an actual army--one that captured Edinburgh Castle in the Bishop's Wars, and became for a time the de facto government in much of Scotland. The matter was not resolved for fifty years, a period known in Scottish history as the Killing Times.

Attempting to legislate away a people's way of life is a dangerous business. The British MPs would be wise to remember their history.

What is The (Evil) Sage of Knoxville Up To on Hallow's Eve?

I have conclusive proof that he is arranging field trips for slow moving, foolish persons to WalMart. There, they blocked the candy aisles so fully, that honest Halloween bloggers such as myself could barely pass through at all. It was only his obstructionist tactics that kept me from completing this assignment by 6 CST.

Improved Enemy Tactics in Afghanistan?

Overnight a US Special Ops soldier was killed in a clash in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, of course, two two CIA "contractors" were killed while tracking Taliban elements.

On first face, this pair of successes suggests that Talibani forces are improving their insurgency/antireconnaissance tactics. On the other hand, the CIA doesn't publish the names of its dead very often, nor acknowledge their sacrifice in public. It may be that we've been losing men of this quality all along, or that the Taliban got two lucky breaks in a week.

It is something to watch, however, as prolonged conflicts do often result in an improvement of enemy forces' techniques as they learn the weaknesses of your own techniques and equipment. The classic example of this is that the militants in Israel, once cowed by IDF tanks, have learned to take them out. (Cf. with the mysterious destruction of a US M1A1 earlier this month--hat tip on that to the Agonist, who remains an excellent source of war news).

Torture:

I do not cite FOXNews often--indeed, this may be the first time. I warn my lady readers against this video, but others should watch it. Watch it, and arm yourselves. Be sure of your philosophy, ward against despair, and polish your guns. We are at war for the time to come, and--whatever you have heard--it is not a war of option. This is what men are made to do. De Oppresso Liber.

UPDATE: If you have not before read any of the USMC doctrine publications, you ought to do so. They are extremely instructive. WARFIGHTING is the best primer, but GROUND COMBAT OPERATIONS, which I linked above, contains a number of important insights:

The offense alone brings victory; the defense can only avoid defeat.

In taking the offensive, an attacker seizes, retains, and exploits the
initiative and maintains freedom of action. The offense allows the
commander to impose his will on the enemy, to determine the
course of the battle, and to exploit enemy weaknesses. A defensive
posture should be only a temporary expedient until the means are
available to resume the offensive.

That's advice our leaders need to take into consideration.

UPDATE II: If you are not convinced by the FOX video, try this one: the stoning of a man and woman to death in Iran.

Like Hell!

This line of thinking among our jurists must die the death. When a member of the US Supreme Court makes statements like these, you know it is time for the citizenry to reclaim power from the court:

The U.S. judiciary should pay more attention to international court decisions to help enrich our nation's standing abroad, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Tuesday. . . .

Also influential was a court brief filed by American diplomats who discussed the difficulties confronted in their foreign missions because of U.S. death penalty practices, she said.

Let's examine what is wrong with this.

1) The basis of law in the United States is the Constitution. To the degree that so-called "international law" has a place in our system, that place is limited to signed treaties ratified by the Senate. That is the only way that the Constitution permits the "international community" to participate in legislating for the United States.

2) The reason for this is to preserve the requirement that innovations in government's range and power must be approved by the People. Because all government powers are powers lost by the citizen, there can be no rightful extension of government except through Constitutional means. That is the rule. That is the law. All else is lawless.

What the Supreme Court advocates here is allowing nations outside of the United States to legislate for the United States. If any nation dared to impose such a thing by force, we would resist to the last hundred men:

[F]or, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Yet the Supreme Court would give in to this in the face of no greater force than public opinion. Foreign public opinion. Are we not a nation, who is the greatest of nations?

"This is too much to demand for the delivery of one servant: that your Master should receive in exchange what he must else fight many a war to gain!" So Tolkien wrote. Foreign public opinion is, or could be, a fine servant: but there is far too great a demand here. We must preserve our freedom, and our independence, against jurists even as against armies.

King & Country:

I have a certain fondness for this suggestion from Bernard Lewis and James Woolsey:

Iraq already has a constitution. It was legally adopted in 1925 and Iraq was governed under it until the series of military, then Baathist, coups began in 1958 and brought over four decades of steadily worsening dictatorship. Iraqis never chose to abandon their 1925 constitution--it was taken from them. The document is not ideal, and it is doubtless not the constitution under which a modern democratic Iraq will ultimately be governed. But a quick review indicates that it has some very useful features that would permit it to be used on an interim basis while a new constitution is drafted. Indeed, the latter could be approved as an omnibus amendment to the 1925 document.

This seems possible because the 1925 Iraqi constitution--which establishes that the nation's sovereignty "resides in the people"--provides for an elected lower house of parliament, which has a major role in approving constitutional amendments. It also contains a section on "The Rights of the People" that declares Islam as the official religion, but also provides for freedom of worship for all Islamic sects and indeed for all religions and for "complete freedom of conscience." It further guarantees "freedom of expression of opinion, liberty of publication, of meeting together, and of forming and joining associations." In different words, the essence of much of our own Bill of Rights is reflected therein.

The constitution also establishes a monarchy. The return of the king was advised in Afghanistan as well, but sadly the king did not return, and Karzai has not been able to muster the personal legitimacy a king would have. The Hashemites may be able to do better.

Oil & Gas Journal:

An excellent article on infiltration techniques used by al Qaeda-linked militants appears today in the Oil & Gas Journal. It suggests that Iran is the primary route for mujahedeen from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

This tracks nicely with the USCENTCOM report, via the Agonist, that Syria is not a probable entry point for many fighters.

Artificial Intelligence:

I'm amused to see that the Google banner above apparently thinks this is an anti-war site. I gather the post on "Nazis" below is what's causing it to make that determination.

It's kind of comforting to realize that AIs are still pretty dumb.

More French Missiles in Iraq:

This time they killed a colonel, US Army.

Islamist Moderates:

I suggest this article from TechCentralStation. It is a particularly excellent piece on the problems facing those who are sincere believers in Islam, but political moderates.

The Alliance of Free Blogs:

I have joined the Alliance of Free Blogs. You can find the new links to the right.

But while you listen:

...to the Big Dog, remember this.

As I went a-walking one morning in May
I met a young couple who findly did stray
One was a young maid so sweet and so fair
and the other was a soldier and a brave grenadier....

Now I'm off to India for seven long years
drinking wines and strong whiskey instead of cold beers
and if I ever return again it'll be in the spring
and we'll both sit down together to hear the nightingale sing

Freedom is not free.