Bathing

Bathing in Blood:

An unexpected confluence arises in two stories of two very different men. The story of Lieutenant Cathey's family contains a tale of a promise made that could not be kept:

James Cathey received his officer’s commission three years ago and had been deployed in East Timor and twice to Okinawa before going to Iraq. He graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder in May 2004 with a degree in history and another in anthropology after three years. He married Katherine on June 23, 2004.

His family said he had been named Marine of the Year in the division and was on the Super Squad for his battalion twice.

Katherine quoted a card her husband bought before he left July 21 for Iraq with the unit he joined in April.

"He said, 'I'll promise you one thing: I will be home,'" she said. "'I have a wife, a new baby to take care of and you guys are my world.'"

There is no doubt that he meant every word of it; but there are powers in the world stronger than a man's heart. One such power met up with another man, unlike Cathey in every way except that both were Americans:

When Timothy Treadwell, a boyish-looking minor eco-celebrity, went on Letterman in 2001 to tell the world how he spent a substantial portion of his time living in the Alaskan wild, an arm's length from foraging grizzly bears, Dave asked the obvious question. "Is it possible we'll open the paper one day and see you've been eaten by these bears?"

The audience roared. Treadwell looked genuinely taken aback by the suggestion.

"No," he stammered.

At the end of his 13th summer among the bears, federal park rangers found the majority of Treadwell, and his girlfriend Amie Huguenard, in the gastrointestinal tract of a male grizzly.

They are alike, I suppose, in one other way: both believed what they promised. And perhaps in one more way: both were, each in their fashion, brave men.

He camped between fox dens; we see the docile pups perpetually pawing at his tent and running away with his hat. When the bears start sniffing at him he gently pushes them and growls. They lumber away.

The author of the National Review piece means to scorn Treadwell as a madman, or a fool. It is true that Treadwell lacked understanding of a central point, one Cathey surely understood, and which was laid out plainly by G. K. Chesterton. Yet the NR piece does not understand the principle either.

Nature worship is natural enough while the society is young, or, in other words, Pantheism is all right as long as it is the worship of Pan. But Nature has another side which experience and sin are not slow in finding out, and it is no flippancy to say of the god Pan that he soon showed the cloven hoof. The only objection to Natural Religion is that somehow it always becomes unnatural. A man loves Nature in the morning for her innocence and amiability, and at nightfall, if he is loving her still, it is for her darkness and her cruelty. He washes at dawn in clear water as did the Wise Man of the Stoics, yet, somehow at the dark end of the day, he is bathing in hot bull's blood, as did Julian the Apostate.

Catholicism addresses the problem by swearing itself to the light. It warns its members to avoid the darkness. Yet it is aware of this truth, as all wise faiths must be: both natures are real. Catholicism chooses one side; other faiths embrace both. But only the fools deny either part. Treadwell was not a fool to believe that he could play with grizzly bears. He was a fool only because he thought they would always only play with him.

The NR piece is just as foolish, in the other direction.

It's easy to dismiss knee-jerk environmentalists as dopey because of this — as easy as it is to laugh at Timothy Treadwell, or hold him in contempt, as many did. It's less easy to contemplate the possibility that your doting little Terrier, the one you make kissy sounds at every day, would eat you if it got hungry enough.

It is not so. Nature is no more cruel at base than she is kind. She is each at turns. Consider:

Demonstrating his loyalty, another Border stood guard over his dead master for days after the shepherd died while in the hills with the flock.

Or this story, from Japan:

The people from the hospital, upon hearing of his death, where not able retrieve the body for over three hours due to the dogs loyalty to its master. In the end the body had to be retrieved through a window to a vehicle. The faithful dog showed its loyalty by attacking anyone who came near his master and did not partake of food or drink. Even after the body had been taken away, the dog laid on the masters bed for over 3 days without food preventing intruders to enter. The neighbors who had witnessed the event of the dog’s loyalty were moved to tears and considered the dog to be better than human. This Baekgu has once again displayed the superiority of the Jindo dog.

Or, if you want to think on cruelty, consider Buddy:

Buddy, the dog that stole Alaska's heart, had made international headlines in March when he led search parties to the body of his dead master Bill Hitchcock, 45. Bill had been killed by a falling tree, and for 12 days the grieving Labrador stayed by the man's body in the remote wilderness of Knight Island.

Buddy was killed by us, not nature. His adopted owner found him aggressive and, after the dog bit him, had him put down.

One last example, from our nearer neighbors. Jane Goodall awoke the world to the nature of the apes with her work, finding them kind and gentle giants in their forests. That was the case during her long time with them -- until one day, when they suddenly and purposefully began a genocide.

It began as a border patrol. At one point they sat still on a ridge, staring down into Kahama Valley for more than three-quarters of an hour, until they spotted Goliath, apparently hiding only twenty-five meters away. The raiders rushed madly down the slope to their target. While Goliath screamed and the patrol hooted and displayed, he was held and beaten and kicked and lifted and dropped and bitten and jumped on. At first he tried to protect his head, but soon he gave up and lay stretched out and still. His aggressors showed their excitement in a continuous barrage of hooting and drumming and charging and branch-waving and screaming. They kept up the attack for eighteen minutes, then turned for home, still energized, running and screaming and banging on tree-root buttresses. Bleeding freely from his head, gashed on his back, Goliath tried to sit up but fell back shivering. He too was never seen again.

So it went. One by one the six adult males of the Kahama community disappeared, until by the middle of 1977 an adolescent named Sniff, around seventeen years old, was the lone defender. Sniff, who as a youngster in the 1960s had played with the Kasekela males, was caught late on November 11. Six Kasekela males screamed and barked in excitement as they hit, grabbed, and bit their victim viciously--wounding him in the mouth, forehead, nose, and back, and breaking one leg. Goblin struck the victim repeatedly in the nose. Sherry, an adolescent just a year or two younger than Sniff, punched him. Satan grabbed Sniff by the neck and drank the blood streaming down his face. Then Satan was joined by Sherry, and the two screaming males pulled young Sniff down a hill. Sniff was seen one day later, crippled, almost unable to move. After that he was not seen and was presumed dead.

Three adult females, Madam Bee, Mandy, and Wanda, at one time had belonged to the Kahama group, along with their offspring. But Mandy and Wanda eventually disappeared, as did their young, while Madam Bee and her two daughters, Little Bee and Honey Bee, were beaten by Kasekela males several times. Then in September 1975, four adult males charged the old female, dragging, slapping, stomping on her, picking her up and hurling her to the ground, pounding her until she collapsed and lay inert. She managed to crawl away that day, only to die five days later. The assault on Madam Bee, incidentally, was watched by the adolescent Goblin and four Kasekela females, including Little Bee, who had become associated with Kasekela by then. Four months after Madam Bee was killed, her younger daughter, Honey flee, also transferred to Kasekela.

By the end of 1977 Kahama was no more.

The truth of this world is that the darkness is real. But the light is also real. Both joy and murder exist. In every second of your life, either one can reach out to touch you.

You must be prepared for either, at every moment. The best kind of man will be prepared for both.

It is not wrong to play with grizzlies: it is glorious. Yet you must be prepared to deal with them when they have done with playing. If you are going to live boldly, you must love to swim in clear water, yet not fear to bathe in blood.

This will not save you, for death is the one certainty. Yet it might let you live wisely and well, and defend for a while the things that you love.

And it may be that, after you are gone, men will remember.

76.
Cattle die, kindred die,
Every man is mortal:
But the good name never dies
Of one who has done well.

77.
Cattle die, kindred die,
Every man is mortal:
But I know one thing that never dies,
The glory of the great dead.

The road of the hero leads only to the grave. Yes, that is true.

Show me the road that leads elsewhere.

2/2

2nd Lt. James J. Cathey:

Longtime readers will know that Grim's Hall's adopted unit -- because of JarHeadDad, whose son "da Grunt" belongs to it -- is the 2/2 Marines. I regret to report the death of one of 2/2's officers, Lieutenant Cathey. The DOD press release is here.

USMC SOCOM

Speaking Of...

...Marine "Special Forces," Military.com has an interesting interview on the possibility that the USMC may finally send some Marines to work with SOCOM. "Special Operations Capable" is not a new concept for the Corps -- it has whole MEUs that are rated for special ops -- but working with SOCOM is something that the Corps has long resisted. The interview is insightful as to why, and covers some developments that have arisen in the terror war.

Good work

A Report from Abroad:

Here's an AP report by press writer Pauline Jasudason.

Malaysian marine police seized a ship, believed to have been stolen three years ago, in a nighttime operation that ended with commandos rappelling up its side and detaining 20 Chinese crew members, an official said Wednesday.

The police tracked MV Paulijing for 17 hours before boarding the ship off Malaysia's southern Kukup island in the Straits of Malacca before dawn Tuesday, Marine Police Cmdr. Abdul Rahman Ahmad said.

He said police received information that the vessel, which had passed through the central Malaysian port of Klang Monday morning, closely resembled cargo ship MV Natris that was hijacked near Indonesia's Batam island in November 2002.

A patrol boat went up to the ship and ordered the vessel to stop, but the captain ignored the command. Instead of chasing the ship and taking action in the busy waterway, police told officers in Johor, where the ship was headed, to intercept it, he said.

"We could not chase or force them to stop because in that crowded, busy port, that could have endangered other vessels," he said. "So we laid our plans, flew in our special forces south to Johor and waited for the ship there."

Abdul Rahmad said 45 marine special forces and police commandos in four patrol boats surrounded the ship off Johor at 3.15 a.m. Tuesday, before it could enter the waters of neighboring Singapore.

Twelve officers boarded the moving vessel, and the crew surrendered without a fight, Abdul Rahman said.

The captain and mates, all Chinese national aged between 20 and 45 years, were being investigated for the possession of a stolen vessel. Abdul Rahman said authorities are yet to confirm that the ship - carrying soybeans and vinegar and heading from India to Vietnam - is the stolen MV Natris, registered in Panama.

"The verification is in progress, it will take a few days to confirm," he said.

The police were tipped off by the International Maritime Bureau, a watchdog that had been monitoring the vessel for nearly six months, said Noel Choong, head of the Bureau's piracy watch center in Kuala Lumpur.

We shall see if these "marine special forces" were right or not to apprehend this vessel. But what really strikes me about the article is how they can rappel up the side of a ship! These Malaysian commandos are good!

lawyers

Law Quotes:

I'm sorry for the slow posting today and yesterday, but there has been quite a bit of "business" my way the last little while. To make it up to you, I offer some truly hilarious quotes from America's courts. My favorite one is the one that begins, "Now, doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep..."

Enjoy.

Dancing

Propaganda Wars:

I guess this is understandable, but I have to laugh at the foolishness:

An al-Qaeda linked-group has launched what it calls a media jihad, or holy war, to "terrorise" United States-led forces in Iraq and their families by bombarding them with e-mails and by posting gruesome photos online.

You carry on with this, if you dare. Here you will find men just like you. "Not a businessman after all. Just a man. An ancient race... The future doesn't matter to us."

UPDATE: The above was edited for clarity, but I have also some additional remarks.

On re-reading this post many hours later, I realize it may not be clear to people who haven't recently watched Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West. The movie is about a woman who inherits, because her new husband and his family are murdered, a plot of land that appears to be without value. It turns out, however, that it is sitting on the only ground in a patch of Arizona which has enough water to handle steam trains -- and the railroad line is coming.

As a consequence, a businessman named Morton had hired a terrorist named Frank to run off the family. Frank, it being his nature, found it easier to kill them ("People scare better when they're dyin'," he says. Firefly fans will recognize that a far gentler form of the sentiment was on display in Jayne Cobb: "Pain is scary.")

The two villians of the movie are symbolic, Frank of what Leone saw as the bad Old West, and Morton of what Leone saw as the bad New West. Morton is a businessman, and Frank thinks he wants to be one too -- rich, powerful, and cold hearted. The time of Franks is almost over, and he thinks he can become a Morton. In fact, he cannot. When he attempts to doublecross Morton, Morton bribes the members of Frank's gang to turn coats. Frank would have been killed in the ensuing ambush, except for the intervention of the movie's protagonist, a mysterious gunfighter who wants to kill Frank himself.

Morton is himself destroyed by his use of Frank. Frank's terrorist tactics include the use of false flags, by which he attempts to blame a famous local outlaw gang for the murders of the family. That gang, when it learns of the identity of the real killers, descends on Morton's encampment and wipes out everyone. It is their form of justice.

These are forces which are at work, which are bigger than and stronger than the villians. The bad actors bring on their own destruction, not from the legal system, but from each other. Frank is killed by the mysterious gunfighter, who turns out to be the brother of one of his victims. Morton is killed by the outlaws. The leader of the outlaws, himself, later dies from wounds he suffers in the fight. At last, all the violence spins itself out, and what remains are only the folk who wanted to build and run a railroad.

Of course, some of them are also outlaws -- members of that same bandit gang, who are put to work. They can have a new future in the world of honest work. They can make the transition to the new economy and way of life that comes with the railroad.

But not the gunfighter, who must simply ride off. "The future doesn't matter to us," he tells Frank before they shoot it out. What he has come to do is bring justice: to make sure the widow has her land and profits from it, to make sure that Frank gets what is coming to him. When that is done, he leaves. He does not care for the new world, or the old one. There is nothing in it for him.

There are many parallels between the movie and the current war, one in which we are also trying to bring justice to a barren place by building it, not just a railroad but a whole economy. We are also facing the violence of bad men, who turn on each other in their attempts to come out atop the situation.

It remains to be seen if the engine of progress will be strong enough to pull through the situation, letting the violence spin out around it without -- to extend the metaphor -- coming off the rails. It very well may; I think, in fact, that it will. I think it is likely that many of those Sunni tribal fighters will find themselves pulled into the new economy as they find that they have a stake in it.

There are also men like Frank -- hardened, terrorist killers who finally don't really care about the economics. They are not businessmen, not even in the business of insurgency. They do not want and will not be satisfied with a statelet; unlike most successful insurgent movements, they have no goals which might be granted them in negotiations. There is no "West Bank" to give them. They do not want territory, or wealth, or power over some piece of land. Like Frank, they can't get over "the fact that you're out there," and therefore they have no future. They must fight until they die.

In doing so, they are creating their own enemies. We have often heard it said that American policy is creating terrorists, but few reflect on the degree to which terrorist "policy" is creating anti-terrorists. When you kill a man and torment his family -- as they mean to do, with both American and Iraqi families -- some of those families will come back to haunt you. Not only their blood kin will come, but their families as extended through nationalism or patriotism.

The future won't matter to those men, either. They will only be thinking of you.

japan

A Samurai Epic:

So is described the upcoming Japanese elections, in the Asia Times. The author compares current prime minister Koizumi to one of Japan's most famous samurai, apparently a role model of Koizumi's from an early age.

It's an interesting piece, full of haiku, history, and colorful language. Of course, Koizumi's moves are only "just like" these battles in a metaphoric sense: his 'burning down the temple' will not kill thousands of innocents, and his "assassins" are actually just candidates standing for office.

Still, good journalism can use imagery to make a point. If you wanted to know what the story is on these snap elections, this is a good and entertaining article to read.

A Good Idea

Lawyers Catch Up:

Today's Arts & Letters Daily has a piece entitled "The Dread Pirate Bin Laden." It argues that law, and particularly international law, should treat terrorism as a crime analagous to piracy. Existing law on pirates and piracy is the most useful model for analyzing terrorism.

Great idea. I wrote about it about a year ago in my manifest for a new "Jacksonian Party."

In foreign policy: we should recognize that international terrorist organizations actually are subject to an existing international law: the law of the sea. Precisely like the roving bands of brigands and pirates of the 1600s and 1700s, they are organized against civilization, travel through multiple jurisdictions and through lawless areas alike. They are not combatants of any state, and are protected therefore by neither the Geneva Conventions nor the rules of war. Like pirates, they are subject to summary execution by the officers of any nation that comes into control of them; or by interrogation and some more merciful response, if we prefer and at our discretion. This brutality on the part of civilized men is justified for the exact reason it was justified of old: the threat these bands pose to the transportation infrastructure is a dagger at the heart of civilization. We cannot maintain our cities, our populations, our ability to combat disease or famine, or our relative freedom from total war over resources, without the massive but fragile transportation capacity we have developed.

This is not idle or of small importance. A small increase in transport costs kills at the margins--for example, aid to Africa is reduced as it is more expensive to transport, but resources are fixed. A large increase threatens civilization itself. Our cities do not contain enough food to feed the populace for more than about three days. That is no problem; more food is coming. But if the ability to transport that food is severely harmed--starvation, and in many regions of the world, disease. A serious disruption could unleash a resource war by nations that see mass starvation if they don't capture food, oil, and other needful things. Such a disruption is possible if these terror groups continue their infiltration of the West, and come into possession of WMD.

For that reason, the reform of terror-sponsor states is paramount. So is the reform of failed states that are not necessarily terror-sponsors, but where terrorists are able to travel freely due to bribes of local officials or through outright lawlessness. So long as we can do so while maintaining an all-volunteer force, the United States ought to feel free to act on these places one by one. This has the practical matter, for a Jacksonian party, of bringing liberty and strength to the poor and unfree abroad exactly as we wish to do at home.

Nice to see the lawyers coming around. Next, the politicians -- and we may yet get our Jacksonian Party.

AB

Another Beauty:

On the heels of yesterday's wonderful story about New London charging the Kelo plantiffs five years' back-rent, we have this story from Texas:

A decorated Marine enrolling in college was shocked to learn his Texas driver's license, car registration and bank records weren't enough to get the lower resident tuition rates.

Carl Basham said officials at Austin Community College recently told him that he lost his Texas resident's status because of the years he spent out of state on two tours of duty in Iraq.

Not having the in-state designation would mean paying around $2600 a semester in tuition, instead of about $500.

Oh, yeah. You're a citizen of Iraq now, Carl. (Apparently those people charging us with imperialism were righter than they knew!)

Kim du Toit kindly provides some useful phone numbers:

Director of Admissions & Records
Linda Kluck
(512) 223-7503; Fax (512) 223-7765

Governor of Texas
Rick Perry
Citizen's Assistance Hotline: (800) 843-5789
[for Texas callers]
Citizen's Opinion Hotline: (800) 252-9600
[for Texas callers]
Citizen's Assistance and Opinion Hotline: (512) 463-1782
[for Austin, Texas and out-of-state callers]
Office of the Governor Main Switchboard: (512) 463-2000
[office hours are 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. CST]
Citizen's Assistance Telecommunications Device
If you are using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), call 711 to reach Relay Texas
Fax
Office of the Governor Fax: (512) 463-1849
Mailing Address
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Delivery Address
Office of the Governor
State Insurance Building
1100 San Jacinto
Austin, Texas 78701

Might want to give them a little call today.

Notes

Notes:

Kim du Toit notes that absolutely everything the British police claimed was true about the Brazilian they shot dead, was in fact not true at all. Video records work both ways. I defended them before the fact, even -- one has to shoot suspected suicide bombers in a way that will neutralize their central nervous system. It's nothing personal -- it's a gamble, where you bet the moral responsibility you don't want to have for killing an innocent against the moral responsibility you don't want to have for not stopping a guilty man from killing a hundred innocents.

All the same, the cops here seem to have given us an entirely false picture of their experience. They must answer for that, as much as for the shooting itself. If you are trusted with the power of the law, you must answer honestly when challenged.

UPDATE: Reader and blogger Karrde says that he thinks this was an application of the "Garbage In, Garbage Out" principle.

I join Greyhawk in celebrating Mrs. InstaPundit's graduation from cardiac rehab classes. Good luck, ma'am.

Necktie

Yes, I Know...

...that the Senate of the United States of America recently apologized for its history on lynching, and I know that lynching has normally been a horrible thing in American history. But can't we all agree that there are exceptions?

Kelo:Adding Insult to Injury

The City of New London is now claiming that the affected homeowners (those who fought the taking of their property in court) were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit (which started in 2000) and owe back rent.

Surely we can make just this one exception, to a generally accepted rule?

1900 meets 2005

“All we can decide is whether we shall meet them in a way that will redound to the national credit, or whether we shall make of our dealings with these new problems a dark and shameful page in our history. To refuse to deal with them at all merely amounts to dealing with them badly. We have a given problem to solve. If we undertake the solution, there is, of course, always danger that we may not solve it aright; but to refuse to undertake the solution simply renders it certain that we cannot possibly solve it aright. The timid man, the lazy man, the man who distrusts his country, the over-civilized man, who has lost the great fighting, masterful virtues, the ignorant man, and the man of dull mind, whose soul is incapable of feeling the mighty lift that thrills "stern men with empires in their brains"—all these, of course, shrink from seeing the nation undertake its new duties;” - The Strenuous Life by Theodore Roosevelt.

The entire essay is worthy of the time spent reading it. It’s poignant because the essence addresses the same problem we are dealing with now; do we pull out immediately from Iraq, or do we stay and finish the job right?

To hear the ranting of the left, a great number of which have gathered a scant 200 miles away from me in Crawford, we should pull out immediately and adopt an isolationist mentality, at best, or become the hand that feeds the world, at worst. I simply find that attitude unacceptable. Our responsibility is to America, over all else. If another sovereign state is a threat to us, then we should remove the threat; by whatever means prudent and available. If one American life is taken, we should inflect pain and suffering on a level as to make taking American lives no longer worth the effort.

We need more men with ‘empires in their brains’.
-Daniel

NAD

National Airborne Day:

Who knew that there was a "National Airborne Day"? Well, the fellows in the maroon berets, I guess -- never have gotten the whole "beret" thing, but whatever.

Doubtless, the lads deserve it. I join Marine Sgt. B in his toast:

May your chutes always deploy correctly, may your PLFs be flawless, and may your fights be short, decisive, and victorious.

Airborne! All the Way!

Gentlemen: I raise a Guinness.

rn

Reader Notes:

JarHeadDad has had a particulary interesting accident, the details of which I won't go into. They aren't mine to share. But send him your get-well wishes, and keep him in your thoughts.

Sovay passed that longhaired German Shepherd dog right on to me, and he's sleeping on the floor of my office. His name is Finn, after the Irish hero Finn mac Cumhail. Sovay participates in a regional dog rescue charity. Every time I see her, she's got a different dog -- or two, or three.

I don't normally take in strays, because the ones I take in have a way of never leaving. Still, the girl needed some help, so after they still hadn't found a place for this beast by ten at night, I agreed to take him for a couple of days.

Good dog, really. Slept right on the floor by my bed all night, didn't even chew up my moccasins. He's smart, but a stray who is not used to being with people, so he doesn't know to listen for commands. Once I convinced him that he needed to be listening to me, he almost instantly learned to heel and is learning to sit. I think he'll make someone a good pet.

Anyway, there are some notes about a couple of your fellow readers, good people who could use a kind thought and word. Also, if any of you are in the D.C. region, and want a decent dog -- this one or another one, they've got plenty -- you might pipe up in the comments as well. I'm sure Sovay will be happy to talk to any interested parties.

UPDATE: Another reader note -- I see from her blog that Lornkanaga has suffered a devastating loss due to a plane crash. Grim's Hall offers its deepest condolences.

OP VAL II

Operation Valor IT:

I'm going to be traveling today, so I won't be around to post. However, I gather that there will be some interesting posts up about Op. Valor IT. You can read some background on it here, and find out how to help here, or go directly to the donation page.

This idea apparently got its start -- I gather from the emails -- with MilBlogger Chuck Ziegenfuss ("TCOverride"). His own injuries in Iraq prompted him to think of how to help other injured servicemen, and his status as a blogger gave him the means to reach out to all of us.

The Donovan reports on his "coalition building" efforts. Apparently he's even trying Daily Kos, although I hope no one is moved by the particular terms of his challenge.

Those of you on the Left who read this site are made of better stuff, I know from talking to you each and all. I understand that you share the outrage at seeing our young men wounded, and that you also want to help. Like me, you've probably been angry at seeing how our government's military health care system doesn't take care of everything it should. If you've been angry about their plight, you can help them out here. Soldiers' Angels, which is doing the lifting on this, has a proven track record and an excellent reputation among MilBloggers. I have faith in them.

So, it's up to you from here. Do what you will.

Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan:

I'm always late to chime in on social issues. For one thing, I spend so much of my time reading foreign newspapers, I rarely read domestic ones -- I have used up all my energy for newspaper reading. So I only find out about things when they begin to appear on blogs (which may be before or after the newspapers get them).

For another thing, I always tend to assume that the latest social uproar will simply vanish. I assumed the Schiavo thing would cease to be of interest long before it was. The absence of television from Grim's Hall probably contributes to this -- I never know when something has gone into a 24/7 cycle. I can only judge a story based on its merits, and the merits of these stories are often rather thin.

I knew of Sheehan a week or two ago -- I'm not sure which -- because Sovay mentioned it to me in a telephone call. I made a note of it because it seemed important to her, but I didn't follow up.

Well, we've gotten to the point that it is obviously a social phenomenon now. Winds of Change has a roundup. I suppose I'll chip in, too.

Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother. I sympathize entirely with the motivation. I cannot imagine what the loss of my son would do to me; I would be grateful to the world, I think, if it refused to judge any action I took for at least a year or two afterwards. And so, applying the Golden Rule, I shall refuse to judge her.

I hope she finds the peace she needs. I have no use for those who are using her to further their ends -- nor those who are so heartless as to speak ill of her, in the depth of her pain.

Yes, I know she was a radical before the war began. That means nothing. She is a Gold Star mother, and so she is due a full measure of kindness from us. May she find her peace. May those who are trying to use her get what they deserve. As for those who have sneered at her character -- no one asks you to approve of her, or what she thinks, or how she feels. All I ask is that you let her rage, and pass on, without judgment. That, at least, is only what we should want for ourselves if, under an evil star, we should find ourselves brought to her fate.

WR

Weekend Reading:

I haven't had much time to write this weekend, but I do have a few notes from some other sites that may interest you.

Feddie at Southern Appeal has put up that post he promised, asking for reader comments on the 4th Amendment issues around the NY Subway searches.

Cassandra had a good post about a new fatwa, which in turn gave rise to this post at The Fourth Rail.

I also wrote this at The Fourth Rail, examining some issues raised by Yon and Wretchard.

Enjoy.

OPVALOR

Op. Valor IT

The Castle and BlackFive describe Operation Valor IT, a project to get technology to the wounded of our mission in Iraq. Soldiers' Angels has more.

The idea is that IED wounds are of a sort that can cut off traditional means of communication between the wounded and family. Voice-activated computers and software can rebuild those links. Op. Valor IT is designed to get the technology to those who need it.

There are those who have said that "flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." Here is a chance to honor and to aid those who have indeed been seriously wounded. There will be others, but here is one.

cake

Life in the Hills:

Yesterday was a nearly fourteen hour day for me, but along about evening I did take an hour off work to go swimming. I have mentioned the swimming lake before. It's about a quarter mile long, a hundred yards or so wide, filling a deep depression in the hills between two weirs on one of the feeders of the Rappahannock river. There are two places where it's easy to enter and leave because it is rocky there, but the rest of the long edges are dangerous because they are deep, silty mud.

Our closest neighbors have three boys, ages nine through twelve, all of whom have names starting with the letter "D." The effect of this is that I know one of them is named Dylan, but not which one, and the others' names are lost on me. The youngest of the boys is the one who brought me the eggs the other day.

When I got down to the lake, the three were in one of the shallow places, stirring up a ton of mud and engaged in their favorite sport -- turtle hunting. I gather that their mother lets them keep turtles they catch for a few days, but only a few, so they're always hunting new ones as replacements. I left them to their sport and took my laps around the lake.

When I finished, I settled down in one end of the lake and started doing breathing exercises and kata under water. The water helps you by adding some small extra resistance to the exercise. In short order, the boys came over and splashed into the water around me.

"You're really brave to swim all the way to the end of the lake," the oldest said.

"It's not that hard," I told them.

"Will you take us, then?"

Groan. Now I've done it... their mother is going to kill me.

I gave them a severe look. "Can you swim?" I asked.

"Yes!" all three answered at once.

"I know you can dog paddle," I replied. "But can you swim?"

Well, they promised they could, so I told them we'd swim across the lake and back -- a couple hundred yards or so -- and then, if they did that well, we could take the long swim. We only got maybe halfway across before the youngest was panting and needed to turn back.

The other two seemed to be doing well, so I made them swim back with me to ensure that the youngest got to the shallow water all right, and then I told them they could swim to the end of the lake with me. I explained where the deep channels were, and to stay clear of the muddy sides so they didn't get fouled. Then, we started off.

It was apparently a lot harder than they thought it would be. We only got about halfway on the long stretch before they pronounced that they were ready to go back again. No problem -- I didn't really want to be swimming in deep water with somebody else's kids anyway. We swam back, and then I had to go home, and they went back to hunting turtles in the shallows.

I had to work the rest of the night, but along about ten o'clock my wife came up to the office to say that we'd had visitors. The boy's mother, she said, had come by.

"Uh-oh," I said.

"And she brought you a cake," my wife added. "She was really touched that you'd taken time out to spend with her boys."

Apparently the boys had gone home and told her the whole thing. Instead of being mad, she was touched. Which is how it should be, I guess, but somehow it isn't what I expected.

Still, when I was a boy, a lot of men took time out of their lives to teach me things. It's only fair to pass on the favor, and it turns out to be a bigger pleasure than I would have expected.

Also, the cake is delicious.

Pagans

Pagans:

"Pagan" is a word that comes from the Latin paganus, "country-dweller," which in turn comes from pagus, "the country." It is one of the great ironies that modern Pagans are therefore mostly urban, with the countryside being ruled over by Baptists.

Nevertheless, I think most of the Pagans I've known have aspired to 'the rural life,' even though few of them have lived it. Some push out and give it a try, like this lady, who is demanding a bit of respect from the local school board with help from the ACLU.

This is twice in a week that I'm coming down on the same side of something as the ACLU. I learned of the case over at Southern Appeal, while checking to see if Feddie has put up that post on 4th Amendment issues yet. I know he's overwhelmed with business-related matters now.

Anyway, back to the pagans.

Grim's Hall has always been a defender of the various neo-pagan faiths, ever since that time I decided to get into it with the Raving Atheist over Forn Sidr, a faith based on ancient Germanic customs and mythology. We don't normally discuss religion here in any other context than this one: defending people's Constitutional rights. That Constitutionalism is at the core of most of my political beliefs, which is why I want to know precisely how the NY Subway searches comply with the 4th Amendment, or at least have it spelled out frankly that they do not so we can be conscious about the fact that we are making a particular exception, for a particular reason.

I don't care for protestors as a rule. People who go out of their way to make a scene just to make a point irritate me a great deal. I think that this particular lady would be doing herself and her neighbors a service if she accepted their sensibilities and left them to their prayers. Sometimes self-sacrifice is the nobler path.

Nevertheless, it seems plain enough to me that she has a right to be considered on equal terms as any other religious leader. Those terms are: if you're going to have a public prayer associated with a legislative or executive body, you must not establish that the prayer be delivered by a particular religion. On the other hand, whoever delivers it must also not pretend to greater unity than exists -- whether a Baptist or a Pagan delivers the prayer, it must be couched in terms that really are acceptable to all parties present.

If I'm going to pray for us at a government meeting, I don't get to tell the Father of All that we have gathered in the hope that gun-control advocates will be reformed. If you're giving the prayer, you don't get to claim that we've gathered in the hope that our hearts might all embrace pacifism.

Either one is a plain lie, for one thing, which you ought to be careful about delivering to a divine being. It's also in bad taste.

If the lady's willing to accept those rules -- and I don't know if she is, having so little regard for her neighbors' wishes in other respects -- she ought to be considered same as anyone. I'm sure we all sat quietly at a neighbor's table, growing up, while the head of the house delivered a Grace that we didn't find entirely comfortable.

It's the same principle at work here, with the additional consideration that a head of household has far greater authority to choose the terms of the prayer. The table sits in the house, and the guest is under the roof of the house.

The government house belongs to us all. Therefore, if we are going to have a public prayer, we must be extra careful to show respect to all of our fellow Americans.

UPDATE: Besides, look how much fun it is to be a pagan... well, even just for a few days in Ireland.

Iraq

Dog Bombs:

I suppose it was inevitable that dog bombs would prove to be real. Naturally, in this era, anything that seems too ridiculous or cruel to be true will prove out to be. It is the method of the particular type of enemy we face to find the places where kindness or decency blinds the normal man, and strike from that blindness.

Michael Yon has an excellent piece from Mosul, which is analyzed capably by Wretchard. I wish to think it over before saying more about it.

C&I

Cowboys & Indians:

A special award in the 2005 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest was this little entry:

India, which hangs like a wet washcloth from the towel rack of Asia, presented itself to Tex as he landed in Delhi (or was it Bombay?), as if it mattered because Tex finally had an idea to make his mark and fortune and that idea was a chain of steak houses to serve the millions and he wondered, as he deplaned down the steep, shiny, steel steps, why no one had thought of it before.

Ken Aclin
Shreveport, LA

I gave out a burst of laughter when I got to "steak houses." It was a brief burst, but laughter is all to rare these days, so I value it where I find it.

So today, reading Hong Kong's Asia Times, I came across this article, entitled "Delhi's cowboys ride urban range." Given that this is real, well, this is as good a joke as the first one.

The past few days India's capital city of New Delhi has been witness to a peculiar sight - cowboys (many on motorcycles) with lassos spanning the city to round up cattle. The Indian version of the Pamplona bull run or the American cattle roundup has begun following the announcement of a cash award of US$50 per cow caught, announced by the Delhi high court to rid the city of the traffic menace.

Oh, but it gets better.

There has been an intelligence report that stray dogs that live next to the prime minister's residence are a potential hazard as they move in and out of the high-security zone, given their friendly access to the security guards. Any one of the dogs can be stitched up with a remote-controlled bomb.

Why, yes it could, I guess...

One reason authorities in Delhi and several cities and towns in India have been unable to launch a crusade to rid themselves of vagabond cattle is religion. Cows remain a very touchy subject due to religious sentiments. The animal is revered by the Hindus, addressed as Gau Mata (meaning, the cow is like a mother). Indian history has several instances of Hindu-Muslim riots erupting over cows being slaughtered, sometimes deliberately to incite violence.... But apart from religion there are other factors that complicate the task, not least the animal rights activists who make it a point to criticize any government action or inaction.

Animal rights activists rioting against motorcycle-riding Indian Cowboys, lariats in hand! Skulking veterinary terrorists, performing surgery to turn stray dogs into wandering bombs in order to get at the prime minister!

I can see I am going to have to make good on the advice given me by John Ryan, my old friend, professional gambler, and Australian good-for-nothing. He once told me that, no matter what else I did in my life, "Don't miss India!"

Somehow, I'm just going to have to get out there.

dr

Doc:

You might want to get by and congratulate Doc Russia, who appears to have had a good day. Although the patient died, he didn't die without receiving every last chance that medical science could give him.

Doc's excitement comes through in his prose. We all die sometime, but I think we would be glad to know that the attempt to save us means this much to the people who undertake it. You can't expect them to care about you personally -- they don't know a thing about you, really, and will meet a hundred more just like you. Failing that, though, you can take comfort in the excitement and interest they have for the technical challenge of keeping you alive.

It's been interesting to read through Doc's career as a med student. I find I've learned quite a bit about medicine, both in areas I knew nothing about and areas I have learned something about for professional reasons. Those of you who were slogging on through my description of temporary v. permanent wound cavities as re: bullet wounds, for example, will learn a bit more on the topic from this post.

VC

Is Conservatism A Character Defect?

Visit Cassandra, who hopefully will prove to me that it is not. The evidence she has cited so far runs in the other direction.

I have no fear for myself: I have known for years that I am broken. But for the rest of you, those on the Right, I shall be disappointed if she cannot defeat the position I have staked.

UPDATE (as of 0530 Monday morning): In fairness to all, I think two warnings are deserved. First, I'm feeling particularly evil today. Second, I intend to play the so-called "Devil's advocate" here. I'll be happy to break lances with any of you, not just Cassandra, but you'll have to prove that the staked position is wrong. It can be done; I think I have proven the opposite position more than once.

Today, though, I just feel like fighting. Be fairly warned.

wh

Wrong Headline:

The AFP has put the headline "Men Do Have Trouble Hearing Women" on this story:

Men who are accused of never listening by women now have an excuse - women's voices are more difficult for men to listen to than other men's.

Reports say researchers at Sheffield University in northern England have discovered startling differences in the way the brain responds to male and female sounds.

The research shows men decipher female voices using the auditory part of the brain that processes music, while male voices engage a simpler mechanism.

That is to miss the point entirely. The right headline is this:

"When I said that your voice was like music to me -- a song to soothe the savage beast -- I was but speaking God's own truth."

I've never said those exact words to anyone, but we've all said something like them, to certain special women of whom it was really true. That truth has lain hidden and unproven until now, but it always was true.

Why is there no room for this romanticism, which has proven out in the harshest light of science? Why, here, do we first look to the cynic -- "Men really don't hear you!" -- rather than the romantic, whose promises bind his heart and his life? It is just easier? Or have we stopped believing in love? -- our society, I mean, not each of us.

Pray, now, believe the other things we say. For those of us who are honorable men, at least, say only what we mean: and we will keep our word to you.

MT

Democracy in the Philippines:

The Manila Times ("Since 1898") has an article today on the upcoming elections. Looks like about one in ten voters is expected to be a "flying voter," i.e., somebody who has managed to register in more than one place so they can cast their vote at least twice.

Should be fun.

HB

Happy Birthday:

My baby sister was born on this date. She's grown up and run off to Minnesota since then, and I haven't seen her in most of a year. Still, I know she reads the blog, though she doesn't comment -- I think she's afraid of you people, who are of course a contentious and boisterous lot. And welcome, just that way.

Anyway, happy birthday, Juli. I wish you all the best.

mvw

A Little Mountain Feud, Part II:

Part I here.

I promised to keep y'all informed, so here we are.

The wife saw Captain Moonshine driving around the other day. Apparently the local judge feels that this is the sort of person who ought to be granted bail.

The next night? Twenty-four gunshots. Hopefully one of the blackguards actually hit his target this time. At this rate, I'm going to have to start giving marksmanship lessons to the locals, just so they can finish this business and I can get some rest.

No more news yet. I'll keep an ear out for you.

UPDATE: Apparently I misunderstood the wee wife, who informs me that in fact she has no idea what Captain Moonshine looks like. She saw someone visiting an abandoned house nearby, which I thought she had said was owned by the fellow. But she says she doesn't know that, either. One of us is seriously confused, and I suspect it may be me.

As to the twenty-four gunshots, though, that part was right on. Ah, well. Maybe there are two feuds.

Who cares, anyway? The only interaction I've had with the "neighbors" has been pleasant enough. The one fellow who owns the horses down the way has proven to be good conversation. The local dogs are all friendly. And one of the kids from down the way brought me a dozen eggs today, laid by local hens. I didn't ask for them; I don't know why he decided to bring them. But there we are.

Good line

"That's Actually Kind of a Dream of Mine."

OK, so an illegal immigrant got past the FBI's background checks, got a job as a Border Patrol officer, and then used his position to smuggle in more illegals.

Beautiful.

Dan Melson asks at the end of a fine piece, "I know neither party's heart is in it, but can't they at least pretend to care?"

Hat tip: Smash.

VK

The Fang Fund:

Nobody who navigates the blogosphere regularly will first learn here about Venomous Kate's lost teeth. Still, I know a few of you out there don't otherwise read blogs, so now you know.

I'm not actually a reader of Electric Venom. No offense, Kate -- there's just so much time (less every day, thanks to work). I learned about the business elsewhere. I can't even remember where, it's been mentioned so many places. Still, it's good when you can do something that will really help someone in need. Of course, there are always so many people, it can be hard to pick your shots.

It's not too often someone proud will ask for help, though. My best to the lady.

Nope

Reagan, Reagan Everywhere:

The folks at the Corner are having an idle debate today over whether enough things have been named after Ronald Reagan, or if perhaps it might be time to stop. The occasion of the debate is a proposal to rename Washington, D.C.'s 16th street after him.

There's quite a lot of opinion against more renamings, for reasons that Mark Steyn hits beautifully. I agree with Mr. Steyn, as indeed I so often do.

But there is one idea that I had to comment on:

NEVER ENOUGH REAGAN. [Mark R. Levin]
If it were up to me, Maryland itself would be renamed Reagan.

Sorry, lads. I have to stand against that notion. I have a dear friend who would die of a heart attack if that happened.

Bombs

Searches on the NY Subway:

Baldilocks is on the track of the NYCLU's suit over the NYPD's random searches on the NY Subway.

I have to admit, I've been a bit concerned about this too. I've been asking a lot of lawyers, and bloggers, about the question. I'm not clear on exactly why it's legally OK for the police to deny access to a public subway to anyone who won't waive their 4th Amendment rights. So far, I've found several people willing to take a stab at it, but no one who can actually defend their position in the face of attack. This seems questionably Constitutional to me.

I understand why it is necessary, of course. Unlike the NYCLU, I don't think the police are doing anything immoral. What I want to know is, how is it Constitutional?

I would be happy to accept as an answer, if it were clearly stated, "It is not Constitutional: but the Constitution is not, as famously held, a suicide-pact." That would be good enough for me: I can understand that a pressing, war-brought necessity can cause us to have to set aside certain usual rights for a time. The same thing happens in the case of other serious emergencies, like hurricanes; in the aftermath, it may be necessary to go so far as to institute Martial Law or shoot-on-sight orders for looters.

The advantage of this answer is that it allows the searches, which really seem to be necessary, without diluting the power of the 4th. We understand that the 4th should apply in all but emergency situations. But we also recognize that we have an emergency situation.

Feddie at Southern Appeal promised to put up a post requesting legal insight into this, when I talked to him about it the other day by email. I'll gently prod him to remember to do it; I think it's a very important point.

Writing

Hey...

So this is why all of you keep coming around here...

A study of 7,000 people in their early 20s, 40s and 60s found that those who drank within safe limits had better verbal skills, memory and speed of thinking than those at the extremes of the drinking spectrum. The safe consumption level was considered to be 14 to 28 standard drinks a week for a man and seven to 14 for a woman.

Questions ranged from verbal reasoning problems to tests of short-term memory. Surprisingly, perhaps, teetotallers were twice as likely as occasional drinkers to achieve the lowest scores.

Bryan Rodgers, from ANU's Centre for Mental Health Research, said moderate drinkers not only performed the best, but also seemed to be the healthiest. "This does not necessarily show moderate alcohol use is good for our brains - there may be other reasons we haven't measured to explain the poor performance of non-drinkers," Dr Rodgers said.

Time for some more poetry:

Twenty-eight drinks a week
That can make you really think!
Putting those four beers away
Makes for better word play!
Better poems, better thought,
Better health is thereby bought!
A merry life to you and me!
A drink right now, and then three!
Yep, that's fine stuff. I'm going to bet that a "standard drink" in Australia is a pint, too, not just one of those wee 12-once cans we use around here.

UPDATE: More beer-related poetry at Cassandra's.

Guns

Guns in the Parking Lot:

My wife, who reads the blog though she has never commented here, asks for fewer gun-related stories, as she finds them somewhat dull. I shall certainly try, in case others among you feel the same way; but I do have to reply to this editorial that JHD sent me. It's from the NY Times, which has never understood the issue, has no interest in understanding the issue, and is simply throwing around assertions without backing.

The occasion for the editorial is an NRA-proposed boycott of certain oil companies, because those companies refuse to allow workers to keep firearms locked in their cars if those cars are parked on company property.

ConocoPhillips ran afoul of the N.R.A. when it joined in a challenge to a law passed by the Oklahoma Legislature that would strip businesses of their gun-control rights on company property. The state gun lobby jumped on the issue after a dozen workers were fired at a paper mill for violating a ban on keeping guns in their cars parked in company lots.

In the Times' mind, the "right" at work here is "the right to gun control," which is a right that may be expressed by individuals and even corporations, and which ought to be enforced by the courts:

Responsible corporations sued, pointing out that they are liable for workers' safety. They cited estimates that more than a dozen killings occur each week in the nation's workplaces because angry employees are able to put their hands on guns.

There are several things to be said.

1) There are no "gun-control rights" pertaining to corporations, or individuals. What is at issue here is not the "right" to control guns, but the private property right to limit access to what one owns.

It is the right, that is, to put up a sign that says "no guns here," and have someone prosecuted for trespass if he ignores the sign; or fire him, if he is an employee, because he has committed the crime of trespass.

The right to keep and bear arms, however, actually is a right: a Constitutional right, one that is recognized by the Justice Department, and what is now almost the totality of the scholarship, as a right pertaining to individuals. The Senate bill that the Times is on about also recognizes that nature, in quite strong language, which the Geek quotes at length.

When private property rights come into opposition with basic Constitutional rights, it is the private property right that normally gives way. By "gives way," I don't mean that it is voided, but that it has to accept some restrictions. The usual one in cases of this sort is the notion that public accomodations (which include gas stations) have fewer such rights than private homes.

If someone wished to assert this type of private property right over any other sort of Constitutional or civil right, the Times would be foresquare in the opposition. They would never endure a corporation putting up a sign that violated first amendment rights -- e.g., "No Episcopalians." They would never endure a violation of fourteenth amendment rights -- e.g., "No immigrants." They would probably not support even a violation of "freedom of association" rights that are not otherwise Constitutionally protected: "No Communists," or "No gays."

An individual is free not to invite Episcopalians to his house, but he cannot refuse to employ them if he has a business.

2) I don't have access to the "estimates" that are on offer here, so I can't analyze them. I'm sure someone will in the fullness of time.

However, it strikes me that they are somewhat irrelevant to the debate at hand. An employee who has decided to shoot his fellow employees is not going to be restrained by a sign that says "No guns," if he is not restrained by the laws against murder, assault, carrying weapons of any sort in any place with the intent to committ illegal violence, or any of the other laws that apply.

All of that is already illegal. It is subject to both criminal punishments, and civil punishments in the case that harm is caused.

The only thing that is at issue is whether a corporation may insist that employees contract away a Constitutional right. May I write in my contracts that employees agree not to practice a certain faith? If they are Muslims, can I legally require them not to practice their daily prayers on company property, or company time?

What if one fears that "people who practice Islam," like "people who carry guns," are likely to harm others around them? The evidence is against both propositions, but the perception may be real enough. Is that perception enough to override the Constitution? Should it be?

I think the Times would argue that it is not, and should not be, in any case except this one.

3) The civil liability issue for the corporations is a real issue, but it can't be resolved in this way. The argument is that corporations are liable if someone is shot on their property, and therefore they have to be able to protect people on their property from being shot. Fair enough; but as pointed out above, a sign that says "No guns" is no protection whatsoever from crimes of this type.

The legal argument they are imagining is: "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which is might really stop this sort of violence. However, we did put up a sign that said 'no guns,' so it's not our fault." That prevents no one from being shot, however; it's only to escape the corporation having to pay out legal damages.

At least as compelling a legal argument would be, "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which might really stop this sort of violence. However, we do permit our employees the access to the tools they need to defend themselves."

That should be just as likely to avoid damages as the first argument. In addition, it might actually prevent deaths from workplace shootings, because it means that someone might be in the position to prevent it.

The Times continues:

Most Americans do not believe that the right to bear arms applies to an employer's parking lot, to a church or to many of the other places where politicians have declared open season because they fear the out-of-control gun movement.

I'm not sure what their evidence is for this assertion, but it is of course perfectly irrelevant even if it were true. I've seen polling data suggesting that "most Americans" believe that homosexuality should be illegal, but that doesn't mean it should in fact be illegal.

The entire reason for having Constitutional rights in a democracy is to protect rights from popular encroachment. Of course it is rights that are not popular which are in most danger.

They are still rights, written in the Constitution, and they must be protected. They ought to be protected by the government, which is required by its own Constitution to do so.

m16

5.56mm:

Amid this excellent bit of photoblogging by Michael Yon, there is an insightful comment. He was right there during a firefight with insurgents, who almost escaped:

The lack of power of the American M-4 and M-16 rifles is astonishing. So many people and cars shot-up, but they just keep going and going. For a moment, it appeared the terrorists might get away.

That's right. The engine block of even the least well-constructed vehicle will absorb 5.56mm rounds. This is one reason why cars "stopped" in this fashion by American forces are frequently shot with hundreds of rounds. It's not bloodthirstyness: it's necessity.

This may be a useful piece of advice if you should ever find yourselves being shot at by anyone: the engine block will stop pistol and light rifle rounds. Your door will not. Your window will slightly deflect bullets sometimes, but not reliably. Choose your cover accordingly.

Unfortunately, the military is planning its new weapon in the usual, bid-taking and tech-oriented fashion. The proper way to choose a new battle rifle is by polling actual Marines and combat soldiers. If there's one piece of equipment not to skimp on, this is the one.

If they did, I will bet you this one is the one they would choose. Notably, it's exactly the opposite of everything the military thinks it wants in a battle rifle: it's heavy, it chooses tons of power instead of being able to carry lots of ammunition, and it involves very little of 'the latest technology.' Plus, it's long and solid rather than modular and collapsible.

Nevertheless, it has every advantage over both the M-16/M-4, and the suggested replacements. It comes of a good family, whose battle record is as solid and proven as it is possible to find. And the long, solid concept has advantages as well as disadvantages, if you will only take the time to train to exploit them: we have seen bayonet charges on quite a few occasions in Iraq, and -- as USMC pugil stick training indicates -- even an unloaded rifle, if it is long and solid, makes an excellent weapon.

TV

The Remote:

While reading over the worst short story I've seen in ages (and who knew that Valerie Plame was really a KGB officer?) I came across this piece on an entirely different topic:

New research suggests men are still hogging the television remote control. 41% of men and 30% of women claim to rule the sofa entertainment, says a poll by Intel.

What I like about this story is that it shows something of what the post-blog future of the media will be like. It reports what its findings are -- but then, at the bottom, it adds in some reader comments:

Though a few people had comments on the rules.

"Do none of these etiquette experts have children? For years now the first I see of the remote is when the last of my children has been extracted, screaming and kicking, from the lounge and sent to bed," says Mike Thomason.

Maybe not even then.

Grim's Hall has television set, but it isn't hooked up to anything except a VCR and DVD player. As a result, the only things our remote can do are turn the various devices on and off, play or stop the video, and fast forward or rewind a tape, or "scene select" on the DVD. As such, except for a few seconds at the beginning and end of the watching session, it's of no use whatsoever.

Even so, it is the coveted possession of the three-year-old boy. He loves the thing.

A few days ago, it was lost. We looked everywhere for it. Under things, over things, behind things, whatever: it was nowhere to be found. After quite a bit of hunting, we just did without for a while.

The next day, the boy came downstairs and plopped himself down by the bed. He reached underneath, and extracted a (normally quite empty) briefcase that is stored there because it is out of the way. He unzipped it, reached inside, opened an internal pocket, reached inside of that, and pulled out the remote.

I'd never have thought to look there, I can tell you.

OR

Ooh-Rah!

Kim du Toit knocks one out of the park.

WMs

Woman Marines:

Military.com has an article today on women who are Marines, one that raises again the old debate about the proper role of women in combat.

In May, House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and House Personnel Subcommittee Chairman John McHugh, R-N.Y., pushed a provision that would have barred all female troops in forward deployed support units from moving to the front lines during combat. Language in the 2006 defense authorization bill would prohibit assigning women to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat.

McHugh's amendment would have left the door open for other restrictions, particularly if the mission involves long-range reconnaissance or Special Operations Forces. But the issue quickly generated partisan turmoil. Army leaders and two associations representing retired Army and National Guard members fought against its passage. The proposed legislation was shot down.

Had it passed, the amendment would have closed nearly 22,000 positions now available to female service members in heavy and infantry brigade combat, according to an article published on GovExec.com.

The article speaks to several servicewomen and asks about their experiences. It is an enlightening read.

This is one of those issues on which I once had a considered and set opinion, which I find I have now changed in light of experience and new data. Even two years ago, I still believed that women should be restricted to military roles in which combat was not going to be one of their primary functions.

The debate seemed entirely one-sided at the time, I recall thinking, with all the good arguments and hard evidence on the side of restriction. All the tests demonstrated that men were, overall, far superior in the physical attributes on which combat continues to rely: strength, endurance, and the ability (based on differences in the physical structure of the brain) to dissociate emotion from reason. This last is a key ingredient in the stress of a life-or-death moment, one that only becomes more important as the "moment" drags out into hours, as it sometimes can.

On the other side of the balance sheet were largely fairness claims, and as anyone knows, "it's not fair" is the very first rule in the UCMJ. Not that these weren't worthy considerations -- it had a real effect on promotions, pay, and in other ways limited a woman's career options. In spite of that, the military exists to provide for the physical security of the country, not to provide a career for anyone. All such considerations, for men as well as women, have to take a back seat to the simple matter of victory. In the long view, that means putting the best people in all positions that will have an effect on combat; in the short term, it means that the person next to you on the front line needs to be the one most likely to keep you alive.

After some years of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, I think the balance of evidence has shifted. The tests that measure physical capacity remain sound; but we have learned several more things from direct experience that have to be filtered in.

As the article makes clear, women are needed even in front line positions in Islamic cultures, because of the need to search Muslim women and female regions of homes. The realities of fourth generation warfare make it necessary; and so we have had women in those positions, and they've done very well.

"I went on a convoy ... and was walking around with the squadron, carrying my M-16," Griego said. "I did exactly the same things they did. When we encountered females, I searched them to make sure they didn't have anything and kept them moving."

At times, Griego said, she was scared. But she was confident she had the training needed to do the job.

On this particular search, there were two women who looked suspicious to Griego. Searchers cannot hold a weapon while they work because it might go off by accident - or worse, the enemy might get a hold of it.

"One woman had an infant (in one arm) and a bundle of something in another," Griego said. "She had her arms under her burka which was unusual."

Reciting phrases from the Poshtun language, Griego asked the woman to raise her arms.

The woman didn't move.

"So I lifted her arms and saw the muzzle of an AK-47 begin to slip out," she said. "I slapped the gun down."

All the while, the Marine next to her kept his gun aimed at the Afghan woman. But when Griego slapped the gun down, the woman tried to run, she said.

Griego used her martial arts training to tackle her. The team found not only the gun, but several AK-47 magazines.

What was necessary as a practical reality has given us experience to weigh against the tests. What that experience has proven is that the physical qualities are not as important to performance as the science would suggest. Physical standards need to remain strong, but it is now plain that women who meet the standards are frequently up to the task -- even if they don't surpass the physical minimum standards as much as a male might. These women are providing us with a needed capability, and they have proven themselves entirely.

In retrospect I should have known. Of course it is not finally the body, but the spirit, which conquers.

Hackett II

The Hackett Thing:

Looks like Rush gave a part of his program over to this today.

I'll tell you what, this guy to me sounds like a typical lib. He runs while trying to conceal his true beliefs, and he's running as a Marine. Of course the implication there is that he's to the right of Jean Schmidt. But, folks, he's not running as a Democrat, because if he were running as a Democrat, he would run anti-war. He would be an anti-war candidate -- and he's not saying that. He's not even saying he's a Democrat. He's not even admitting what he has said elsewhere: he thinks Bush is the most dangerous guy in the world, and he wants to raise everybody's taxes. But what's going to happen? I just want to warn you, if this guy wins in this election with a 20% turnout today, which is what they are expecting, the libs all over the place are going to be saying that this was a test of Bush, and Bush lost.

He's running as a Marine, but he's really a liberal?

Our boy Deuddersun should put an end to that line of thinking. He's a Marine. He's anti-war. He hasn't posted in a long time, so I'm going to stand up for what I know he believes. It's not that I believe it myself -- it's that a man I respect and honor believes it. I don't agree: but he's got a right to think things through. Being a Marine doesn't obligate you to a political position. You can believe what you like, and you can count on me for fight for it. I'm not Rush Limbaugh, but for those of you who do come by, I will always stand up for the right of fighting men to stand up for whatever they believe.

I think it would be good for the country, and especially for the Democratic Party, if Hackett won. We've argued that. We'll see who wins, soon enough; and if Hackett loses, I'll be fine with accepting it. I've got no special problem with his opponent.

The Marines are heavily conservative. Fighting men are -- they're used to fighting for something, and that means conserving it. But it's not true that every fighting man fights for something that already exists. Some fight for the world they want to see. Whether I agree or not, I'll defend their right to their position.

Rush decided to title his page "Paul Hackett Shows Libs Must Lie to Compete." Hackett may be a good officer or not, but he's sure not a liar. I resent the charge. I don't love everything he stands for, far from it, but I resent that charge with my blood.

Kingdom

For The Kingdom, If I Can...

Kim du Toit points to what might be a very serious business indeed.

A renegade band of Mexican military deserters, offering $50,000 bounties for the assassination of U.S. law-enforcement officers, has expanded its base of operations into the United States to protect loads of cocaine and marijuana being brought into America by Mexican smugglers, authorities said.

The deserters, known as the “Zetas,” trained in the United States as an elite force of anti-drug commandos, but have since signed on as mercenaries for Mexican narcotics traffickers and have recruited an army of followers, many of whom are believed to be operating in Texas, Arizona, California and Florida.

Kim has some hard words, but not hard enough. The government had better get its hands around this problem, or else it had better accept what comes with good grace. It won't be long before bounties like that begin causing the deaths of deputies. This is not something the citizenry will tolerate.

Where is "Black Jack" Pershing when you need him?

UPDATE: Parapundit has a lot more.

piracy

Piracy:

If I were not in such a foul mood, I would laugh loud and long at this:

Hackers found a way around Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) anti-piracy system last week, only a day after the system went into effect.

I know I should not have such a soft place in my heart for data pirates. They're nothing but thieves, I know. They steal the hard-earned work of honest programmers -- at least, the ones who aren't employed solely to try and beat them.

Still, you have to impressed by a show of mastery such as this. Microsoft hires the best minds it can find, and spent who knows how much money refining the system. They busted it in a day, apparently without having to reach deep into their playbook.

I can't help but have a certain respect for that.

UPDATE: Here is a story about a better class of pirate:

With the world wide web increasingly used as the main instrument of propaganda and communication for extreme religious groups like al-Qaeda, MI5 and patriotic hackers have formed an unlikely alliance to close down their sites.

Go get 'em, lads.

An old anecdote comes to mind: "A mule that has made 20 campaigns under Marius is still a mule."

I just noted this over at the Countercolumn blog.

I suppose Mr. Hackett is speaking to the 'base', but I'm not seeing where this is going to convince anyone else, and frankly it doesn't really reflect well on him, the Marines, or the Democratic party.

I'll have to find out what Dennis the Peasant has to say about this.

Butterfly

Remember you the butterfly
As a child you had to let go,
For she was born freedom to know
to chose to stay or to hie,
And she chose the horizon to try--
They always vanish, like the snow
Oh, with long knife to force heart's flow
That pain with blood might dry.

But recall the morn on high, cold rift,
When ice crested trees like a mane,
The sunrise glows on the snow drift
And the cold could be Death's feign;
A thing so fine, a priceless gift,
Ought to be honored with pain.

Well Done

The Gun Watch:

Here's an enlightening story about a teenage girl who shot a rapist who was attacking her.

The incident took place on County Road13, just north of McNab. According to the Hempstead County Sheriff's Office, Ben Haywood, 48, the teen told them Haywood began to hit her and tried to undress her, pulling her shirt off.

The girl got away from Haywood, according to the HCSO, and hid in a closet at the rear of the home. She was found by Haywood and once again he began to beat the girl. After a period of confrontation, the girl was able to grab a 9mm rifle from a gun rack that was near her and shot the alleged attacker -- hitting him in the left leg. She then fled to search for help.

Sheriff deputies arrived on the scene along with Pafford Ambulance Service, questioned the juvenile and released her to her parents. She suffered several scratches and bruises, according to deputies.

Now, that's a fellow who is storing his rifles loaded and unlocked... and good thing he did, eh?

Saftey, yes. Training, absolutely.

Rights first.

Hat Tip: Gun Watch.

EU Infamy

Hospitality:

I should not be shocked by infamous behavior, when it comes from members of the EU's ruling class. The EU is the natural home for every native intellectual enemy of traditional Western Civilization. Its advocates and princes are not only socialists, but scoundrels of the worst sort.

Here's proof:

Recalling a Scottish host who served him a plate of Scotland’s national dish, haggis and neaps... Chirac took a swipe at British cuisine. “You can’t trust people who cook as badly as that,” he declared.

Hospitality is one of the very few universal moral values. The relationship of guest and host is almost the only thing that is as sacred in Africa as in China, as important in Scotland as in France. Violators of the law of hospitality earn for themselves a deep and proper infamy.

What kind of a man insults a dinner that he was served as a guest? And not just the dinner, but his host? And not just his host, but his host's family, and entire people? I should not be shocked, but I am.

I am absolutely sure that traditional Frenchmen -- the kind of Frenchmen who made The Three Musketeers a best-seller for six generations -- would never engage in such behavior. It is only these base creatures, these EUnuchs, who cast aside their traditions as easily as they wish to cast aside that liberty for which the best men of Europe once fought and died.

Ex pede Herculeum: we know the whole from its parts. If this is the best man of EUrope, then let us keep the Europe of old. It may have produced wars and it may have produced worse, but at least it also produced gentlemen and men of honor.

Cassandra

Speaking of Cassandra:

...she has tagged me with another one of those things.

This one is entitled "What's on your nightstand?" That seemed like an odd question to me -- and, in point of fact, I don't have a nightstand anyway, that being one of the concessions to the lifestyle that keeps us moving every year. Furniture is somewhat limited. We have a very few nice pieces, mostly inherited, one or two we bought, a couple that we actually just found (including an antique trunk that was literally dug out of the mud at a nearby construction site, which the good lads working there gave me if I would only pick it up and carry it off). But we do without a lot of things we would have if we had a house of our own, to live in long-term.

However, tracking this back to its nest proves that the question had a deeper meaning to start with. It began among some of our gunbloggers, and the question "What's on your nightstand" meant, "What firearm do you keep ready when you sleep at night?" As to that Kim du Toit and I are in agreement as to what makes an ideal bedside gun: I keep a Smith and Wesson revolver, loaded with Winchester Silvertips in .44 Special. Kim has some good advice for keeping the thing safely around kids, and it happens that I agree with what he has to say there, too.

I don't load mine with Glasers, as I'm not worried about overpenetration issues -- my little boy sleeps on another floor, so there's no danger of that type. Anyway, the bullet is going where I want it to go. I can't promise "two X-rings" on the first two shots like Kim does, but I do put my first shot through the X ring every time. Usually, the second one drifts down and to the left into the ten ring, and the next 48 chew "one big, ragged hole" in the 8-10 ring on that part of the target. I don't think that's too bad for the .44 Special, which is a bear of a round though a pleasure to fire. If I'm not quite Kim du Toit, I'm not ashamed, either.

(By the way, have you seen Smith & Wesson's new Texas Hold 'Em Special? It's an engraved .38 that comes in a box with cards and poker chips. Allow me to take a moment to suggest that you probably should not join a poker game if you feel that you might need a revolver to get out of it again. In addition, the marketing photo has it sitting next to a hand that's two pair, Aces and Eights -- not the hand I would have chosen for a marketing photo, due to its history.)

Cassandra thought I'd have some interesting books on the nightstand. I don't have a nightstand, as mentioned, but I do have two large bookcases in the bedroom. There are plenty of interesting books there. I also have two Chinese guardian spirit sculptures, one from Zhejiang's XiHu and one from Shanghai. One of these I bought for myself, because I liked it, but the other one I've been carrying around for five years now although I bought it as a gift. My old close-combat teacher, Ken Caton, went missing while I was in China; I hope someday he'll turn up and I can pass it over to him. I assume, knowing Ken, that he is all right -- he just wants to walk unseen for a few years, for reasons of his own.

Anyway, if you happen to read this Ken, I have a gift for you.

The last thing that's close to the bed is a gift that was given to me: the working, scale-model catapult that Sovay gave me last year. It's a beautiful and beloved piece, good for hurling walnuts at neighbors.

So there you are. I'm supposed to get to tag people. I'm actually going to do it this time, but in a deferred fashion -- I want to tag Doc Russia. However, the tag won't take effect until after his birthday. He can tell us all about the new toys he ends up with.

B

Beauty & Misogyny

I've been thinking about this ever since I read Cassandra's post on the topic. I had decided not to say anything, on the grounds that it violates my general rule relating to relations between the sexes. That rule is this: "Women should teach girls to be women, and men should teach boys to be men." I don't try to tell anybody what a woman's place is, or what a woman should or shouldn't be like. In return, I'll thank you to let me raise up the boys I encounter (and especially any I father) to be fighting men of the old model.

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. We grant the founding principle of feminism -- women should be free to make their own decisions about what they want from life. You grant the opposite: so should men. We shake hands, and get on with being friends. It's like keeping separate bank accounts after a marriage: it just makes everything easier.

All that said, it's becoming obvious that somebody has to draw a line here.

Consider this article:

"Shoes," Sheila Jeffreys says, "are almost becoming torture instruments. During a woman's daily make-up ritual, on average she will expose herself to more than 200 synthetic chemicals before she has morning coffee. Regular lipstick wearers will ingest up to four and a half kilos during their lifetime." We are talking about Jeffreys' latest book, Beauty And Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices In The West, and she is in full flow about the horrors of what she calls "the brutality of beauty".

Nasty stuff, that, which leads to this conclusion:

Jeffreys, a revolutionary lesbian feminist, is pursuing her 30-odd-year mission to shift women out of their collective complacency. Beauty And Misogyny is her sixth book. Like the others, its central theme is an exploration of the use of sexuality by men to dominate women. Much of it is spent arguing that beauty practices - from make-up to breast implants - should be redefined as harmful cultural practices, rather than being seen as a liberating choice.

This is not a position restricted to revolutionary lesbian feminists, as Cassandra's post makes clear:

[A] woman ought to be doing [a particularly invasive sort of body modification] for her own satisfaction/convenience and not so she'll be 'good enough' to appear in your mental burlesque show after taking your kids to soccer, bringing home a paycheck and cooking your supper. When was the last time the man of the house checked in for a little intimate depilitation? Eyebrow tweezing? Surgery? Bikini wax? Maybe a Wonder Jock?

I think we need to get one thing clear. "Men" are not asking you to do any of this stuff.

When was the last time a man said, "And be sure to spend twenty minutes preparing yourself before we go out to the grocery store"?

I don't like lipstick. I've been trying to talk my wife out of it for years. She insists. "Hey, how about running out and grabbing a box of baking soda at the gas station?" Not until she's had a chance to shower, put on fresh clothes, and a little makeup...

Both of these authors identify genuinely awful trends, to which I'll gladly add a few more: body piercing, tattoos, hair-dying with harsh chemicals, wearing high heels even of the less-punishing variety. The problem is that everybody wants to lay this right down at the feet of men.

What's the evidence that men are driving this trend? Cassandra cites a Cosmo study on "what men want." Any of you guys out there ever been interviewed for one of these things?

Me either.

Cosmo is a fashion magazine published by women, for women. The only men they know are men who work in the fashion industry, i.e., not regular men. Men who are, as the article puts it, "accustomed" to certain standards of feminine appearance... because they're used to seeing it that way in porno movies.

I'm just going to go ahead and draw that line in the sand. Here it is:

Ladies, none of this is our fault. You're doing this to yourselves.

I love a beautiful woman first thing out of the bed in the morning, or with her hair slicked wet from a shower, in her work clothes, or just when she smiles for a moment and I can see that she's really happy. That's all I've ever asked from any of you. If I ever said, "Hey, why not wear a skirt today so I can see your pretty legs," I never stopped liking you (or your legs) when you decided to wear pants instead.

It's no fair blaming the fashion industry on us, like this:

Some designers are using 12-year-old girls in shows because their bodies are perfect to show off the type of clothing being peddled at the moment. Many men are sexually excited by this look, and the industry exploits this...

Nonsense. If it depended on us, the fashion industry would not exist. Period. It simply would wither away and die.

Now, I'm on your side as far as agreeing that this kind of thing is hideous, and ought to be stopped. I agree that women are beautiful, even (especially!) the ones who don't work at it too hard. Nobody loves strong-minded, independent women more than I do -- they're the only kind I like, in fact.

But let's not be throwing around words like "misogyny" here. This isn't our doing. No man anywhere is thinking in terms of using the fashion industry to keep women in line. Damn few of us remember, from day to day, that there is such a thing as a "fashion industry" at all.

You want this problem fixed? Stop listening to "the fashion industry" about what men want. Start listening to men. The ones who say, "Don't bother with curling your hair -- we're just going to pick up some nails at the hardware store," or "Who cares if you can't find your lipstick? Can we just go?"

And the next time the man in your life comes around and grabs you about the waist, some time when you're feeling tired and fuzzy and unattractive -- take an object lesson. We love you just the way you are.

Preferably, right now.

Paul Hackett

Paul Hackett for Congress:

I don't know if I have a single reader in Ohio, let alone in this district, but for what it's worth Grim's Hall endorses Reserve Major of Marines Paul Hackett for Congress. I do so with one reservation, and it's an important one: I don't like his position on gun rights, as I'll explain below. In the event that you should elect him, I think he's going to prove weak on this point and will need holding to the fire, more perhaps than his opponent would.

You all know what that issue means to me, so you'll understand that it's not lightly I'll endorse a fellow who strikes me as wobbly on the point. I think I'm right to say he's wobbly, though he is himself both a Marine and a gun owner. His statement is this:

I grew up with guns. I’ve been a hunter since I was kid.

I understand that guns in the wrong hands are deadly. They must be kept out of the hands of criminals. And we must demand that law-abiding citizens who do own guns, like me, use them safely, responsibly and in compliance with the law.

I have safety locks on my firearms. At home, they’re locked in a safe. When I go hunting outside of Ohio, I make sure I comply with the local gun laws.

All my friends who share my interest in hunting share my sense of responsibility toward the safe use and storage of their firearms.

As it happens, I also agree that guns should be used and kept safely. I'm no fan of "safety locks," but I agree that you should have a safe and you should keep your firearms locked up unloaded, except for the one or two you designate as for immediate defense. Even those should be kept in the safe or on your person, not in circumstances where kids can get at them or where they might get stolen.

Still, although I essentially agree with everything he said, it bothers me when a candidate (1) speaks to guns mostly in terms of hunting, which has nothing to do with the purpose and function of the 2nd Amendment, and (2) then speaks of them in terms of the need for "safety," which is a genuinely important issue that is nevertheless often misused by gun control advocates. Saftey, yes; but rights first. The proper statement isn't, "I've always had guns for hunting," but "I recognize the right of the individual to keep and bear arms in defense of the common peace."

His opponent doesn't mention her position on guns at all, but she does have the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, which points to a solid record of voting to defend gun rights. So, my reservation stands: I gather that his opponent is solid on the issue, while Major Hackett doesn't appear to understand the principles at work. He'll need a lot closer tending from his constitutents for that reason; but his constitutents are so devoted to the correct principles, to judge by how they have voted in the past, that I am sure they are up to the task -- or, at least, will replace him if he fails to uphold their interests.

My endorsement in spite of this large reservation comes because I think Congress could use a Marine and a veteran of Iraq, and because I respect his views on other issues. His position on the Iraq war is not my own, but he has earned the right to it, and I have no fear that he would fail to see the job through.

That is the main reason, but he does have some interesting things to say on other issues. His position on Social Security is interesting because I think he has the correct model in mind, although I'm not sure if he's thought through the consequences of that model based on what he says:

The administration has manufactured a crisis because it doesn’t believe the government should offer citizens this kind of insurance policy. The administration would prefer we treat social security as a money making investment account with all the risks that go along with such investments as opposed to what it is; an insurance policy. Just like car insurance when you pay the premiums you know and expect it will be there when you need it. We don't treat our car insurance like an opportunity to make money we shouldn't treat social security insurance that way either.

I think the insurance model is right. However, I think that advocates of the insurance model need to recall that retirement was, when SS was designed, a somewhat unlikely occurance; now, it is a virtual certainty. This means that the correct model is not automobile insurance, but life insurance.

What we need to do with Social Security is move the program from a thing like Term Life Insurance to a thing like Whole Life Insurance. Essentially, TLI is like renting a house -- you make payments that are relatively low, in return for which you have insurance only while you're making the payments. When you stop, the insurance stops. WLI is like buying a house: the payments are larger, but you build equity in the program, and can later "cash it out."

The reason TLI payments are lower is that it is really a proposition bet: the insurance company is betting that you won't die during the term. If you don't, they walk away winners -- they keep your money at no cost to themselves. WLI costs more because the insurance company knows it has to pay out sooner or later. While it's not likely that you'll die between 30 and 50, say, it's absolutely certain that you will die eventually. So, a program that offers payments whenever your death comes has to charge more and be structured differently than a program that is simply gambling on actuarial tables.

Social Security is in the trouble that it is because it is funded like a TLI, but now has payouts almost as certain as a WLI. It needs to be restructured to take account for that. This is not to say that I oppose personal accounts on principle -- after all, a WLI program is in fact an investment, with a cash value that is yours. I see no reason Social Security couldn't be funded in a similar fashion.

Still, it's not a money making scheme. It's an insurance program, and that's a good starting point for thinking about the issue.

I don't care for Hackett's position on health care; but I think he's right on the economy. We should be formulating our policies based on encouraging and developing small businesses. The small business is the modern equivalent of the yeoman farm: the man who owns one is free in a way that a man who works for a corporation never can be. That's nothing against corporations; it's just that owning your own business makes you freer to pursue your own vision of happiness, and that's what the American dream is all about.

While I find myself with strong disagreements and concerns about the gentleman on a few issues, and one of particular importance to me, my respect for his service -- and his good thinking on the issues in which I do agree with him -- overcomes most of my concerns. I am also convinced that the strongly Red nature of his district will motivate him to adopt a correct line of thinking if he wishes to enjoy the continued trust and support of his constituents. I think we do need a veteran of the Iraq war, and of Fallujah in particular, in office.

I have decided to endorse Major Hackett, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank him for his service. Semper Fi, sir, and good luck.