EXCLUSIVE: Col. Boylan Apologizes Abjectly To Glenn Greenwald!!!!

From: "Boylan, Steven COL MNF-I CMD GRP CG PAO"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 8:15 AM

Subject: Groveling Apology for Daring to Say Things You Disagree With (about A War That I Am Fighting) And Stipulation That Virtually Every Single Person Who Supports The War Is A Rabidly Right-Wing Partisan

Dear Glenn:

Dude...

The inspiring way in which you continually seize the moral high ground, nobly abjuring base ad hominid attacks and calmly employing facts and logic, has raised the tone of our discourse to such a rarified level that I now feel ashamed of my earlier communication with you. Who could face such a soaring example of the Left's oft stated belief in civility and respect for others without shrinking in shame?

The fact that a right-wing blogger spews serious accusations based on complete idiocy is ordinarily not worthy of comment. That happens virtually every day. That is what the right-wing blogosphere is, more or less; it is why it exists.

...I'm honestly interested in knowing: what else besides abject stupidity can explain this? I mean that as a serious question.

Largely as a result of your moral leadership, I'm writing to say I've had a change of heart. I now wish to confess my fault; my most grievous fault: indeed, my most manifold sins and wickedness against You and - with an humble and contrite heart - beg your forgiveness.

1. First, let me apologize for daring to voice an opinion at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, what the hell was I thinking? Looking back, I now realize this was way inappropriate.

Members of the armed forces should never presume the First Amendment rights they fight and die to defend apply to them; the Hatch Act and UCMJ notwithstanding. As every educated person knows, our fragile freedoms would evaporate in an instant if dangerous ideas lurking in the minds of rough, untutored military folk were allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas with those voiced by their vastly superior civilian masters. When the subject is war, the danger becomes even clearer as the military are the undoubted subject matter experts possessing both professional expertise and first hand knowledge while civilians are, of necessity, far less well informed by virtue of their training, experience, and proximity to events. In such cases, it is absolutely vital that only those military members who voice sentiments critical of the armed forces and the war effort be allowed to speak their minds. Theirs are the only honest, authentic, and non-partisan voices. For reasons that should be obvious to any thinking progressive, it is vital to our national debate that they be allowed to Bravely Speak Truth to Power. Under no circumstances must they be Silenced!

Those who support illegal, immoral military occupations, on the other hand, are obviously rabidly right-wing partisan hacks who must be stifled for the good of the nation. Mr. Greenwald, (can I call you Mr. Greenwald?) I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for showing me the logical errors in my former way of thinking. Surely only abject stupidity can explain such egregious lapses in judgment.

2. Secondly, regarding my gross unprofessionalism, let me apologize for thinking it was in any way appropriate for me (as a career military Public Affairs Officer) to attempt to correct the record on matters of fact regarding the military or the war effort. Again, WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING? This is not what Uncle Sam is paying me for. Enough said.

No, wait a minute. I am letting myself off too easily, aren't I?

I was (again) guilty of "abject stupidity" (not to mention gross partisanship) in accusing you of inaccuracy:

Most of Col. Boylan's claims of inaccuracy in what I wrote are grounded in his invention of "facts" that I did not assert. I never, for instance, said that Steve Schmidt (the Bush/Cheney P.R. flack and ex-Cheney "communications" aide) was currently on staff with the U.S. military in Iraq. Rather, I linked to an interview given to Hugh Hewitt by Mike Allen of The Politico, in which Allen reported that it was Schmidt who was sent to Iraq to improve the political efficacy of the U.S. military's war communications in Iraq...

In reviewing your exact words, I am at a complete lost to understand how I could have been so abjectly stupid as to think the words "the U.S. military in Iraq has become staffed with pure Republican political hacks" meant that Schmidt and Bergner were actually WORKING for the military, or that your statement that "these partisan and politically-motivated people" were "shaping U.S. military conduct" amounted to any kind of assertion on your part! Only a rabidly partisan political hack would make such an abjectly stupid error:

Throughout this year, the U.S. military in Iraq has become staffed with pure Republican political hacks -- including long-time Bush/Cheney P.R. hack Steve Schmidt and former White House aide Gen. Kevin Bergner. These are the most partisan and politically-motivated people around shaping U.S. military conduct. And it shows, as the Army's behavior in the Beauchamp case is exactly what one would expect from an increasingly politicized, Republican-controlled division of the right-wing noise machine.

Again, though anyone with even a passing familiarity with military assignments would surely know this, military aides cannot "choose" their jobs. We serve under both Democratic and Republican administrations (making the charge that a career military officer chosen by a MILITARY selection board to serve as a White House aide must be a "rabidly Republican partisan hack" highly debatable - what, pray tell, does that say about Clinton-era White House military aides?). But no doubt since you are a lawyer and a civilian, you know best. General Bergner was undoubtedly tainted by his tour in the White House and should have been cashiered immediately; perhaps taken out and shot for good measure. No doubt you would recommend exactly the same treatment for all former Clinton era aides since their loyalties are likewise suspect. It is best to be strictly non-partisan in these matters, don't you think?

3. Regarding the "increasing politicization of the military". Oh, you are so right, and the proof is in all these leaks that just keep on happening. Suspicious, aren't they?

I mean sure, there have been an awful lot of "leaks" of actual, classified (as in secret) information to the press. And oddly, you did not consider those leaks to be harmful, much less evidence of "politicization of the military" (or of the CIA) when they occurred. In fact, you were quite pleased and considered them a sign of a healthy democracy in which brave truth tellers are not "afraid" to come forward and break the law!

I must admit I am a bit confused on the point of exactly why you never seem to fulminate about "politicization" when opponents of the war illegally leak classified documents damaging to the administration or the war effort, but if non-classified information that conflicts with your preferred narrative is leaked, you immediately begin demanding investigations and accusing the military of malfeasance:

As the Beauchamp/TNR "story" demonstrates, the U.S. military is using the standard GOP/right-wing model for trying to shape the news in politically beneficial ways -- feeding supposedly secret and classified documents to Matt Drudge; using The Weekly Standard as its primary propaganda outlet, and working hand-in-hand with their apparent comrades in the most extremist precincts of the right-wing blogosphere. From the beginning, the U.S. military has refused to answer questions from the press, cut off The New Republic, cited classified and secrecy doctrines to suppress information, and all the while, worked secretly through selective leaks and back-channels with the most rabid right-wing partisans to shape the story in the most politicized way possible. Doesn't that merit at least some commentary?

The overt politicization of our military in Iraq -- working closely and in secret only with Drudge, The Weekly Standard and right-wing blogs -- seems at least as important as the monumental issue of what Franklin Foer knew and when he knew it.

So, when classified documents that harm the war effort are continually leaked to the media, is the U.S. military (perhaps that part of it that you all keep tell us is, any minute now, preparing to jump over to the DNC) "using the standard DNC/Left-wing model for trying to shape the news in politically beneficial ways?"

Amazing. Didn't think them fellers were that smart.

And then there's that whole PFC Beauchamp thing you keep going on about. Again, I remain a bit confused by why you don't smell a cover-up in the fact that the New Republic not only lied about the Army censoring Beauchamp but tried to pressure him into remaining silent so they could "control the story". That TNR wished to prevent Beauchamp from talking to anyone is corroborated by Foer himself:

Beauchamp, with the Army's encouragement, had agreed to talk to The Washington Post and Newsweek on Sept. 6, but canceled the interviews at the last minute at Foer's urging. Foer said yesterday that "given everything we have on the line, we have a right to have this exclusive line of communication with him."

Is Foer in league with those increasingly politicized scoundrels at CENTCOM and DoD too? What a rabidly right-wing partisan... the man is obviously in cahoots with the those Republican hacks at the administration. Good thing Foer (a completely disinterested and nonpartisan party if ever there was one) was able to keep Beauchamp from "leaking" the truth to the press, all while claiming the Army was trying to censor him against his will. We wouldn't want the corrupting influence of rabid political partisans with an agenda politicizing the military!

4. Finally, on the issue of the military's ongoing efforts to suppress bad news on the war:

Well, the proof is in the pudding, is it not? I mean, if there is one thing America has not seen much of during the past four years, it is bad news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what I'd consider prima facie evidence that the military's brutal attempts to intimidate the mainstream media have been an overwhelming success.

After all, the military are associated in the popular consciousness with guns and violence. Therefore, the mere act of verbally disputing any fact, opinion, or point of logic held by a civilian constitutes a veiled threat. It is all so obvious, isn't it?

The entire point is to terrify the recipient by reminding him a combat-addled, psychotic veteran may just show up on his doorstep when he least expects it and beat him senseless in some frenzied act of PTSD-induced rage... just like those Marines who suddenly snapped in the heat of cold blood from the stress of war and murdered innocent men, women and children at Haditha.

It's like Winter Soldier all over again: deja vu a grisly tale of repressed memories, the looming threat of imagined violence, and above all, the pseudo-intimidation:

The type of hostility, pseudo-intimidation, and stonewalling expressed by Col. Boylan here (in the emails of undisputed authenticity) is the type to which reporters are frequently subjected when they step out of line, particularly with war reporting. That is one reason why so few of them ever do.

And just survey the long list of media outlets and journalists which have been the target of swirling, right-wing lynch mob campaigns for perceived offenses in reporting about the war -- The Associated Press, Reuters, Eason Jordan, The New Republic, Ashleigh Banfield. There is a clear attempt to create strong disincentives for any journalist or commentator to do anything other than cheerlead loudly and deferentially.

Yes, there are few things in life more terrifying than pseudo-intimidation. Unless, of course, it's real intimidation. No doubt this explains why the number of combat embeds in Iraq has fallen, in a war the New York Times calls "worse by every conceivable measure" from a high of nearly 800 to fewer than 100 - all those brave truth tellers must have been ultra, ultra pseudo scared off.

In closing, Mr. Greenwald, let me say that you have opened my eyes to a new way of thinking. Previously my abjectly stupid prefrontal cortex would have been unable to grasp the near-perfect circular symmetry of your distinctive argumentation techniques. Luckily, right after I learned that Air America host Randi Rhodes had not, as her co-host had reported on air, been beaten up by conservatives I happened upon this mildly ironic comment at The Moderate Voice and suddenly you began to make perfect sense:

It’s not a huge leap to jump from viewing conservatives as those for whom ‘lying is second nature, if not first’, who make up the most corrupt Administration in history, who trash the Constitution and who stop at nothing to get their way to accusing them of committing violence. C’mon, if the GOP was willing to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections, beating up a woman who dares to speak truth to power is no big deal. Once you tell yourselves enough times that the right hates women, especially women with brains, it’s a small step to figuring they’re no longer satisfied with abusing women verbally. Since the right obviously isn’t happy limiting themselves to violating our civil rights on a daily basis, it makes sense that they’d turn to beating up their critics.

False story, but accurate… because every conservative is a potential mugger. If they haven’t yet turned to beating up their critics, it’s just a matter of time.

It's all about those progressive values: tolerance, open mindedness, the refuse to engage in ad hominem attacks, integrity. That's what makes you guys better than the Other.

And that's why I owe you an apology.

Steve

Steven A. Boylan

Colonel, US Army

Public Affairs Officer

war on garbage

Marines Declare War:

...on garbage. Ramadi must be a pretty quiet posting these days.

Stroturf

Astroturfing, Again:

IVAW is still at it.

Cassidy

On the Children of War:

Cassandra asks a hard question: What do we owe the children of our dead? The answer seems self-evident; and the sad thing is, we all know that there is not one chance that they'll get it out of American society.

Ouch

Oof!

Talk about a beating. Man alive.

Nobody likes being on the wrong side of serious security arrangements. We've got Ugandans here too. They are a little distant, but that's because they're not thinking of you as a person -- they're thinking of you as a potential suicide bomber, who will kill them first if you kill anyone. If they're a bit cold, it's because they're scared of you, and everyone else they see, and they see ten thousand people a day who might be coming to kill them.

It's respectable enough to regret the necessity for such things, and to hate that we have to treat each other -- even fellow Americans -- with suspicion. I hate it myself.

But it's not the guards. It's the terrorists.

UPDATE: The post is gone, which is a shame because the 197 wrathful comments were a joy. Greyhawk captured the post, however.

Running Man

Running Man:

Wretchard asks how far you can run without a support structure. The answer really depends on who "you" are, and where you are. It is possible to live off the land, if not easy to do so; and don't miss his story of the Japanese soldier who fought his war for thirty years after surrender.

Heh

Wow:

It's not often that a post manages to be both patronizing and right-on. Get some, girl.

Contractors

Diplomatic Contractors:

I'm fascinated by this concept. I'm accustomed to military contractors, being one myself; but watching State do what MPRI does is really interesting. We know why the story is in the news now, but it's still bigger news than most people realize. My sense is that this story is correct: State and CIA are both so tied to Blackwater in Iraq that they hit a period where they were stalled because it was stalled.

That's something that shouldn't be allowed to happen; but it's not clear why it did happen. If State were guarding its own convoys with internally owned security assets, it wouldn't allow them to become shut down. The separation here is artificial -- State needs these assets, whether it owns them or contracts them -- but it allows State to plausibly deny responsibility.

For a diplomat, that would be a useful advantage. "It's not me!" he can cry, pointing his finger at the guy he hired to do the job. It won't hurt Blackwater, not in the long run, because the country needs what they've got. It isn't honest, but then, diplomacy often isn't.

I say call his bluff.

Hell, its not like they don't speak the language, que?

Death & Women

Death & Women:

The Economist tells us that men die young from chasing girls. It makes a good counterpoint to the discussion on socialized medicine, below. The concept at work there applies also here -- smoking or drinking can reduce your lifespan, and incur costs that spread beyond yourself; but, because you died young, you're saving society from other costs that it would incur on your behalf if you lived to an old age. This includes a vast array of medical expenses (15 pills a day for forty years, numerous operations, etc) as well as retirement/pension benefits.

There are then two questions. The lesser one is the one we've asked here: If there are social costs either way, why not let people be 'drunk or sober, just as they please'?

The bigger question: Aren't women worth dying for? I always thought so.

AAR

AAR:

Greyhawk couldn't make it out here a week ago, but he did come by last night. It was a pleasant dinner. He and I turn out to have a lot more in common than you'd expect, and I greatly enjoyed the evening. He has some good stories, including even some horse stories pertaining to his sister's family, that you've not heard yet. If you run into him, pry them out. :)

FREEDOM AND THE HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC

FREEDOM AND THE HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC

Those are the themes of two books that I enthusiastically recommend to the readers of this fine blog. The first book, Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children, deals with exactly what the title states. Although I have not finished reading this book I am very impressed with what I have read so far. Nevertheless, the author, David Harsanyi, deals with a subject that has been a great concern of mine for some time, the rise of the therapeutic welfare state and the corresponding loss of individual freedom and the damage this development is doing to the American character. Additionally, Mr. Harsanyi touches on something that has never ceased to disturbingly amaze me when he observes:

“The fact that politicians, bureaucrats, and activists long to be our parents is not new. What is inexplicable, though, is the swiftness with which Americans have allowed these worrywarts to take on the job. It’s a dramatic about-face from our traditional attitudes toward overreaching government. Some Americans (still too few) are beginning to wonder: When exactly did we lose our right to be unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, and intolerably foolish?”

Hmmm. Over to you Mr. C.K. Chesterton:

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man more than a dog.”

What do you think John Wayne?

“Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat - the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound as a man. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.”

Read the book!

The other book is The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money. This book details how, contrary to public perception, big business loves big government and regulation and how both parties, Republican and Democrat, love big business. The book also illustrates how taxpayers are footing the bill for this love affair. If you think regulations on business are there for your protection think again. Warning, don’t read this book if you don’t want to get mad.

Oh, by the Way, Gene Simmons, the front man for KISS, is coming out with his own edition of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The only thing necessary to complete this circle of insanity would be for Gen Mattis to record a cover of Love Gun.

Torture & Virtue

Torture, Virtue & Virtue Ethics:

We've talked about the famous Zimbardo study before, where people were divided into prisoners and prisonkeepers, and immediately became bestial. If you remember the discussion, you will still find this article to be interesting -- just skip down to "the shocking events of the SPE..." and following.

The author concludes:

People, moreover, are not all alike. The research described by Zimbardo shows a surprising level of bad behaviour in the experimental situations, but nothing like uniformly bad behaviour. First, there are active perpetrators and fearful but humane collaborators. Both of these are morally defective, but in different ways. Finally, there are whistle-blowers who do have the strength to challenge the system, and Zimbardo devotes his final chapter to the characteristics of such people. So he himself knows that the individual does matter, and he is actually very interested in asking not only how situations can be better designed but also how people can be brought up to be good actors in bad situations.

This is the whole point of virtue ethics: to create the kind of man who rises above his situation, who does what is right because it is right. Yet, as Aristotle noted, it takes "the proper upbringing" to create such a man. You must put him in the right kind of situation in order to train him to object to, and reform, the wrong kind.

This piece seems to agree, and suggests that the study is flawed in that it can't address the question ("the sort of self-report questionnaire used by psychologists before such experiments can tell us little about subtle differences in upbringing and education that contribute to [some people being virtuous]"). The study is still valuable, however, in that it shows that "normal" people are strongly predisposed to turning to viciousness in bad situations. That is not the mark of a flawed character. It is the mark of a normal character.

That creates an interesting problem. In order to be virtuous, you have to have as your goal to be a better person than is normal: you have, in other words, to have a personal commitment to being special, better, different. But the belief that you are any of those things is just the kind of belief that can give rise to the most serious sorts of abuses:

One particularly chilling example involves schoolchildren whose teacher informs them that children with blue eyes are superior to children with dark eyes. Hierarchical and vindictive behaviour ensues. The teacher then informs the children that a mistake has been made: it is actually the brown-eyed children who are superior, the blue-eyed inferior. The behavior simply reverses.

All ethical systems have to either struggle with that problem, or ignore it; they have to endorse the idea that the great are good, as Maoism did, or else try to remind the great that they are also sinners, as Catholicism does. That is one sense in which Catholicism is categorically better than Maoism.

Even when the system is better, however, there is plenty of evidence of failure. It can happen because the system becomes broken, so that priests become pardoners. It can also happen because the great refuse to accept that they are not good:

"For my vow," said the Templar, "our Grand Master hath granted me a dispensation. And for my conscience, a man that has slain three hundred Saracens, need not reckon up every little failing, like a village girl at her first confession upon Good Friday eve."

Then, of course, there is the problem of bad men: for just as the worst situation does not produce universal viciousness, so there are some men who will not turn to virtue even in the best of times and places. The world is what it is, and humanity is, and at last we can only do the best that we can.

A Mother's Love

A Mother's Love:

Something I wish I'd understood earlier in life is how much my parents loved me. It's something you don't comprehend until you are a parent yourself; there just is not a comparable experience in life. Even romantic love, which can send a man into the greatest heights or make him long for death, is not of the same quality as the love of a parent.

As a result, I was as this young man is, always headed out the door. I'm sorry for that.

JSOTF-P II

JSOTF-P Part II:

The second part of that series is now up. As I noted at BlackFive, the MILF and the AFP held a joint medical operation this week. What Colonel Maxwell wanted to create, is happening just as he wanted it to happen.

It's interesting to watch a COIN operation that is hitting on all cylinders. We're starting to see the early formations of this kind of potential in Iraq with the Anbar Awakening and -- even more -- with the Concerned Citizens' Program outside Anbar. It's still at a much earlier phase, but then, we don't have the investment in Iraq that we have in the RP. We've been there, in one form or another, for a hundred years.

Wednesday

Wednesday Links:

I'm sorry I haven't had time to do the usual analysis and thought pieces. I'd like to do more of that, but they keep me quite busy over here.

On the other hand, I do have a good piece to offer you. The Joint BlackFive-PMI Embed to the Philippines series has begun, and will run in three parts this week at the Long War Journal. The other great journal of COIN theory, Small Wars Journal, put it at the top of their midweek reading list.

Part II should be up soon, and Part III on Friday.

Lie Mongering, Swift Boating Haters of Hate!!!!

Fear Mongering, Dirty, Lowdown Lying Swift Boating Haters of Hate!!!!

Will the filthy, intolerant Swift Boating Haters of Hate never stop?

Elliott claimed the alleged attack took place near the corner of 39th Street and Park Avenue. He said that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit and had neither a purse nor jewelry, leading to his speculation that "this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."

"Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own?" he asked. "Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that we're winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?"

Incroyable....

Personal Responsibility

The Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refuses to accept final death appeals outside of working hours. This pisses off the lefty crowd quite a bit.
What I cannot fathom is the following logic:

"When Sharon Keller barred the courthouse doors to lawyers for Michael Richard, she killed Mr. Richard as surely as if she had put a bullet into his head on the courthouse steps. There can be very little doubt that, had Keller not acted as she had, Mr. Richard would be alive today."

Huh? Last I checked the case... Michael Richard invaded a home, raped a 53year old woman, shot her in the head with a pistol, then proceeded to make off with her stuff. When caught and facing the material evidence... he confessed. Icing on the cake is how it's "Sharon Keller" instead of Judge Keller and "Mr. Richard" instead of scumbag Michael Richard.

Grits for Breakfast, generally smarter than your average bear, can't seem to understand who the victim is. Have fun reading the comments... maybe someone else can explain to me how the Judge is at fault for this scumbags premature death.

UF

"Unnecessary Force"

Congratulations to Uncle Jimbo of BLACKFIVE for his first starring role in a feature film.

Speaking of unnecessary force, there is a good post today on the Knights Templar at the Volokh Conspiracy. It treats a new book that shows how the legal process used to destroy the Order was known to be based on false charges.

Greyhawk notices that unnecessary force can hurt you. Just ask the Madhi Army. Bonus situational awareness: guess which unit's AO this news is from?

Cold Steel has a new Bowie knife design, the "Natchez." I'm trying to decide if it represents an improvement over its older Bowie design, the "Laredo." I think the blade shape looks more efficient, but the overall length may push it past the point at which the blade is managable for most people. (You can ignore the absurd prices listed at the bottoms of those pages; the Laredo will run you around a hundred bucks if you buy one off eBay, and the Natchez, though brand new, you can have for not much more than half what they suggest.)

Unnecessary force? Could be. If I had one, I'd test it out properly and let you know. Since I don't, I'll open the floor for comments.

Sunday notes

Sunday Notes:

Miss Ladybug has a book review that might be of interest to you.

The wags at Arts & Letters Daily linked to this article with the following poem:

Red sky at night,
Sailor's delight.
Red sky at morning?
It's global warming.

Which, by the way, is connected in a way that might not be immediately obvious with this article on dieting. The point is -- how much is "scientific consensus" actually worth in the short term?

Cassandra will like this quite a bit. For what it's worth, I transported an iron all the way to Iraq in my sea bag, so I could press my pants and shirts in the mornings. I seem to be the only one in Iraq who did, though mostly that's because the ACUs are wash-and-wear. Otherwise, we'd all have irons (excepting certain lazy civilian contractors).

Speaking of Iraq, are we winning? The UK's Prospect thinks so.

A tribute to Al Gore, our rightful President; a man for our times:

Why I don't trust SWAT teams:

Alcohol - Not just for breakfast anymore

Rum, vodka, and whisky. Besides being great drinks... they are also the cure for severe poising.

Dr Fraser said: “He managed to go through three bottles of my finest before we ran out of that, but that got us through until the bottle shop opened.

Full story here.

Birthday

Happy Birthday to Me:

My birthday starts in about three hours here, or seven hours there. I'll be spending part of it working, of course, but for part of it I'm going to meet up with Greyhawk of the Mudville Gazette. As you know, Hawk and I served together in Easy Company, Milbloggers. He says we'll celebrate by harmonizing "Dog Face Soldier" over some non-alcoholic beer (thanks to General Order #1, still in force after all these years).

That sounds like it could be OK, actually.

Burying the Lede on Army Recruiting

Why, oh why am I not surprised it took until halfway through the WaPo's article on Army recruiting to mention the real cause of the impending officer shortage? And no, it's *not* the war:

According to Army data, the overall attrition rate for captains averaged 12.2 percent from 1999 to 2007. But the estimated captain deficits for the past year were pronounced in some fields that require heavy deployments, such as military intelligence, where the Army is short 10
percent; transportation, where the gap reaches 21 percent; and aviation, where the shortfall is 11 percent.

Army officials said the projected officer shortage is mainly the result of the Army's plan to add 65,000 active-duty soldiers to its ranks -- including more than 6,000 captains and majors -- by 2010.

...Army surveys show that the bonuses would persuade 40 to 55 percent of captains who intended to leave to sign new contracts. The Army's goal is for 85 percent of those eligible to stay on, either taking the bonus or another incentive such as attending graduate school or selecting their next post. About 600 of the 900 captains who chose incentives other than bonuses picked graduate school.

...Army officials acknowledge that many eligible captains -- those promoted to that rank on or after April 1, 2002 -- would have stayed regardless. They say that they will not know whether the incentives are attracting officers who would have left until at least 70 percent sign up.

The officials said that while $35,000 might tilt wavering captains toward staying, it is unlikely to change the minds of those fundamentally opposed to three more years with likely war-zone duty.

Incroyable! You mean the "shortage" is *not* about a broken Army unable to recruit due to the horrible strain of Iraq and Afghanistan?

If the Army was fundamentally too short of personnel to fight a protracted war now, they were going to be fundamentally too short to fight any significant conflict. In other words, the force was either too small or the composition of forces wasn't well suited to the tasks the Army was called upon to perform. And we can't "grow" mid-level officers overnight.

This is a problem bringing back the draft won't solve.

Bottom line: this shortage predated the war, but Congress didn't have to deal with it until the Army and Marine Corps were called upon to perform the services for which we pay them. Labelling it a result of the GWOT is misleading and inaccurate. We keep hearing that Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping up from dealing with "greater threats". But how can the Army and Marines be expected to deal with Iran, if it comes to that, if we were too shorthanded to deal with Iraq?

That's a question you won't see addressed too often in the media.

Jackbooted Oppression Alert!!!

Jackbooted Oppression Alert!!!

Now the BushReich is forcing their antediluvian, Red State values on SouthWest Airlines:

A video on Breitbart.TV is headlined, "Southwest Airlines Sorry for Making Man Remove Vulgar T-Shirt". I don't know why, when the man in question wore a T-shirt with the words "MASTER BAITER" printed in large type on the back and front of the shirt. With a huge "Ain't I a stinker?" grin on his face, he told a television reporter, "To undress in front of 132 people, to put a new shirt on, I was unbelievably embarrassed."

Not content with destroying our freedoms, now they want the clothes off of our backs. Olbermann was reich right.

This is how freedom dies.

Update: more violations of our Constitution rights!!!! No man should be forced to suffer for the sake of his Art:

"This lawsuit is about a corrupt little county in Virginia and making sure they can't do this to anyone else ever again," he said.

At times like these, I fear for my country.

Bonus update: Now Greyhawk is trying to SwiftBoat a true American hero, just for speaking truth to power!

The big phony. Who does he think he is???

Greetings from Camp Victory

Greetings from Camp Victory:

I'm here now. I don't have a lot of time to blog, because (a) I can't do it on official computers anyway, and (b) I'm very busy. But I wanted you to know I got here, and everything is fine. It looks like you folks have had a good week or so here, which I'm glad to see. I'll keep you advised as I can.

SERINITY THE SEQUAL

SERINITY THE SEQUAL

According to this story there is talk about making a sequel to Serenity. As a dyed in the wool Firefly fan I find this very exciting.

Help with the decision by buying the new release of Serenity.

I want to know what they will do about Wash!

Big Yellow Clue Bus Finally Stops At Yale....

Big Yellow Clue Bus Finally Stops At Yale....

...thus proving a fancy Ivy League education does produce *some* critical thinking skills:

Yale will be one of nearly 200 law schools that the Air Force’s judge advocate corps will visit this year, said Capt. Eric Merriam, the chief of recruiting for the corps.

“We appreciate the opportunity to explain the opportunities for qualified attorneys to serve the United States as members of the Air Force JAG Corps,” he said.

Still, the court decision does not appear to have stifled any bitterness over the recruiters’ visit. A coalition of law school faculty, students and staff members were to release a letter on Monday strongly disagreeing with the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, and gay rights activists at the law school planned a silent protest for the afternoon.

And not everyone here thinks that the fight was worth it. Stephen Vaden, a third-year law student and an opponent of don’t ask, don’t tell, said the school would be better able to effect change in the military’s policies if more students were exposed to career opportunities within the armed forces.

“I think that those individuals who want to change the don’t ask, don’t tell policy are going about it in completely the wrong way,” said Mr. Vaden, president of the Yale Law Republicans. “Standing in the courtroom, screaming ‘Discrimination!’ and trying to ban them from the law school,” he added, “they’re doing themselves more harm than good.”

Ms. Jeruss and other students said that their protest was not aimed at the recruiters personally, and Captain Merriam said that the JAG Corps’ recruitment efforts would not be affected by any dissent at Yale. But students promised that as long as the don’t ask, don’t tell policy was in effect, they would demonstrate whenever military recruiters travel here.

“We may not be able to stop the recruiters from coming, but we certainly still have the ability — and I think, the responsibility — to speak out,” said Addisu Demissie, a third-year law student. “That’s what we have left.”

Yep. Full and unfettered freedom of speech and the benefit of a first class legal education. Oh... and $350 million in federal grants. And in return, all you need do is allow the other guy an equal chance to present his position. If you can't make these things work in your favor, there is something seriously wrong with your position, wouldn't you say?

America. What a country.

THE PHONEY CONTROVERSEY OVER RUSH LIMBAUGH’S COMMENTS

THE PHONEY CONTROVERSEY OVER RUSH LIMBAUGH’S COMMENTS

The non-story about Media Matters misrepresentation about Rush Limbaugh’s comment about phony soldiers is the subject of this excellent article by Andrew C. McCarthy. Read it here.

What gets lost in the carping by the left about Rush’s comment is that Rush was talking about an earlier ABC News story by Charles Gibson entitled STOLEN VALOR that focused on scam artists posing as War heroes. Some of these poseurs have been very active in the anti-war movement.

It bears noting that few civilians have donated as much money to military charities as Rush Limbaugh. Whether you agree with him or not, his actions have demonstrated that servicemen and women have few supporters as generous as Rush Limbaugh.

"David Hume was talking bullshit"

-One of the commentors, over at Samizdata. At least it's not mincing words. Heh.

The post itself and the discussion in the comments are quite interesting, and is sort of a companion piece to my previous post on the violence in Burma, and failure of a lot of people to recognize it for what it is--the repression of an unarmed popluace by an armed government.

As author of the post says:

"In Burma, as in so many other places, many people seem to have thought
that opinion, namely the good intentions of the majority, were more important
than firepower - they appear to be mistaken."

I like that. I 'm going to steal that.

Presidential politics, made easy.

Take this quiz, and see who your candidate is.

Be honest, now.

(No, I don't know how its weighted.)

The picture made me laugh.

I think this is the first time I've seen this anywhrere else: Roger Simon over at Pajamas Media makes the case that had Al Gore won the 2000 election, the USA would be in largley the same place today.

Oh, and check out the comments. Michael Totten thinks so too!

Fantasies of the Left and Right.

So, Michael Scherer writes this piece for Salon, fantasizing about "religious conservatives" who are basically fantasizing about "blackmailing" Rudy Guilani (or any 'pro-choice' Republican candidate) over their views on abortion by backing a 'third party' anti-abortion candidate.

This is fantasizing on a lot of levels. First, there's the fantasy of clowns like James Dobson thinking that they really have some power to wield. Second, there's the fantasy of left wing writeres like Scherer, creating a boogey man of 'religious conservatives' that can be used to 'build up the hate' as I like to say. And it basically serves both sides. Dobson gets presented as being relevant, and Scherer gets to frighten his readers about this supposed threat from religious conservatives.

I find it ironic how they actually feed on each other.

Update: One of the guys over at Powerline thinks pretty much the same thing.

"...Burmese wanted to know why George Bush hasn’t invaded their country yet.”

Yeah, well that isn't going to happen any time soon. And again we see a demonstration of what happens to an unarmed populace with a government not afraid to use deadly force.

Catching this item over a memeorandum, I clicked through the various blogs commenting on this, and none of them really seem to get it. There is cursing at an impotent UN, there are snide remarks about big oil companies, a few comments about China, a remark about Condolezza Rice "doing something", as if words are going to fix this. They just don't get it.

Ace is angry.

From his post:

As far as I'm concerned, the left owns this guy lock stock and barrel. They programmed him with their bullshit and wound him up like some killbot and set him loose on the world. Words matter. When you use hyperbolic bullshit as a political tool and insist its not hyperbole, there are going to be some percentage of weak minded idiots like this who really take that bullshit seriously and act on it. Its very Newtonian and predictable. Action, reaction. Its the exact same thing as the abortion clinic bombers which the left always loves to point out.

And, Ace has a point. The upcoming election here in the US is going to be fascinating to watch, if you can detach yourself some, just to see how it plays out.

Heh. Looks like they just figured it out, after all.

HANOVER, N.H. - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

This makes me giggle, for some reason.

Again, it's about conservatives

Once Again, it's all About the Conservatives:

You'd not have thought so, given that the story is really about Columbia; I thought we were more or less agreed that the Ivy Leagues were the last bastion of liberals. But no, those blasted conservatives are screwing up the world again.

UPDATE: Of course, as Dr. Helen reminds us, psychologists agree that conservatism is a kind of disease. That would be more convincing if psychology was an actual science, rather than a form of sympathetic magic with seminars and papers; but for what it's worth, there it is.

What's with this?

It's like that old Steve Martin routine about Las Vegas. "Wow, Look at the tits!"

That said, it looks like Andrew Sullivan is irritated that some people are assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the next President, and that she might, just might, not pull out of Iraq after all.

I'm afraid I'm going to remember that picture though, long after I forget about the article.

I have to go find some eye-bleach now.

Snipers

Against Snipers:

Doubtless you saw the most recent attack on American tactics by the US press.

The Army on Monday declined to confirm such a program exists.

"To prevent the enemy from learning about our tactics, techniques and training procedures, we don't discuss specific methods targeting enemy combatants," said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman.

Boyce also said there are no classified programs that authorize the murder of Iraqi civilians or the use of "drop weapons" to make killings appeared to be legally justified, which is what Vela and the two other snipers are accused of doing.

The transcript of a court hearing for two of the three accused snipers makes several references to the existence of a classified "baiting" program but provides few details of how it works.... The Post said that although it doesn't appear that the three alleged shootings were specifically part of the classified program, defense attorneys argue that the program may have encouraged them by blurring the legal lines in a complex war zone.

So, to recap: the Army "declined to confirm" the existence of a program that doesn't appear to be connected to the matter at hand, but since the unconnected program that might exist is classified, we thought it was news. (Our editor notices that the Army actually denied that it had a program anything like the one we're reporting exists -- "there are no classified programs that authorize the murder of Iraqi civilians or the use of "drop weapons" to make killings appeared to be legally justified." However, we'll just fold that into "declined to confirm," rather than lead with the denial. That way, we're being objective!)

Meanwhile, Marine father Herschel Smith argues that we should just close sniper schools. "The rules of engagement prevent targeting the enemy in Iraq or Afghanistan if they do not fall within the precise stipulations (e.g., self defense, engaged in hostile acts, etc.). Within the current framework, we may as well end the sniper schools and rely on standard service rifle training of infantry. The number of sniping kills due to defensive operations doesn’t justify the expense of the schools."

The Truth, can you handle it?

More.

And more.

I thought this was going to turn out worse than it did. As many, I didn't think that the President of Columbia University would say the things that he did. Curious indeed.

(via American Digest)

Bandit

This is a shame. I was in Phoenix that weekend and I'm glad (sort of glad- miss the family) to be back to see how this plays out.



Sgt. Thomas Lovejoy, a Chandler police K-9 handler, has an arraignment hearing in justice court in Chandler at 9 a.m.

Lovejoy was arrested Sept. 5 by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputies after he left Bandit, a 5-year-old Belgian Malinois dog, in his patrol car on Aug. 11 for more than 12 hours, deputies said.

STEK Toothpick

Buffalo Toothpick:

STEK knives, which I've mentioned from time to time, have a particularly nice piece up for sale right now. If any of you are in the market, and it seems right for your arm, you might want to consider it.

Laughter is...

Laughter is...

...the best medicine:

Asked about executions of homosexuals in Iran, Ahmadinejad said the judiciary system executed violent criminals and high-level drug dealers, comparing them to microbes eliminated through medical treatment. Pressed specifically about punishment of homosexuals, he said: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

With the audience laughing derisively, he continued: "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

The spectacle of autocrats held up to public laughter is just what America is all about. I know we've all had reason to question Columbia's judgment here, but let's give them their due.

2 from AL D

A Couple from Arts & Letters Daily:

While I've been gone, Arts & Letters Daily has been carrying on as usual with collecting fine and interesting articles. Here is one against legalizing drugs, at least always and in general. I cite it for two reasons: because it runs down one of our favorite writers, Theodore Dalrymple, and because it does so in part through citation of Aristotle:

To accept the addict’s account at face value does not require a bleeding heart. The problem of moral weakness was frankly recognized and brilliantly analyzed by the tough-minded Aristotle who put great emphasis in both his ethical and political theories on a psychological phenomenon he called akrasia. This Greek term literally means “without power,” and it refers to a lack of mastery over the self—a state of helplessness in respect to one’s appetites, passions, and impulses. It is defined in contrast to the concept of enkrateia, which represents the exact opposite kind of character—the person who has obtained mastery over himself, and who can control and regulate his passions and impulses. The dieter, for example, who follows his self-imposed regimen strictly and faithfully, is displaying enkrateia, while the dieter who goes off his diet because he cannot resist the lure of a strawberry milkshake is an example of akrasia....

Aristotle’s analysis is helpful in seeing where Dalrymple’s treatment of the addict falls short, since the concept of akrasia allows us to recognize that there will inevitably be large groups of human beings who will be unable to control their own lives—a group that will naturally exhibit all the signs of the impetuous personality.... In Aristotle’s political theory, such human beings are classified as “natural slaves” who must be governed by others because they are completely unable to govern themselves. Today we find Aristotle’s theory objectionable, despite the fact that in even the most advanced societies many people are “enslaved” to drugs, to alcohol, to gambling, and to sex. Indeed, Aristotle could rightly point out that no society has ever existed that achieved the complete elimination of the weak-willed and the impetuous, if only because each rising generation will consist of children who, by nature, lack the self-mastery that can only be achieved by the right upbringing—if even then.

In modern America, due to our own cultural baggage, Aristotle's concept of "natural slaves" is one that is normally not well explained or thoughtfully considered. This is one occasion when it is well done. The writer has a good point, as well: it is America's business to set men free. That is what America is for.

There are occasions when men are almost free, but for one addiction that drives them -- we have all known men like this. They are not "natural slaves" but to alcohol, say. Insofar as the state helps them achieve the discipline they require, it is making free men out of slaves; that is to say, it is doing the one thing that is the highest purpose of the state.

Yet to avoid trampling the freedom of others, or even that one man's freedom, it must be done carefully and thoughtfully. If you are to free him, you must help him to achieve self-mastery, not throw him in prison. If that cannot be done, and there are many addicts who are not ready to move out of their addiction -- here is where Dalrymple is right to say that their chief problem is that they do not want to do so -- then the state is not helping him achieve a greater freedom. It is just locking him up.

The reasons to do that are not legitimately "to help him." The notion that imprisonment is or can be rehabilitative is one of the worst errors of our society; it is a historic error of thought that has been disproven by experience. Our whole prison system is built around the error, which leads to massive failures and needless expense, and worse, to having a huge subset of "free" Americans who are employed in guarding other Americans. We have not found a workable alternative to our prison system, but I remain convinced that we need one. I would rather return to the days of hanging people for everything from grand theft up, than continue as we are; or to consider another form of dealing with crime that we have not yet tried.

On a much lighter note, a report from a lecture series on Mencken. Well, sort of:

Hamilton’s lecture was just the first of three in the Mencken celebration. Saturday afternoon, Anthony Lewis gave the keynote address. Lewis was for a columnist for the New York Times for more than 30 years, and is unabashedly liberal. He began his lecture, “Beyond Scorn,” by acknowledging that he was very fond of scornful Mencken, but knew less about the man than most in the room. Lewis instead railed against the Bush Administration, against CIA “black sites” in Europe, against alleged torture of war prisoners, against the denial of habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees. “Scorn is not adequate for the profundity of today’s disasters,” he said.

Lewis did bring the lecture around to Mencken. He doubted that the tools of the writer who skewered William Jennings Bryan and Warren G. Harding, describing the latter as “of the intellectual grade of an aging cockroach,” would suffice in this moment in history. “Mencken’s work is unequal to the scale of today’s disasters,” he said.

At least things were better in the Q&A session.

A man in the back of the room raised his hand, and Lewis called on him. He was not the typical Mencken fan. Typical Mencken fans are old; this guy was young. Typical Mencken fans dress in suits on Saturdays; this guy wore a neon pink hat, sunglasses, and a fanny pack. Typical Mencken fans ask silly questions meant to be jabs at Bush; this guy asked, “Can you give some examples of the sexual torture that you talked about?”

It is true what they say. There is nothing like the pursuit of knowledge.

Oh, son...

Oh, Son...

I see that Gwa.45 has been shopping in my absence...

Talks of cowboy assault rifles enter the gun discussion, and somewhere, in the chat, both Toxic Brain and I have crossed over a line.

I love a lever action. The "Green Marlin" is something to see.

Back Home

Back Home:

I've returned from a fun and relaxing vacation. Fall has apparently arrived while I was gone -- I mowed for what will probably be the last time before I left, but now it's already time to start raking.

I can see you've had some interesting discussions while I've been gone. That's good to know.

Give me a day or so to settle back in, and I'll see if I can't find something useful to talk about.

"Embarrassing Gaffe" Alert

Obviously the Princess quit blogging too soon.

While we are all waiting for Grim to get back, does anyone happen to remember what the Princess was doing last Friday?

It's been a busy week. The blog princess had an interesting experience today. She got to sit in on a conference call with incoming press secretary Dana Perino at the White House. Ms. Perino, as she has been the few times we've managed to catch her on the television, was both articulate and informative...

...The President talked with 250 Marines at Quantico today. One of them asked him, "Where are all the Nelson Mandelas of Iraq?"

He said, "Saddam killed them all." The President reminded the Marines that anyone who espoused or defended freedom was killed off under Saddam. So the Iraqis are not starting from the same place as many other countries. And our own march to democracy was not a smooth one. Condoleeza Rice's own ancestors lived in slavery for 100 years before they tasted freedom. And yet all Americans enjoy the fruits of freedom today.

What if we had given up?

Flash forward to this week. Via Glenn Reynolds, apparently Reuters thinks it caught the President in yet another "embarrassing gaffe":

WHEN GEORGE BUSH'S METAPHORS ARE TOO COMPLEX FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, a career in journalism may be beyond your capacities. But not beyond your reach!

The media are falling into a tiresome pattern of making absolute asses of themselves where the President is concerned.

How long ago was it that Piers Morgan gleefully informed us "only an idiot" could fall off a Segway? That ended well...

Now Reuters, in its ever present haste to attack the administration, neglected to check the transcripts freely available right on the White House website. Because, you know, quoting what the President actually said (as opposed to reframing it to enhance the public's understanding of difficult subjects) would be allowing the White House to get its message out unfiltered. And, as we all know, during war time the last thing we need to hear is enemy propaganda.

I don't know. With Congress' approval rating at 11% and the press making serial blunders like this, it all starts to make choking on a pretzel look downright Machievellian.

That was then...

I stare out into the darkness from my post, and I watch the city burn to the ground. I smell the familiar smells, I walk through the familiar rubble, and I look at the frightened faces that watch me pass down the streets of their neighborhoods. My nerves hardly rest; my hands are steady on a device that has been given to me from my government for the purpose of taking the lives of others.

I sweat, and I am tired. My back aches from the loads I carry. Young American boys look to me to direct them in a manner that will someday allow them to see their families again...and yet, I too, am just a boy....my age not but a few years more than that of the ones I lead. I am stressed, I am scared, and I am paranoid...because death is everywhere. It waits for me, it calls to me from around street corners and windows, and it is always there.

There are the demons that follow me, and tempt me into thoughts and actions that are not my own...but that are necessary for survival. I've made compromises with my humanity. And I am not alone in this. Miles from me are my brethren in this world, who walk in the same streets...who feel the same things, whether they admit to it or not.

This is now:

“You know what I like most about this place?” he said.

“What’s that?” I said.

“We don’t need to wear body armor or helmets,” he said.

I was poleaxed. Without even realizing it, I had taken off my body armor and helmet. I took my gear off as casually as I do when I take it off after returning to the safety of the base after patrolling. We were not in the safety of the base and the wire. We were safe because we were in Ramadi.

Only then did I notice that Lieutenant Colonel Crane was no longer wearing his helmet. Neither were most of the others.

I saw no violence in Baghdad, but I would never have taken off my body armor and helmet outside the wire. I certainly wouldn’t have done it casually without noticing it. If I had I would have been sternly upbraided for reckless behavior by every Soldier anywhere near me.

But in Ramadi the Marines are seriously considering dropping the helmet and body armor requirements because the low level of danger makes the gear no longer worth it.

Because of men like Sergeant Eddie Jeffers, hope has come to Ramadi. Eddie was killed on Wednesday.

He wrote those words just last February. Seven months ago:

We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. Not a place where their children will be abducted raped and murdered if they do not comply with the terrorists demands. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them the opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor...we cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand up and fight, whether in uniform or not. And supporting us is more than sticking yellow ribbon stickers on your cars. It's supporting our President, our troops and our cause.

Right now, the burden is all on the American soldiers. Right now, hope rides alone. But it can change, it must change. Because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.

Let's stop all the political nonsense, let's stop all the bickering, let's stop all the bad news and let's stand and fight!

Isn't that what America is about anyway?

It is still a good question. It deserves an answer.

"So are they all, all honorable men"

This is sort of thing that will turn you into a bolshevik. My contempt knows no bounds at this point.

(via Instapundit)

Anbar Awakens Part II: Hell is Over

Mike Totten should get the Pulitzer.

"Every couple of days now people come home,” Captain Messer, referring to the small part of the city he’s responsible for. “They swing by the station and tell us they’re moving back and ask if it’s okay if they return to their houses. Of course it’s okay. They don’t have to ask that. But they don’t know. We tell them welcome home, welcome back to the neighborhood. And they always invite us over for dinner.”

Things are looking up.

Crab boil, Russian style.

I like the bucket of beer.

By the Numbers.

Good job, Soldier. Have a safe trip home.

Go ahead and stammer, you old, fat, turdbag.

It was supposed to be a joke.

Craiglist is a sort of combination of want ads, employment ads, personal ads and so forth, started by this guy named Craig, and has ballooned into a thing covering a whole lot of cities across the planet.

Gerard Vanderleun, over at American Digest, observed a particularly striking personal ad, and decided to parody it. It seems many people in Seattle don't get the joke.

As he says:

"The French have a saying -- Les chiens n'obtiennent pas des plaisanteries.-- which translates to "Dogs don't get jokes." Neither, it would seem, do lonely hearts. I think I'll just print my "ad" out and file it in the back pages of my copy of "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again."

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Come Out From Under The Covers

Why do I get the impression this guy fell asleep watching a John Basedow video? You have to admit, it's pretty catchy. Anti-Terrorism, Made Simple:

Nebraska Democratic State Senator Ernie Chambers has decided to go straight to the top in an effort to stop natural disasters from befalling the world.

Chambers filed a lawsuit against God in Douglas County Court Friday afternoon, KPTM Fox 42 reported.

The suit asks for a "permanent injunction ordering Defendant to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats."

The lawsuit identifies the plaintiff as, "the duly elected and serving State Senator from the 11th Legislative District in Omaha, Nebraska."

Chambers also cites that the, "defendant directly and proximately has caused, inter alia, fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues..."

"The Constitution requires that the courthouse doors be open, so you cannot prohibit the filing of suits," Chambers says. "Anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."

Chambers bases his ability to sue God, as, "that defendant, being omnipresent, is personally present in Douglas County."

Well there you have it. Kerry must be feeling vindicated about now. And the Jersey Grrrls will certainly be glad to see someone finally listening to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Pile On was unavailable for comment.

A Failure of Imagination

The ethnic origins of General David Petraeus are apparently Dutch, which is a shame because there’s something sonorously classical about the family name of the commander of the US forces in Iraq. When you discover that his father was christened Sixtus, the fantasy really takes flight. Somewhere in the recesses of the brain, where memory mingles hazily with imagination, I fancy I can recall toiling through a schoolboy Latin textbook that documented the progress of one Petraeus Sixtus as he triumphantly extended the imperium romanum across some dusty plain in Asia Minor.

The fantasy is not wholly inapt, of course. General Petraeus was the star turn in Washington this week, testifying before Congress about the progress of the surge by US forces in Iraq. Some evidently see America’s wearying detention in the quagmire of Mesopotamia as a classic example of imperial overreach of the kind that is thought to have doomed Rome. Who knows? Perhaps 1,500 years ago one of the forebears of General Petraeus was hauled before the Senate to explain the progress of some surge of Roman forces to defeat the insurgents in Germania.

The US is indeed in the middle of another gloomy ride around the “America as Rome” theme park of half-understood history lessons. The pessimists, equipped with their Fodor’s guidebooks, their summer school diplomas, and their DVD collection of Cecil B. DeMille movies, are convinced it’s all up for the people who march today under the standard of the eagle, just as it was for their predecessors. They see military defeat abroad and political decay at home; they watch as far-flung peoples chafe at the dictates of imperial rule and as the plebs at home grow metaphorically hungry from misgovernment. The only real uncertainty in their minds is who will play the Vandals and lay waste to Washington?

Oh come now. Surely this can't be so difficult. Historical analogies are rarely exact. America doesn't have to be a physical empire. Radical Islamists, at least, see us as dangerous cultural imperialists, our invasive brand of hedonism as something to be severely curtailed if not eradicated outright.

Must it be Vandals who sack Washington? Why shouldn't America decline and fall from within, victim to her own fecklessness and complacency? While we busily export pop culture and crass consumerism, in our schools the teaching of our own history and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are under attack:

The Robert Weissberg article to which George called our attention, "The Hidden Impact of Political Correctness," is very disturbing. It says that professors, even tenured professors, have decided to stay away from facts that may annoy black students who are quick to report "racism" to the authorties. And it's not just negative things about blacks as a group that might set off these easily offended students. Anything that might mitigate the vision of America as pure evil is also offensive. So even to point out that counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census was something actually aimed at diminishing the power of the slaveholders is dangerous. As is pointing out that the Constitution outlawed the slave trade after 1808, making slaves so valuable that they could not be put at risk at dangerous jobs, which instead evidently went to the Irish! In other words, historical truth has to be sacrificed to an unnuanced black/white vision of history.

This means that young blacks are being cultivated to an inauthentic relationship to truth, facts, and history, reminiscent of Hegel's master/slave analysis, in which the slave can know the truth, but the master must be flattered and gratified with lies. Either that, or they are learning to use their power to keep down the truth.

Gerard Baker thinks America invincible because she has few external foes? More likely, an increasingly divided nation that neither understands nor is willing to defend its cultural heritage will be pulled down from within by fractious special interest groups egged on by the culture of entitlement.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!

Pretty much has to be seen to be believed. I think its a joke, but YMMV.

(via Classical Values.)

UPDATE:

So, it appears that video was not a joke, but is a guy. A guy named Chris Cocker. I am not making this up. These are the sorts of things you simply can't make up.

Anyway, Seth Green says to LEAVE CHRIS COCKER ALONE!! That definitely is a joke. Heh. Points for the product placement.

Is there anything good about men?

I think so, but I'm probably biased. Still, it's an interesting essay, and I note for the record, that my Grandfather had two wives, both of which he had children with. Which means some other schmoe didn't get a chance with one of my grandmothers. And, of my brothers and sisters that have managed to procreate, there is a 3 to 1 disparity in the number of children produced by my sisters and brothers. Hmmm...

(via Bill's Notes.)

You know, I think the world can't get anymore insane that it is, and then I go and have to stumble across stuff like this.

Where Is Zbigniew Brzezinski When We Need Him?

Where Is Zbigniew Brzezinski When We Need Him?

Sometimes the comedy just writes itself:

In her September 8 article ...New York Times reporter Tamar Lewin quoted the parody Web site of a Dartmouth secret society (the Phrygians) discussing possible actions against the college administration. The New York Times reporter apparently thought that the Phrygian Society -- a secret society -- maintains a website to apprise the public of its latest conspiracies.

It only took the Times a week to research and correct its error. Yesterday the Times published this correction:

Correction

Published: September 15, 2007

An article last Saturday about Dartmouth College’s governance structure incorrectly described a Web site congratulating Todd J. Zywicki, a trustee, for meeting with members of the Phrygians, a secret society, and discussing possible actions against the college administration. It was a hoax site, not an official Phrygian site.

Like MSNBC in its treatment of the online version of Johnson's story, the Times has airbrushed Lewin's fake Phrygians' quote from the online version of the September 8 story.

Now *that's* spooky.... Todd Zywicki adds:

It appears that the reporter let her political biases (which are strongly reflected in the original story) get out in front of her reportorial good judgment.

Those horrid neocons! Always with the fear mongering! Will no one save us from this Culture of Fear?

Mascot Fight

Even though I'm a Cougar... I found this great.



Although it could have been much worse...

Oppressors!!!

I knew it!!! This is why Grim is on the lam:

Men are worse for the environment than women, spending more on petrol and eating more meat, both of which create greenhouse gas emissions. These are the conclusions of a new report by the Swedish Foreign Ministry.

"Three out of four cars in Sweden are today driven by men. Around ten percent of all drivers, mainly men, account for 60 percent of car journeys," report author Gerd Johnsson-Latham told Svenska Dagbladet.

And isn't that just like a man? Running off and leaving us all to face the music?

Not so big and brave are we NOW, Big Guy...

Uh-huh. Yeah, well don't let the screen door hit you on the way out. And take your big carbon footprint with you!

/flouncing away

Crocodile Tears and Conspiracies.

So. Two of the soldiers that co-wrote a New York Times editorial basically saying the war in Iraq was lost, were killed Monday in Iraq in what is described as a vehicle accident.

It was the top item for a while over at memeorandum today.

What I find curious however is that all of the various blogs commenting (at the time--it may have since changed) are all liberal/left wing/progressive/whatever sorts of blogs.

I guess they only really notice when soldiers die when it is those that they agree with.

Further, I took a look at what a couple were saying, and in and among the 'ultimate sacrifice' and 'wives and children left behind' comments, lo and behold, I find that the dead soldiers must have been 'fragged'.

I don't think that anything could more demonstrate the wretched world those people inhabit.

Vacation

Vacation Time:

I'm going to try that vacation again, since it fell apart last month. I'll be gone for a bit. Here's a picture from my last vacation, by the way.

Government Sucks

The Decline of Government:

In The Chronicle of Higher Education, E. J. Dionne Jr. has a piece that proclaims a new 'liberal moment' in American politics. It wants to be a serious piece, and I want to treat it seriously. Before I can begin to do so, however, I have to deal with a deep-seated infection that poisons the whole body of work: a hysteria against the Bush administration that prevents real insights in many places.

Dionne views the Bush administration as a "catastrophe" that has destroyed conservatism in American minds, and made ready the way for a new liberal rise. You have to read the whole piece to understand the real flavor here. Nearly everything tracks to Bush and the Bush administration. Even the larger problems facing liberals profiting from Bush, are also Bush's fault: for example, the fact that Americans now distrust government remedies to problems (because, Dionne says, of Bush "incompetence" at running the government re: Katrina and so forth).

This page has often defended Bush, and often clashed with him and his administration on specific issues. As a veteran of the Clinton administration clashes, however, I would warn those on the left to rethink their certainties about Bush. Unless they can do that, they will not understand the seriousness of the problems facing the American government. "Bush" is not even the tip of the iceberg.

Even at this short remove in time, when one thinks of the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, one rarely remembers the figure of Bill Clinton at all. At the time he seemed to loom large to those of us alarmed by his penchant for gun control, cronyism, and right-wingers; but in retrospect, he was really not terribly important. He was a better man than he seemed to be, that is, he had good qualities as well as the faults that focused out attentions.

Since 2001, this page has praised Bill Clinton's manners; also, we have defended Clinton from outrageous attacks; and wished him good health. As hard as it may be to conceive, writers from the left may find themselves doing the same thing for Bush in the near future.

The truth about Clinton and also Bush is that the office of the Presidency envelops them in an illusion of power, as well as with some actual power. Nevertheless, they have nothing like the capacities we imagine for them. Men are only men, and our system of government is most greatly hampered by its bureaucracies, which are incompetent in the way that large organizations always are and cannot but be; and by its design, which hampers the power of the branches on purpose, in order that liberty may exist in the tension between the various powers.

The vision of what "a good President would have done" instead of what Bush/Clinton actually did only rarely conforms to the reality of what a president can do. I was deeply embittered by Clinton's return of Elian Gonzales to the Cuban state, for example. The boy's mother had died getting him to a land of freedom; and now he would be sent back to tyranny. The Communists in Cuba would subject him to all sorts of brainwashing to make him a model spokesman for their state; and in order to do so, would have to demonize his mother in his mind. The seizure of a young boy from his family at gunpoint was an awful image, and one that ought still to haunt us.



There was probably never a moment at which I was angrier at the government of the United States. I still feel it was the wrong decision, badly wrong; but at this remove, I can see by what forces Clinton was being driven. For one thing, there were interest group politics at work, and he needed their support. For another, the Elian matter required making an exception to the usual processes of law; and while I think an exception was justified, and the role of the President includes making exceptions when necessary, it is always a difficult thing for a President to advocate.

Meanwhile, an idle comment he had made about refugees from Haiti had started a deluge on his assumption of office; how much more would his actual granting of asylum drive refugees to swarm Florida? How many of them might drown in the perilous crossing? Clinton partisans have also suggested he had a more noble consideration: if all the democratic-minded Haitians or Cubans fled the island, how much harder would the processes of democratization be when the current governments fell? That was an ongoing process in Haiti during Clinton's tenure, and could have happened with Castro's death at any time in Cuba.

So it is with Bush and many of the things that it is currently popular to lay at his feet. Dionne makes much of Katrina, for example. Without defending the Bush administration at all, it does not take much to see that the disaster in New Orleans was caused by forces far greater than any President or his administration.

For one thing, FEMA is not the chief agency for disaster relief; it intends to supplement and reinforce state and local efforts. The state and local efforts in NOLA were simply not there. JHD can tell you about how he hotshotted a truckload of relief supplies in right after the hurricane, and was supposed to hook up with state/local government to see where they were needed. When he got there, the radio was dead silent. It wasn't until the Federal government showed up -- the Coast Guard, as I recall -- that there was anyone to contact him.

Which brings us to the second matter: the Coast Guard and US military efforts in NOLA -- also directed by the Bush administration, at least in theory -- were far better than is generally recognized. People have a lot to say about FEMA, but little about the Navy SEALs.

For a third, the awareness of the problems with the levees had extended back through the Clinton administration. The problem is mirrored in the recent bridge collapse in Minnesota -- and in the thousands of similar bridges around the country, which are already overdue for repair.

For a fourth, problems such as the 10% "matching" requirement of the Stafford act required Congressional action, not just Administration action -- and Congress took its time.

It is possibly correct to say, "Bush should have done more," or that his priorities should have been more on Katrina and less on Iraq; however, with the benefit of time, it will become clear that even if he had done all he could do, and even if it had been his chief priority, the state and local failures and the inattention of a previous decade would have made the results more similar than not to what we've actually gotten.

The conceptual project of "rebuilding New Orleans" is one that has gotten a lot of attention on the left, because it's the sort of project that excites them -- the idea of using government to effect major changes for the better in people's lives. It's nobly intentioned, but it isn't about FEMA incompetence. It's about the failures of government and government bureaucracy, at every level.

It's not that the system didn't work as it should. It's that a system this large and complex can't be expected to work any better. There are too many rules and too many agencies and parties involved. There are so very many rules, in fact, that it takes all a man's mind to understand the ones pertaining to his own agency and those directly interacting with it. When he hits a roadblock two agencies out -- say, he needs money from FEMA, but FEMA has to get approval from someone in his state government -- it's like trying to understand a chess problem when you can't see the board.

Worse, the problem can be more than two agencies out. It can be more than one problem at once. The problems can be self-reinforcing, as either laws or bureaucratic interests force two agencies into competition for who can have control, or who has to pay.

Until you are willing to come to grips with that basic reality, you can't do more than say, "We'd do it better." That's fine; but it's an article of faith. There's no reason to believe that, even if you were perfect, the results on the ground would be substantially better.

We've talked recently about the Social Security / Medicare / Federal pension debacle that is impending. It is an example of a problem that is distributed across society: caring for the "Baby Boom"-now-"Aged Boom" will affect every family in America, at the same time that government is having to pay out benefits that are currently not figured into our budget forecasts. It cannot meet its existing promises. American families will be left holding the bag, caring for their own as well as they can with what they have, but remembering that government promised to do more.

This basic distrust of government is not Bush's fault. It will not be repaired by some future administration, no matter how wonderfully "competent" it may be.

The truth is that the system itself has exceeded its capacity. New government-based programs are doomed before being written; they may be enacted by some Congress of 2009, but they will fail. Our system is already too big and too complex to function coherently. It may stagger on, until the financial crises posed by the pensions and Social Security force a scaling back of Federal activity. Once that happens, no one will trust government with anything on which they might actually depend for survival. They will remember how it handled the last things they entrusted to it.

For the future, we will be looking more and more to private actors. This is good, in the sense that it means an end to the system that produces Americans accustomed to being treated like children instead of responsible adults. It is bad, in that it means serious challenges for our society in the medium and long term.

"Bush" is currently serving as a magic talisman for those on the left who don't want to face this reality about government, about its destructive size and complexity. That talisman protects them from thinking deeply about the issue: they can pick out two or ten things they think he should have done differently, and say that would have made all the difference.

The real problems are far starker, and far larger, than any man or his administration.

UPDATE: I'd like to point out that the Katrina example is only an example. The problems extend to all areas of government operation. Consider Iraq, which Dionne also does.

It is normal to blame Bush here as well, and Dionne follows the usual script. We've all heard how there was no "Phase IV" planning, etc. And in fact, Bush is really responsible, but not (or not only) for the reasons normally cited. The problem appears to be that State and DOD had competing visions for postwar Iraq, and their attempts to plan and devise were derailed mostly by competition between different branches and factions within the government. As a result, we got a cobbled-together CPA in which it wasn't terribly clear -- even while it was running -- who was really in charge.

It has taken years for this to improve, and only through painful experience has it done so. Major General Cone in Afganistan says that things are finally ironed out there, through the building over years of personal relationships that allowed them to establish memoranda of understanding between the agencies.

Bush is personally responsible for not forcing an interagency settlement before the Iraq war; but we see it was also a problem in Afghanistan. It is also a problem in the Katrina case. It's a problem everywhere the government tries to do anything -- or rather, it's two problems, the ones described above. It's the problem of agencies that are either in bureaucratic competition, or are legally forced to insist on requirements before they can consider cooperation; and, it's the "chess-problem without the board" problem. You find yourself blocked at several points, and you can't quite see what the problems are, or talk to exactly the right person who can straighten it out.

This is not a function of incompetence, or of bad behavior as such -- it exists even when everyone is trying their best to work together. It exists even when citizens, who aren't necessarily bound by the tangle of regulations, are trying to help the government do its job.

In the linked article on Katrina, above, there is this line:

"We're working ourselves close to death," says Scott Darrah, a New Orleans civic activist. "But we can't move it past further than what we have today. The government needs to step up."

I can sympathize with that position. One of the most promising examples of interagency cooperation in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the State-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams. As someone who cares about American success in these endeavors, I've been doing my best to help them help them find the people they need. On 13 August, I had an interview with Philip Reeker, of State, who talked about some recruiting problems for the PRTs. (It's an interesting subject for those interested in the question of how and whether State may need internal reforms, in order to address nation building problems like Iraq.)

From the beginning, I wanted to find out how the PRTs were reaching out to Americans, and to help them do so. It took weeks to get an answer to a pair of questions that any corporation could answer in minutes: How do you do your recruitment? Where are jobs posted?

I don't mention that to criticize State, which is standing up a PRT program highly praised by our military commanders, in spite of the serious difficulties facing that program. There was and is no hostility involved. Everyone wants the program to work; we're all trying our best to make it happen. I only mention it to explore the problems facing government. This is the nature of the beast. Government is too complex, with too many rules and regulations, too many agencies, and too many jobs to handle.

Even with a facilitator -- me, in this case -- who is outside the regulations and can simply "make things happen" if he can get the information, it still takes weeks. When the facilitator has authority within the bureaucracy, he can demand answers faster -- but he also then adds to the complexity of the problem. There is another layer of authority pushing and pulling; in addition to your direct boss, you now have a "dotted line" boss who can give orders.

That creates another set of competitions internally, between your "real" and your "dotted line" bosses. It may help one problem, but it creates new problems -- problems that echo throughout the system. Consider the question of the guy two agencies away who needs a ruling or an action from you, so a second agency can take an action, which will free his agency to move forward. Does he try to contact your real boss, or your dotted-line boss? Both? What does the competition between them do to the request? Does he instead just ask the guy the next level up -- the boss of both of them -- for an answer? What will going over their heads do to the request?

Americans are coming to understand that there are strict limits on what government can accomplish. We are scaling back our expectations and hopes for government in light of those problems. Some of the problems may be susceptible to computer and processing based solutions, so that real improvements can be made in efficiency. Others may be "competence" based, and better leadership might help. Many or most, however, are hard limits.

The government has overreached. It isn't capable of doing what it has set out to do. This just isn't the time for a new, expanded role for government: it's a time to scale it back, and pass off some of these problems to smaller, private entities that can actually maneuver well enough to solve those problems. These may be families; they may be churches; they may be corporations. They have the freedom to do what government simply cannot.