I remember reading of Tolkien that he thought Shakespeare marked the point at which the English language was ruined. I always thought that was one of those charming stories that couldn't possibly be true -- that even if Tolkien had said it, he was probably joking -- until I took a moment to examine my bookshelves tonight. I was looking for something to read on an evening when I've decided I've done as much work as I can.
I do not own, I realized to my shock, a single work by Shakespeare. No, not even a textbook from college. I don't own any movies or recordings of his plays or poetry. I've seen quite a few of Shakespeare's plays in my time, and I've always liked them. Somehow, though, I never wanted any.
Now, probably lots of people don't own books by Shakespeare -- nothing wrong with that. Lots of people probably prefer detective stories, which I can certainly understand. But here are some things I do own, and have read:
1) The entire surviving corpus of Old English poetry, and most of the corpus of Old English period, mostly in translation but much of it in the Old English as well. These are accompanied by Old English grammars and dictionaries, to help me sort through it.
2) Several collections of Middle English poetry. These are in the original Middle English, which I can read just fine.
3) Several collections of Old Norse poetry and sagas, mostly in translation some in the original Norse. With grammars and dictionaries, per 1.
4) The histories of Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri Sturlason, in translation.
5) The histories of Bede and Geoffrey of Monmouth.
6) Copies of both the Caxton and Winchester manuscripts of Sir Thomas Malory's Arthurian writings.
That's just a start. Yet Shakespeare didn't make the cut. I do have a copy of the King James Bible, which is from the same period, but in a high version of early Modern English. In any event, maybe Tolkien really did believe it. It's a prejudice I guess I share, without having noticed it until now.
A revelation
Whispers
Jordan asked what I meant by the post below, responding to Wretchard. I am moving my response to the front page, because it probably deserves to be here.
That [i.e., her assertion that dialogue is increasingly futile] is part of it: that we've come to a point at which we are, both sides, wasting our breath. But why should it be so?There are many other breaking models of this type. I suspect more will occur to you.
The way the human mind thinks about complicated, complex problems is that it attacks them in stages. It is very difficult to sit down and think out a solution to, say, the problem of terrorism; or of how to achieve relatively large degrees of international peace and stability. These aren't questions you solve over your morning coffee.
What most people do is that they first study generalized models that have been developed by recognized experts; then they study the history and current events surrounding the problem; and then they try to fit the modern event to the historic model. If you're thinking about the problem of international peace, you might study a few different models that have been developed and choose between them, or try to synthesize them: say the Kissenger model, and the UN model.
I believe we're coming to a point at which our models are breaking.
Take the UN model. I think a lot of people are deeply, emotionally committed to the idea. They either refuse to see the flaws in it, or they assert that they are flaws of execution: that the UN could be reformed, improved. The real problems are basic.
1) The UN proposes to outlaw war except in self-defense, which means that only the worst sorts of wars can be "legally" fought -- wars where your enemy has been allowed to prepare, and you have counter-prepared.
2) The UN assumes a moral equality of states, and that states -- and not individual people -- are the creatures with rights that must be protected. Both propositions are fundamentally wrong. They cannot be rescued.
3) The UN requires, at the level of the Security Council, unanimity to act. Such unanimity has never been achievable. It creates negotiation death-spirals on every problem, which means that every problem worsens over a period of months or years until someone finally "breaks the rules" and deals with it.
So the UN model is broken; what replaces it? And how do you convince the people who are so deeply tied to it that it must be abandoned -- that they must start anew, looking for new ways to think about these problems?
Take another example, so you'll see that I'm talking about a major chain problem rather than an isolated problem. Consider the question of whether al Qaeda-type organizations should be treated as combatants, or criminals.
The argument of the criminal-method say that they feel treating terrorists under the Geneva Conventions does them more honor than they deserve; that they are not deserving of status as soldiers (which the Conventions do not assert -- yet this is a deep-set misunderstanding that will not be easily removed) nor even combatants, but that they are "mere" criminals.
Advocates of the alternative position point out that "mere" criminals have a huge host of rights and protections; and that criminals are a different order and type of problem anyway. A criminal may be a parasite, but he's at least attached to the civilization on which he is parasitic.
The terrorist seeks to destroy the civilization. It is nonsense to treat the two problems as if they were the same, or to extend the protections of civilization to people who will only use those protections as part of a war against its foundations.
Yet there are legal structures in place that make it difficult to even have the conversation, or to make necessary changes. For one thing, many states (not the US) have signed a later addition to the Geneva Conventions, one that actually does extend many POW protections to terrorists and other militants. That means that making an attempt to treat terrorists "under the Conventions" won't fix the problem at the international level -- and the international level is indispensible to the fight against these kinds of groups.
Meanwhile, within the US, the SCOTUS has ordered that all such things be handled through the Federal Courts where such courts operate. Fixing that requires a new SCOTUS ruling, or a Constitutional amendment. Either requires moving the whole society to a point of consensus on the issue -- one that isn't going to come through argument, because people are arguing based on the old models to which they remain attached.
These models are broken. They don't speak to the problems we face. They can no longer serve us. Their proposals do not aid us; the understandings of issues that they suggest are wrong. They move us away from the truth, and the things we need to be able to think and say and do.
This is what I mean by the poetic reference. These models are like the ghosts of the old kings, who "grew greyer and greyer, less and less." Yet we grasp at them wildly, for our whole understanding is based on them.
When that breaks, at last, there will be a time beyond words. 9/11 was such a time for some of us: a time when we looked at the smoke, and realized that everything we thought we understood about the world was wrong.
It is increasingly clear that most people did not have that experience. Another such event will be needed -- increasingly, it looks like it will be the Iranian bomb. It might be something else. We will cling to the old models until a heavier blow breaks them. Words are wasted, because even the arguments being had between advocates of models, NEITHER of which apply.
This is what Wretchard means when he points out that the people who are accustomed to trafficking in thought are disrupted. The thoughtful ones see that the models on which their very thoughts are based have ceased to serve them. But no new models exist.
Under those circumstances, words are wasted. We must act as we can, using only the facts, and whatever weapons we find to hand.
We are, for the moment, in a time without models. We have no old kings to guide us. We must simply fight for the ground on which we stand, and wait for the vision to come.
Weapons
The New York Review of Books has an excellent piece on the development of nuclear weapons by various countries. Israel's program offers particular insights for our current difficulties with Iran:
In the late 1950s, with French assistance, the Israelis had begun to construct a large reactor in the Negev and a facility for processing the fuel rods needed to make plutonium. Then, in 1959, De Gaulle became president of France and said French assistance could continue only if Ben-Gurion gave public assurance that the reactor would be used solely for peaceful purposes. This he did, while knowing full well that the reactor was going to be used to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. The reactor was completed in 1963. During this time the Israelis and the Americans engaged in a kind of theater of the absurd. The Americans demanded inspections and the Israelis came up with one ingenious maneuver after another to avoid them. For example, the Americans were informed that the nuclear complex at Dimona was a textile factory. Before he was assassinated, President Kennedy and his experts came close to a finding that a nuclear reactor was being used to make plutonium. The Israelis went on maintaining the fiction that they had not manufactured nuclear weapons. What brought an end to this farce was the testimony of an immigrant Moroccan Jew named Mordechai Vanunu.The piece also looks at a number of more recent nuclear programs, and says that the one central fact about all of them is this: they all went undetected by intelligence services.
In 1977, after a short course in the essentials of atomic weapons production, Vanunu got a job as manager in the graveyard shift at the nuclear plant, working between 11:30 PM and 8:00 AM. Vanunu's clearance gave him access to all levels of secure sites at the plant, including those in which materials that might be used for a hydrogen bomb were manufactured. Vanunu was a political activist who attended rallies at which both Communists and Arabs were present. He was warned not to involve himself in such political matters, but he kept on doing so until 1985, when he was fired. He went to London with his story of Israel's nuclear program and photographs to back it up. These were published in the London Sunday Times and created a sensation. Vanunu was lured to Rome by a young woman, an Israeli agent, and kidnapped by the Mossad; he was taken back to Israel where he spent the next seventeen years in prison, partly in harsh solitary confinement. He is now living under tight security in Israel. It was clear from what he revealed, Richelson writes, that Israel, which has been making nuclear weapons for decades, has a very considerable and varied nuclear arsenal.
Who Are They
Heidi's got a movie she'd like you to see, called "Who are they?" It examines the lives of some remarkable men, who crossed the border in searing heat, to do jobs that others don't want to do.
How's that new pistol working out, Heidi?
Changes
Wretchard has a warning and a prophecy.
The foliage, sounds, the shift in airs, scents -- all of these -- spoke to them as directly as words in a book, though I scarcely imagined how. Later I discovered that psychologist Julian Jaynes had advanced the theory of the bicameral mind, which helped explain what I'd seen. His book, the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind suggests that our ancestors were instructed by voices and visions. They understood through a process of unconscious thinking as perhaps the Mangyans still do. Nature spoke to them, and they heard....It is true what he says. I have felt it myself. I think there is an ending of things, which the bumper sticker of the post below makes clear: a point at which thought can carry us no farther. When it seems rational to make such a claim, as it increasingly does to increasing numbers, we may be coming to a time beyond words.
My own hunch is that in the last two or three months there's been a change in the tone of the blogosphere. Nothing definite, simply a change in atmosphere in proportion to the degree of abstract tendencies of the blogger. Authors who trafficked in ideas and concepts have altered the most.... The old play is ending and yet the new one has not yet begun. And this bothers abstract intellectuals far more than it does the men in the field. A soldier can write with perfect conviction that "the world was a slightly better place every time I pulled the trigger" because he lives in a world of specificity, but the agonized thinker can find no such comfort in cold abstractions; abstractions now in need of repair under the weight of experience.
Wretchard ends with the Old Testament, as he prefers to do. I shall end as I prefer, with the Ballad of the White Horse.
And the great kings of WessexSo it is, in the time between whispers. Yet, in the ballad as in the Bible, that was only the beginning: the vision was set to come.
Wearied and sank in gore,
And even their ghosts in that great stress
Grew greyer and greyer, less and less,
With the lords that died in Lyonesse
And the king that comes no more.
Bumper Stickers
Here's one I saw driving around northern Virginia the other day.
Germans Supported Their Troops, Too.Obviously?Good Germans supported their troops--and their President--until the end of the war. Any similarities? This, like all our other NO RIBBON items, aren't against American soldiers, obviously...
What seems obvious to me is that the sticker suggests that American soldiers are like Nazis... and those who support them, are also Nazis.
There are words fit to reply to such an assertion, but they aren't suitable for a family website.
Well, at least the sticker makers are clear about their sentiments:
The best liberal, democratic, and fun political bumper stickers, buttons, badges, magnets, t-shirts, goodies, and toys anywhere!You think that's fun? Is that how it seems to you?
Indy * Iran
A couple of updates on the developing situation there:
From the Voice of America, and...
From The Australian.
It's not clear why the Indonesian proposal for a 'more representative' world body makes sense. Precisely why should countries which have not managed to work out the science on nuclear power be involved in the discussion of who should have nuclear power? Why should nations which have not worked out the basics of human rights be permitted to do so?
Well, as the Iranian president says, "If somebody points weapons at your face and tells you to speak out, will you do that? Some countries have bad ethics, and of course they are very arrogant."
I think Iran's in a wholly defensible position, refusing to cooperate with us because we are negotiating under the threat of force. That's perfectly understandable. I don't like to be threatened either.
Nevertheless, the threat remains. We can not accept a nuclear Iran. They must, then, choose: surrender, or fight. I'll respect them if they make the decision to fight, but we're still going to have to fight.
A Funny Joke
Joatmoaf responds to a Cassidy post with one of the best jokes I've heard in ages:
Moishe Reads an Arab NewspaperI think we can all appreciate that joke, these days.
A Jewish man was riding on the NY subway reading an Arab newspaper. A friend of his notices this strange phenomenon. Very upset, he approaches the newspaper reader.
"Moishe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading an Arab newspaper?"
Moishe replied, "I used to read the Jewish newspaper, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to the Arab newspaper. Now, what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews are all rich and powerful, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!"
DB Kim
Kim du Toit has an excellent post on how massive databases are developed and used. I hadn't realized he was such an expert on the topic, but he is. It's a good read, to go with the posts by Froggy two items down.
There's quite a debate in the comments of Froggy's second post, by the way. That's good, although I'm a little astonished at Allan's remarkable suggestion that former-SEAL/Special Agent Froggy is part of UBL's fifth column. OSO has some interesting objections that are worth reading.
At this poing in the debate, reading these things is important not to verify what you already believe, but to inform yourself for the slog forward. There are three separate questions, and if you read these posts you'll be in a better position to think about all of them:
1) How, and how well, would such a system work?
2) What rights and protections apply to each part of the process?
3) Is the program legal, and if not, should it be?
You'll be smarter about all of that if you read those links.
Lawn Mowing Prop
Here's an idea I have to reduce American reliance on oil, reduce air polution, reduce noise polution, and generally improve American life. Let's ban gasoline lawn mowers.
A small engine may not use much gas to mow your lawn, but consider how much gasoline it takes to mow every lawn in America. If we saved all of that gasoline, it would produce a small but noteworthy drop in American fuel consumption. Reducing demand, we'd reduce the price of gasoline at the pump.
More, the lawn mowing needs doing mostly during the summertime. That's when gas prices are usually highest. So, this ban would improve pump prices at the most critical moment.
Similarly, gasoline lawn mowers are very noisy, and spew foul-smelling vapor. All those problems, solved at a stroke! American neighborhoods would be quieter, happier, and better-smelling.
There are two objections I can think of: first, won't mowing with a manual rotary mower be a pain? And second, what about the landscaping industry? Wouldn't this destroy them?
In answer to the first point, I can say that I used a manual rotary mower last year, and found it to be as good as any power mower. It takes just a little more physical effort, and the blades do have to be sharpened on occasion, but the cut is as clean as or cleaner than you get with a 4.5 horsepower mower. The process of mowing is more enjoyable, because your arms aren't being vibrated off, and you don't have to wear hearing protection.
In addition, the slight increase in physical effort would help address our obesity problem here in America. Not to mention any names, but I can think of a few people who would't be hurt by a slight increase in their physical exercise.
As to the landscaping industry, we would have to give a moment's thought to its protection. I suggest a buy-back program for their gasoline mowers, whereby we provide them with a small number of rotary mowers based on the size of the mower they're turning in. Yes, this would be expensive the first year, but after that we'd be free of the gasoline lawnmower menace forever.
The landscapers, meanwhile, would find that those people who weren't willing to undertake the slight extra work would provide them with new clients, thus increasing the size and power of their industry. More jobs, too!
We could have all these social benefits for only the small cost of helping the landscaping industry retool. Less dependence on foreign oil, lower gas prices, less air polution, less noise pollution, less obesity, and more jobs! That's quite a list of things we could get in trade for the evil lawn mower -- who knew it was such a parasite on our culture?
Well, now you know. Write your representatives today.
Links
Froggy, posting at BlackFive, has a series of posts on the new NSA leaks (here, especially here, and also here). Froggy wasn't just a SEAL (to paraphrase one of Subsunk's recent post titles), but also a Special Agent for Customs working against international drug rings. He's therefore seen the classified side of this process from both the military and the law-enforcement perspective. His understanding is therefore enlightening.
Andi's group "Sew Much Comfort," operating at Walter Reed, got a visitor of some note.
The Belmont Club points out one of the most deadly naval battles in years has taken place, between suicide attackers from LTTE and the Sri Lankan navy. The LTTE (or "Tamil Tigers") are, as I recall, the only non-Islamist group to field suicide bombers. Here they managed fifteen boats to attack a naval detachment, sinking a warship and damaging a transport ship.
In addition to the problems this demonstrates for navy operations, Wretchard points out that the troop carrier seems to have been the primary target. It was carrying a truce monitor. Wretchard explains how this fits in with a general collapse of protection of diplomats from terrorists.
The COUNTERCOLUMN borrows a photo and caption from the New York Times. It asks the Times, "When are you going to get some veterans in the newsroom so you don't embarrass yourselves like this?"
See if you can spot the error. If not, well, I'll be surprised if any of you can't spot it. That kind of incompetence takes a professional journalist.
Uncle Jimbo's latest web-TV appearance conveys the story of... er... well... it conveys a story of young Afghan lads and, ah, older Afghan fighters.
Jimbo cites an Afghan proverb in the piece. I remember a similar sentiment from my studies of ancient Greece -- you can read in Edith Hamilton on the subject of how Greeks of high education passed their evenings before great battles. Perhaps there's something to The Man Who Would Be King, after all? Sure looks that way.
Guns Test II
Doc has a good post up on the problems with studies of this type. He explains some of the problems with the "scientific method" as it's being practiced in medicine today, and some bigger problems -- namely, what would it mean if the conclusion was actually true?
This pseudoscience-with-a-press-release is becoming a real problem. I remember the Geek with a .45 had a top-notch post on the subject back in February. If you missed it, it's worth looking over. It shows some of the warning signs that you ought to look for, before you say, "Hey! We should change the laws to suit this new study!"
Cassidy has two strong posts today, remembering the fallen and scorning those who dishonor them. Russ Vaughn mails a link to his latest work, which by chance is on the same topic.
As she promised in the comments here, Cassidy wrote in part on the subject of our friend from Boston, who feels the POW flag is really about how "we ourselves have become the prisoners of war; it is our own government that has taken us captive." On which topic, you might enjoy (h/t Sage) reading a little of this entry from Egyptian blogger Alaa. It begins:
Today it hit me, I am really in prison.An object lesson on just how extraordinarily stupid so much of this political discourse from the Left has become.
UPDATE: I talked to Sovay on the phone this evening (Saturday, 13 May), and she asserts she hasn't heard of the Globe piece on the POW flag. Hopefully this and certain other recent signs I've seen (particularly a certain bumpersticker) are just 'the work of isolated extremists,' rather than signs of a growing anti-military movement on the Left.
SA
Patti at SA sends.
You are receiving this email, because I have heard from many deployed troops this week,As the MilBlog Emma Peel notes, May means poor -- for a number of reasons. Still, at $2.50 apiece, I'd like to think we here at Grim's Hall could support a couple of squads. I don't want to put anyone on the spot, so don't declare your donations or anything -- but if you'd like to help, the donation button is at the top left of the Soldiers' Angels page.
everyone has the same thing to say,
IT IS HOT!! It is hard to think...
I would like to get cool scarf to every hero on our list, THE TEMPERATURES IN IRAQ ARE WELL OVER 100 DEGREES, and will stay that way till September.
The cooling scarf is a great way to beat the heat. These cooling scarves comes from hundreds of tiny hidden non-toxic polymer crystals that hold many times their weight in water. By soaking your cooling scarf in cool water for 15 minutes, these crystals become "energized" and become a comfortable, portable evaporative cooler that can lower body temperature by several degrees! So, not only will you FEEL cooler, you will actually BE cooler!
The Cooling scarf is great for any activity that raises body temperature to an uncomfortable level. Golf, Tennis, Hiking, Biking...anything! Stay cool and comfortable during these activities. The cooling scarf will contiue to keep you cool for up to 15 hours.
We have over 12,000 heroes on this fourth deployment.
The scarves cost 1.20 and the shipping is 1.12, about 2.50 ea.
So in order to do this we need 25,000 dollars, not a small feat but these scarves help to keep their brains cool and offers comfort to our heroes.
Please help me to help them,
Love
Patti
Guns & Testosterone
Via FbL at the Castle, a New York Times story on evidence that handling guns raises testosterone levels in men. FbL points to certain less-than-manly types who regard this as reason to restrict gun ownership.
Sorry, but that's a rank misreading. As Daniel points out it's not a bug, it's a feature. We need more testosterone in the American man. Seriously -- the odd shift in hormone balance is something scientists have been tracking for nearly fifteen years, and seems to be having a real effect on the population in the US and Europe.
Guns: there's no social problem they can't help solve!
HuT
Not every statement hits the high notes. Unlike the Iranians, Hizb-ut Tahrir didn't manage quite the right tone in their communication to the West. In this interview with the Christian Science Monitor, they try to explain how innocent their approach is:
"[President] Bush says that we want to enslave people and oppress their freedom of speech," says Abu Abdullah, a senior member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation. "But we want to free all people from being slaves of men and make them slaves of Allah."Oh, well, that's all right then. Wait, though -- who decides what Allah wants from his slaves, on a day to day basis? Men, right?
Square one.
I hope that HuT didn't describe their plan for re-creating the Caliphate in quite these terms, either:
But unlike Al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir believes it can recreate the Caliphate peacefully. Its activists aim to pursuade Muslim political and military leaders that reestablishing the Caliphate is their Islamic duty. Once these leaders invite Hizb ut-Tahrir to take power - effectively staging a military coup - the party would then repeat the process in other countries before linking them up to form a revived Caliphate.So, it's a nonviolent military coup they're planning? One in which the military then "invites" them to take power?
I think I see a possible snag in the plan.
One more quote:
"Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate - I would not say terrorize - the enemies of Islam," says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist.So, to sum up: men should be slaves of Allah, not slaves of men (but men will interpret for Allah); Hizb-ut Tahrir will come to power without using violence (because the soldiers who do use the violence will then kindly invite them in); and the power they envision Muslims wielding will only be for "intimidation," not "terrorism."
I'm glad we got all that cleared up.
UPDATE: Ok, just one more.
"In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad."Now I really feel beter about their intentions.
"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world," says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. "And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."
And after that? Abu Mohammed pauses and fiddles with his Pepsi before replying.
"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."
The Letter
The English translation of Iran's letter to the United States proves to be an astonishing and remarkable document. It is astonishing because it is nothing like it was described to be. "Some American officials have said the letter appeared to be aimed at disrupting talks on Iran this week among top envoys of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China," the New York Times tells us, and that's correct: we were told this was intended as a ploy, a bit of gamesmanship by the Iranians. Since the possibility of direct negotiations was open, the Russians and the Chinese could plausibly claim that UN Security Council action was not needed.
If that was indeed the reading of the professional diplomats, we are poorly served by their insights. The letter is not a negotiating ploy. If our best thinkers can misread this so badly, they need to be replaced root and branch.
The letter has two clear antecedents in world politics: the American Declaration of Independence, and the Communist Manifesto. This is a document of that type, and if we are not careful, it will be remembered for as long.
Like the Declaration and the Manifesto, the letter spends much of its time with a list of grievances. These grievances serve the same purpose in all three documents: they purport to demonstrate that the existing system is a moral failure, and that it has create affronts which can only be addressed by its overthrow. The American Declaration limited itself to the removal of the King's government from the colonies; it was only later, in Woodrow Wilson's time, that we began to think of American democracy as a universal human value. The Manifesto assumed a worldwide revolution from the start. In its summation, following sixteen pages of grievances, the Iranian letter proposes the same:
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democraticAnd there we have it. Liberalism and Western style democracy have led to war and invasion; international institutions that do not protect the people; many various abuses of human rights which are detailed; and a departure of mankind from the revealed design of God, as shown to us primarily through Koran, but also reflected in the other Abrahamic religions.
systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
We are invited to join this progress to a world in which the will of God prevails over all things. That is the beginning and the end of the outreach: we may submit. Won't you, Mr. President, accept this invitation?
In addition to being a declaration of open defiance, the letter is a cunning first strike. We have heard much discussion of funding or reaching out to the Iranian opposition groups, in an attempt to exploit cracks in Iranian society that might lead to internal discord and disruption. Much discussion, but we have done nothing.
The Iranians have not only spoken, but acted. This letter could not be clearer in its attempts to exploit the cracks in Western society: between Europe and America, between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, pro-Israeli and anti-Israeli; it calls libertarian and human rights advocates, Christians and even Jews, to join Iran in defiance of the Western failures to perfect the human condition. It references every claim made by any dissident organization against America's policies in the world. It works them together, and almost makes it sound rational to believe that the Iranian way -- and the Taliban's way! -- could point to a better world, with fewer evils, than this nasty abusive democracy.
This is a call to arms not just for those who might think Allah the enemy of America, but for those within the West who think America is the enemy of Europe, of their social program, of their politicis -- even to those, within America, who would oppose Bush. It is a call for an end to Western style democracy and liberalism, and the transition of the world to the service of God. It is at once a declaration and a manifesto, an attack and a defense, a statement of principles for Islamists and a stroke designed to shatter the West along our fault lines.
My respects to a master of the art. We shall see if we have any who are wise enough to reply. Or even, to understand.
POW-MIA
Greyhawk points to an article from the Boston Globe against the POW-MIA flag. Hawk notes that the article attempts to paint the flag as being a kind of mechanism to demonize the left so the right can win elections.
The article ends on a note of conspiracy:
No wonder the grief-struck flag refuses to go away. When we Americans behold that silhouetted bowed figure -- the prison tower, the barbed wire -- we may feel the pointed shame anew, but now we recognize the unknown image. We ourselves have become the prisoners of war; it is our own government that has taken us captive. The black flag at last belongs to all of us.I suppose the author doesn't know anyone who actually flies one of these flags, or he wouldn't dare say such a thing. I know a few men who do: some Vietnam veterans, some bikers, and families of those who did not come home. I don't think they'd much like him saying that the figure on the flag represents "all of us," we poor suffering Americans imprisoned by our evil government.
I think they only wish that their missing loved ones, or friends, were here to suffer with us.
This kind of rhetoric is exhausting. I'm tired of hearing Hollywood stars gripe about how dissent is stifled, as they give another anti-war, anti-administration speech and then go to cash their next million-dollar paycheck. I'm tired of hearing professors gripe about the crushing of their freedom to criticize the government, which criticisms still end up crossing my desk every single day, while their authors are punished with tenure and gold-plated benefits plans. I'm tired of hearing US Senators, who are paid fortunes out of the public dole to do nothing but talk, complaining about how hard it is to express opinions that draw criticism from the public. And I'm tired of journalists like this guy whining about how he 'understands' what it's like to be a POW, because he has to live in Bush's America.
Dissent can be -- not necessarily is, but can be -- patriotic. Whining is neither patriotic nor acceptable. Good gracious, people. Grow some perspective.
CENTCOM Sends
Sgt. Gehlen has another message he'd like to bring to your attention. CENTCOM has released new translations from captured insurgent documents on its "What Extremists Are Saying" website. You can read them here.