Now, here's something I wasn't expecting -- at least, not in this form.
Thailand has had some serious political disruptions in the last year, but the military has heretofore been quite disciplined in staying out of the politics. General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, in particular, has regularly voiced his intent to stay out -- and up to the moment he changed his mind, gave little sign that he might do otherwise. Some in the military have been in favor of a coup, but I had not thought Sonthi was among them.
General Sonthi is Thailand's first Muslim army chief, but he is an ethnic Thai Muslim, not related to the Malay Muslims in the South who have been carrying on the terrorist war there. His appointment, indeed, was meant to help quell the Muslim insurgents by showing that Thailand didn't discriminate against Muslims -- a move which accomplished little, since the real complaint in the South of Thailand is that the government discriminates against Malays.
I wouldn't have been terribly surprised to see a coup that split the military, with some of the hard-core loyalists to the King moving against the elected government, and other elements serving in defense of the Prime Minister. And, given the political chaos of last spring, a coup against the government in Thailand is not entirely unexpected.
I wouldn't have expected to find General Sonthi on this side of it, though. I would have thought he was an obstacle that would have to be pushed aside before a coup could take place. Apparently, when push came to shove, he decided otherwise.
UPDATE: Breitbart puts the 3rd and 5th Armies at the head of the coup. FWIW, it's the 4th Army that has handled the most of the fighting with the insurgents in the South.
UPDATE: I recall in the Spring, Prime Minister Thaksin had a sudden meeting over lunch with several top military leaders. He later told the press that he'd called them to thank them for their discipline in staying out of the political difficulties. At the time, I speculated that the military had really called the meeting -- to let Thaksin know that they wouldn't back him if the chaos pushed to the point of rebellion in the streets of Bangkok. Thaksin took a softer line afterwards, to the point of almost-resigning in a "leave of absence" for much of the spring. He returned after it became clear that no one else available was able to run the government as currently constituted.
More than ever, I wish we had a transcript of what was said at that lunch meeting.
Thai Coup
Abi on CNN
Here via Central Command is the transcript of Abizaid's recent appearance on CNN's "The Situation Room." As always, the comments and thoughts of the CDRUSCENTCOM on the subject of Iraq are of interest.
Cassandra Never Learns
Another meme from the villainous woman. Apparently, my responses to her previous tags have not had the intended effect.
This time, she (following Fuzzy) wants me to "List seven songs you are into right now. No matter what the genre, whether they have words, or even if they’re not any good, but they must be songs you’re really enjoying now."
Regular readers know I don't have good moods, and therefore don't "really enjoy" anything at all. Just regular old enjoyment is the best I can normally manage. Still, here are a few songs I sing once in a while.
1) "The Old Dun Cow," which is pronounced "coo" according to the Gaelic. (Chorus: "...and we all got stone-blind, paralytic drunk when the Old Dun Coo caught fire.")
2) "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me," which Dean Martin sings in Rio Bravo. It's a good tune, and the boy likes to hear it.
3) "The Battlecry of Freedom," which has both a Union and a Dixie version. In an earlier version of the same spirit shown by the new SpouseBuzz website, the Dixie version remembers "our noble women [who have aided the soldiers] at home." Surprisingly few war songs do.
4) The "Beat the Wife" song. This is one I wrote myself. It serves in the place of actually having to beat her, which is too much trouble. (It has a close variant, which is the "Get the Boy" song. The effect of singing either is to make the mentioned party squeal and run away, thus leaving me with blessed peace and quiet for a while.)
5) "Kelly, the Boy from Killaine." Written in memorial to the 1798 uprising in Ireland, if you learn everything there is to know about the tune, you will know everything you need to know about Irish history. The United Irishmen, a classical liberal group in the mold of our own American Revolutionaries, were the best hope Ireland ever had. Unfortunately, they relied upon the French, and...
6) "A Boy Named Sue," which needs no introduction.
7) "The Preacher and the Bear," which I know from the Jerry Reed version. Any song that has a preacher with a shotgun and a straight razor fighting a grizzly bear is a song worth knowing.
I'm supposed to tag seven people. Why don't you folks just drop your answers in the comments? First seven qualify, if that many of you care to do it.
Rivers of Blood
The incomparable Roger Scruton has a review of an old speech. The year was 1968, and a British politician stood up to warn about the perils of immigration:
“Human kind cannot bear very much reality,” said T. S. Eliot. It is not one of his best lines, but he used it twice—in Murder in the Cathedral and in Four Quartets—and in both places its prosaic rhythmlessness reinforces its sense, reminding us that our exaltations are invented things, and that we prefer inspiring fantasies to sobering facts. Enoch Powell was no different, and his inspiring fantasy of England caused him to address his countrymen as though they still enjoyed the benefits of a classical education and an imperial culture. How absurd, in retrospect, to end a speech warning against the effects of uncontrolled immigration with a concealed quotation from Virgil. “As I look ahead,” Powell said, “I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’” These words were addressed to an England that had forgotten the story of the Aeneid, along with every other story woven into its former identity as the “sweet, just, boyish master” of the world—to borrow Santayana’s luminous phrase. It is hardly surprising that Powell’s words were instantly converted to “rivers of blood,” and their speaker dismissed as a dangerous madman.H/t Arts & Letters Daily.
Confer with Ron's warning, in the comments below, that the old Boy Scout Handbooks can no longer be read by the boys of today.
When Peace Comes
Today is a day for reflection on how to make America secure. The best way -- perhaps the only way -- is to make American men who are fighting men, as they have been of old.
For that reason, I bring back to the fore this post on bladesmanship, and in particular the comments. Two gentlemen and regular commenters, Bruce Dearborn Walker and William, warn me against what I propose: the carrying of knives. I respect both men greatly, but there are serious reasons for undertaking this business. Let us consider them.
Mister Walker first warns us, wisely, of the dangers of evil district attorneys:
There is no doubt in my mind that I can win any fight that involves close distance and a knife. The problem is to win the court case and the lawsuit.That is an argument, please note, not merely against the carrying of arms that look dangerous. It is also an argument against owning them.
I shun any weapon that smacks in any way of fighting, martial arts, Asian countries, survivalism, or any kind of machismo. If I could get a decent blade in lipstick pink I would consider that.
Prosecuting attorneys LOVE fighting knives. Nothing says "dangerous kook" to a jury like the Rambo Survival Killer Deathblade Mark Nine found in your car or home. Even if you didn't use it, guess what will have the starring role on the five o'clock news.
William speaks next, on the same topic.
All in all I prefer the weapon of opportunity approach unless I am operating in a known hostile environment. It's far less hassel than trying to remember what you can and can't carry where and what enterence you had to check your (insert weapon of preference.) Many years ago a little old man taught me that every weapon has a range at which it is most effective and outside of that range other tools are preferable. The exception that makes the rule is the clear mind. As long as we have it, we are still in the fight and if it is taken away we are lost already. Everything else is just a tool.These are good points, clear ones. A man must consider these things. Having considered them, though, consider also my reply.
Those are very practical and understandable responses, so let me give a practical reply to them.
Our society needs men to return to the open wearing of arms, and by arms I mean arms, things which are obviously weapons. For too long we have let ourselves be intimidated out of doing that which is perfectly legal, and an American birthright, by just such tactics as you mention. DAs who don't approve of armed citizens use dishonorable tactics; city governments pass innumerable ordinances, which make it a lot of trouble.
For those perfectly understandable reasons, a lot of good men like yourselves have become cautious of exercising these natural rights. In doing so, you gain some personal safety.
We lose something important as a society, however. The vanishing of weapons from the hands of honest men has made it possible for those who fear them to portray weapons as evil, and thereby to weaken our society. Consider this post from 2005, in which the family of a deployed Marine found that their local schools wouldn't allow his photograph -- because he was carrying arms in the performance of his duty. "What message am I sending to my students if I post that picture?" asked the principal.
There is only one way to reverse this trend in the long term, and that is for us to return to the open wearing of arms. While doing so, we must of course be certain to abide by the law. More, we must be certain to do nothing discourteous or impolite -- so that, if we are forced to defend our actions in court, the witness statements and the fact that we have obeyed every particular in the law will be our chief defense.
There is a chance this may expose you to such bad behavior by public officials as you mention. Even so, we need to do it. Our sons need us to do it, so that they will not inherit a world in which they are taught to be ashamed of being men. Our society needs us to do it, so that it will not quietly disarm itself, mentally as well as physically, learning from birth that arms are evil in themselves.
We need to continue to produce that breed of American man which is both certain of himself and capable of the defense of his and the common liberty. Nothing is more critical to the future of the country than that. It is up to us to buy our sons the space to learn to be men -- by not letting bad actors intimidate us into laying aside our perfectly legal knives, our perfectly legal conduct, which they cannot ban by law even though they do not approve.
It is a small way in which we can each serve our country. In an hour and on a day when we remember the need for such men, here is a way to help make them.
After breaking camp this weekend, we went down to the new Tallulah Gorge State Park. We hiked the canyon, from the hydroelectric dam to beyond the south tower, twice crossing the gorge at the suspension bridge. It was a beautiful hike, on which I carried a Buck Knife "Special" 119, available for half the listed price at any Wal-Mart. Hiking with my beautiful wife and charming little boy, I got not one odd look for the wearing of the knife -- it was obvious why a man might want such a blade, to protect two such treasures.
Following this trip, we stopped on the way home by an antique mall. As a gift, my wife bought me a 1943 copy of what is now called the Boy Scout Handbook -- then called the Revised Handbook for Boys. It is a truly remarkable piece of writing, about which I will have more in the next few days.
Published as it was during WWII, it has several war-related ads. It also has ads related to being a boy, and being a scout, and the things boys and scouts love. Remington and Winchester both have full-page ads (Remington's is actually a two page ad) on marksmanship. Remington's invokes the legacy of Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and other famous wilderness scouts. Winchester's reminds boy scouts of the National Rifle Association, which still today stands ready to help young men -- and older citizens -- learn the basics of riflery.
What struck me most from the ads, though, was the ad for Marbles' knives -- the official Boy Scout knives of the day. Today the official knives are folding affairs, like the Swiss Army knife, suitable for trimming threads but not for fighting. The knife shown here, though, appears to be a variant of the Marble Ideal Hunting Knife, different only in that it bears the Boy Scout seal. This is an eight-inch knife with a more than four-inch blade, a real fixed-blade knife, in other words.
The ad copy reads:
When Peace Comes, Marbles' Produts -- improved and toughened by experience in combat service in all parts of the world -- will again be yours to enjoy.That is exactly right. Of course the boys would enjoy it. Of course a knife fit for combat service is also fit for peace. Mr. Walker mentions a "gentleman's knife," but this is a gentleman's knife -- for a gentleman is distinguished by the right to keep and bear arms. True, "bearing arms" is symbolic in England -- it means the right to have a coat of arms -- but that symbol was itself designed to show that the gentleman had the right to actual arms.
It is through a system of wearing away at that actual right that England has been reduced, as it has, to a defenseless state. The laws have advanced where they could against the rights of gentlemen, and where they had not yet, willful prosecutors pushed the law into territory it had not deserved. Having thus cleared that new territory of resistance, the law could advance further, banning new conduct and weapons, until men in England are no longer gentlemen at all -- except as symbols.
If we are to raise free men and gentlemen, we must win back that territory. Boys must be free to love knives without shame. That means that men must love them, and wear them, and show that this conduct is not only legal but honorable and courteous. It is -- nothing could be more so -- it is nothing other than the behavior of the gentlemen of old, and the Knight before him!
On 9/11 of all days, we ought to remember this. How well would men with box cutters have fared against American bladesmen? Even without their blades, had they but been accustomed to think of themselves since boyhood as fighters and gentlemen? How well will they fare, such terrorists, if they try to kidnap or to take hostages in some American city today?
And in the next generation?
There is no homeland security but that we, the citizens, make her secure. We must each of us be prepared to do our duty for the lawful order and the common peace, here and now, if we are called. We must have the mindset, the heart, and -- wherever possible, and in accord with the law -- the tools.
We must win space for our sons to follow us, that this way will never die. Invoke the legacy of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett -- and Jim Bowie, too! That is our way, and we must never let anyone make it seem shameful. No! It is glorious.
911 Links
Here are two interesting links from Southeast Asia, both of which treat 9/11 as a major issue. It shows the degree to which 9/11 succeeded in kindling a world war, the full flame of which we have yet to see.
The first, from Malaysia's New Straits Times, includes statements from Southeast Asia's foremost opponent of al Qaeda, Rohan Gunaratna. It concerns an interesting figure in terrorism, who pulled off an elaborate triple-cross of the United States, Egypt, and Islamic radicals.
Thailand's The Nation, which is owned by one of the opposition figures mentioned a few posts below, has a 9/11 post here. It is a pretty good summary of how the war is going in Southeast Asia, if you will let pass the swipes at Bush and the ruling Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. Those are par for the course.
9/11/06
As is usual at Grim's Hall, a repost of "Enid & Geraint." It is a poem that I wrote on the original 9/11, in the afternoon when I could no longer watch replays of the towers falling.
Enid & Geraint
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
End cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
The Wild Again
I will be on one of my regular excursions into the wilderness, from this afternoon until Monday. I'm heading out now, so I wish you all the best until next week.
Going Dark
Following the Geek, this blog is going dark to protest the blackout of speech led by McCain, and Feingold. This travesty is a direct assault on the kind of free speech the Founders most cared to protect: political speech.
Reason has a good piece on the subject. My curse on all the politicians who participated in this business.
Oddly, for all we've heard about the supposed assault on rights coming from the GWOT, the two worst destructions of our real rights have been in other areas. McCain-Feingold is one, and the Kelo decision is the other. If you want to know where your real rights are being attacked, it's not in the attempt to stop terrorists -- it's in the attempt to undermine those few protections that keep the government from silencing you, or taking your land.
Thailand
InstaPundit notes the problems in Thailand, and asks:
Sounds like ethnic cleansing by terror. Why isn't the UN protesting? If this sort of terror were directed at Muslims in Israel, or the United States, it would be an international cause celebre.So it is, actually, among those particularly interested in SouthEast Asia -- except the Muslims here are said by the internationalists to be the victims. The role of "evil brutes stirring up all this trouble with excessive force" is reserved for those Thai soldiers and police who have brought down the death rate.
That is to say, the internationalists are following the same script in Thailand (versus a key non-NATO US ally) that they are using in Iraq (versus the Coalition). Thailand's conflict has also had it's "Abu Ghraib," in this case, an incident called Tak Bai. Just as with Abu Ghraib, it appears that there was some genuinely awful behavior by the soldiers immediately on the scene. Just as with Abu Ghraib, this has been projected by the internationalists into a vision of a government conspiracy to use excessive, inappropriate force to quell Muslims.
Also following the usual script, Thailand has its own internal political divisions, with the opposition (amusingly enough, the opposition is led by a group called the "Democratic Party") using the internationalist script to demonize the existing leadership. Their spiritual leader in this effort is a man with Jimmy Carter-like stature: former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun.
That's not exactly fair. Unlike Carter, who has been uniformly awful, Anand's record is mixed. Anand became Prime Minister by invitation of the military following a coup against the democractically-elected government. However, he did do yeoman work in restoring democracy and getting the military to agree to step back from politics, though he left the coup leader in power (the general who led the coup succeeded him as Prime Minister), and in increased wealth (the same general became head of a new national telecom firm that Anand helped to set up).
I've met him. He is a charming man and a good speaker, in English as well as his native language. He believes in the internationalist vision of peace through negotiation, which often means giving violent people what they want in order that they should stop hurting folks. And, for what it's worth, that script -- which I despise on principle -- actually seems to have worked in the case of Thailand's politics. The payoffs to the general seem to have bought space to quell the tensions, and Thailand's military today is admirably detached from political turmoil.
Anand leads the way on the dissenting efforts to bring peace to Thaliand's south through the same basic notion: pay off the violent to buy peace, during which you can build institutions that may be of use in keeping that peace.
The problem is that his National Reconciliation Commission advocates giving away the store entirely. Its proposals include submitting to the introduction of Islamic law in the South of Thailand, as well as recognizing Malay as well as Thai as the official language of the state, and disarming the peackeeping forces ('so it will be easier for the Muslims to trust them,' if you want to know why).
Internationally, several leading regional figures have spoken about the issue or visited Thailand, including Haysim Muzadi, who leads the largest Islamic organization in the world -- Indonesia's Nahdlatul Ulama, which has forty million members. Also following script, these leaders have treated the combatants as moral equals: they negotiate evenly between the Muslim rebels, who murder unarmed noncombatants as their normal means of operation, and the Thai government -- those brutes who committed Tak Bai.
All this has led the Thai government to basically ask the UN and the international community to keep its nose out of Thailand. If the UN were to protest, there's little doubt whom they'd protest. It would be the government, which has 'brutalized Muslims,' 'oppressed human rights,' and refuses to enact the simple solutions that the internationalists have already negotiated with local Islamic leaders.
When they came to make those protests, key political figures in Thailand would be right there to endorse them.
Blades
Cam Edwards apparently had a program recently that treated the dangers of knife-fighters for firearms owners, which is summarized (with links) here. The summary itself can be summarized: carry a gun, stay alert.
Still, it's an interesting read in that the author (and, I expect, Cam) expresses a sense of the threat posed by knives that makes them sound more dangerous than guns. Partially that may be the NRA line: guns are simple tools that all citizens should have, whereas knives are wild dangerous things criminals use.
Partly, though, it's a perfectly accurate statement -- one I've often made here. Just to make it again: at close ranges, fighting knives are more dangerous than guns, assuming the wielder is equal to the task.
If you're choosing a close-defense weapon, then, what makes more sense? A .22 pistol or a .38 pistol? Well, the more-effective weapon, right?
The same principle works here too. Unless you have a physical reason not to do so, learn to use a knife, and carry one. See the "Gunfighting & Bladework" links to the right.
Even in jurisdictions where guns are simply illegal, knives -- at least some knives -- often are not. If you've trained to use them, and have one to hand, they can be better than a gun in many situations in which its likely you will have to defend yourself, or do your duty as a citizen to defend the common peace.
The Bowie knife is a weapon particularly suited to the American gentleman. Learn to use it -- or, if you live in a restrictive jursidiction, its closest legal relative. You will be glad that you did, and you will be upholding a tradition -- bladesmanship -- that is thousands of years old and as noble as a tradition can be.
Fitzmas
While looking back for those older posts, I came across my first post on "Fitzmas." I wrote:
Indictments are, as everyone knows, proof of nothing except the prosecutor's intentions. The actual trial, at which a defense is permitted, is the point at which real information is likely to emerge. I have known real-world indictments that were dropped entirely without trial, and the prosecutor forced to apologize, once the defense lawyers got involved and began to unmake the case. This prosecutor, however, seems unlikely to have made gross errors of the sort that lead to such a situation.Looks like principle #1 was the governing one. Also, I was wrong about Fitz being a good prosecutor: though I was right that the indictment shows nothing except the prosecutor's intent.
My basic principles about government-official indictments remain the same:
1) A desire to defend the weaker party, which wants to see the matter resolved in the favor of the innocent whenever an innocent man is threatened by the state's power.
2) A desire to see corruption in government restrained, which desires to see the matter resolved by hurling any guilty men into the dungeon in this case. This is true whether "the guilty" is Delay, or the prosecutor, should the prosecutor in fact be engaged in a political prosecution.
Too bad about Fitz. He was a good official, once.
thanks to GOP
Mark Noonan of GOP Bloggers wrote to ask me to guest blog over there. I had to decline, of course, because I am a Democrat. It was nice of them to offer, though, and I wish to express my gratitude for the kindness of their words regarding the content of this site.
As to which content, allow me to post a few links explaining why I remain a Democrat. In brief, it is because it is too high and fine a heritage to surrender.
On Kelo.
On James Jackson.
"Both Barrels, and the Bowie Knife."
No offense, lads. But I was born a Democrat, and mean to die one.
The Smell of Death
I have posted a philosophical piece at Winds of Change. It may be of interest to some of you. It's rather long, though, which doesn't work well on a Blogger blog.
Friday Laugh
So there was my Friday laugh.
RV Send
Russ has a piece for you calling defense contractors to charity. It's worth some attention. I don't know to what degree a corporation is morally required to perform charity of any sort -- they are legal persons, it's true, but unlike real persons, a corporation is amoral and meant to be so. Its moral effects are felt, as Adam Smith reminds us, in the good that arises naturally from people pursuing their own ends.
Nevertheless, these contractors make their living on government dollars, which means that their profits are extorted from us all. We each, therefore, have a claim on what they do with the money -- unlike with truly private corporations, whose monies are their own, earned in the market.
So, give it a read, and see what you think.
Croc Hunter
I saw (via InstaPundit) that the "Crocodile Hunter," whom I learned was really named Steve Irwin, died after an encounter with a sting ray. Austin Bay has some words for the event, with which I find I entirely disagree. He portrays Steve Irwin as some sort of haunted figure, suffering from some dark inner need:
In the komodo dragon show I thought Irwin crossed the line from skilled showmanship to inexcuseable thrill-seeking – wagered mortality is tantalizing, but adds a queasy, dark twist to a family program. I told my wife “I wonder if this guy (Irwin) has a death wish?”I myself have seen only one episode of "The Crocodile Hunter," one time -- precisely because I can't stand some of the qualities Austin Bay admires. What he found enthusiastic and personable, I found irritating and noisy.
If my comments on the komodo dragon show seem a bit harsh, understand I’ve watched it a half-dozen times. I’ve gaped with the rest of the circus audience.
But I may never watch it again. Irwin died over the weekend, died while filming at-close-quarters another dangerous species. The poisoned barb of a sting ray put a hole in his heart.... [It was a] violent, unnecessary death.
Irwin was idiosyncratic, personable, enthusiastic, informed, and physically courageous. That’s a lot to admire. But what drove him to get too close one too many times?
That said, Irwin may have been the least dark, haunted figure in easy memory. He got close to those animals because he loved them. That is the same reason he read all he could about them, and loved to tell others about them.
Far from a death wish -- a wish easy to fulfill, if it is genuine! -- Irwin seems to me to have had a real love of life and of the world into which he was born. It is a dangerous world, but he refused to be afraid of it. He embraced that world as he found it, and if it killed him, well, it's going to kill all of us, too.
So, no, it wasn't an unnecessary death: he was already going to die. So are you.
It was a violent death, but so what? Violent is not a synonym for bad. Do you really want to die from organ failure in some hospital, or after some lingering illness? If not, you've really only got two options: die suddenly from a heart attack or other quick-acting cause, or die violently.
An argument can be made that a family man has a duty to survive, as long as survival is honorable, in order to provide for his family. Well, I don't doubt that Irwin had laid plenty of investments, so that his family is protected from ruin. His death will surely cause them grief, but so would his death from a heart attack. We aren't entitled to have those we love around forever, any more than we are entitled not to die.
A serious engagement with the deepest philosophical questions in life suggests to me that Irwin lived exactly the right way. He was an adventurer, and if I found his television manner impossible to tolerate, I admire everything else about the man. May I die the same way: engaged in experiencing, and loving, the world into which I was born.
Not fearing death is not the same thing as wishing for it. Neither is it dark. It is the right and proper attitude: the one to which the sages and the religions alike counsel us, and which martial art and meditation both seek to create.
The Crocodile Hunter got that, got all of it. Good for him!
Podcast
The Saint Petersburg Times has an audio interview with CDRUSCENTCOM General John Abizaid. You can download it, or listen to it from the website.
The general emphasizes cautious optimism on Iraq, with a focus on steady progress. However, he also warns that most of what remains to be done has to be done by the Iraqi people themselves -- and if they choose not to, but prefer sectarian conflict, we cannot hope to stabilize Iraq in spite of them. He also warns against US public pessimism arising from negative press reporting in the news cycle.
It's a quick interview, with nothing surprising, but it is good to hear the General expressing confidence.
Geek Grendel
The actual description of Geek with a .45's trip to Hungary's Terror House is posted. You can, and you should, read it here.
Hungary
The Geek w/ A .45's series on his trip to Budapest takes a turn from the celebratory to the horrific. All the same, this piece deserves to be read.