I haven't said anything about the Haditha case, except that we ought to keep silent about it until the process is complete. I also detest reporting based on anonymous sources.
Nevertheless, I will pass on this article, which my anonymous source says lines up with his anonymous sources, though the article is based on still yet other anonymous sources.
So what does that mean about the accuracy of the piece? Hell if I know. But if you're compiling reports and analysis on the subject, here's one thing more to read. It's got some analysis of the investigation itself that I won't endorse, but you can match up the analysis with how the case appears in the press.
I wish to stress that you should apply your own critical analysis to what's offered here. See if the accusations it makes match up with the details from the case as it develops. If so, this may explain why the case is developing as it is. If not, set it aside. I'm offering it as information, not intelligence.
Haditha unmasked
Choose lawyers
Thanks to reader CC for this piece on military counsel.
In our society, people have long had the right to choose to have a lawyer represent them in almost any matter, whether they are seeking benefits from the Social Security Administration, filing a lawsuit against a corporation or defending a parking ticket. Veterans were uniquely denied the option until last year. In historic legislation signed by President Bush on Dec. 22, 2006, Congress repealed an anachronistic 19th century prohibition.... For veterans, there will be more choices and competition. Veterans' service organizations will continue to offer free representation. Attorneys will have no incentive to prolong proceedings, as they can only be paid if their client prevails. They will focus on helping the VA find evidence to substantiate their client's claims. Everyone will benefit if veterans' claims are more efficiently processed. Claimants for every other kind of government benefit have long been permitted to choose to retain counsel. Veterans are joining their ranks. Now is no time for Congress or the president to retreat.
Abu Sayyaf Leader Killed
It's a good day for the GWOT in the Philippines. That means it's a good day all the way around, as the islands in the southern Philippines are an area of refuge for the region's Qaeda-linked terror groups.
I think the real solution in the area is to work with the MILF, who (Islamic militants though they are) seem mostly to want to be left alone to run the place. If we could come to some arrangement whereby they got to do so, in return for denying sanctuary to terrorists and keeping the land clean of Qaeda-style radicals, that would improve the situation. Naturally, however, there are political difficulties that have made it hard to do that -- the alternative claims of the MNLF and its "peace process," as well as the ties of regional grandees to the Arroyo government. The MNLF/MILF claims to authority have to be integrated, which is harder than it sounds even though they were once a single group. The political patronage issue is just as sticky as you'd expect in a place like the Philippines.
So, they'll be a while sorting out that mess. In the meantime, this is good news.
UPDATE: Francis Marion, just back from the bush, promises updates at his place. Go see what he has to say.
Praise of Zippo
Last month we had a discussion on survival, in which I suggested you ought to carry a matchbook in your wallet or about your person as a regular matter. Special Forces blogger Francis Marion dropped by to offer a suggestion:
They say a good Boy Scout can start a fire with two matches; I say any Green Beret can start two fires with one lighter. So, why matches when a lighter can start more fires easier and it's waterproof.This reminded me that I had, somewhere, my grandfather's old Zippo lighter. It had long ago stopped working. Still, the lighter advice sounded wise, and it would be a chance to reconnect with something my grandfather had left me. (This would be my mother's father, not the grandfather who left me his Stetson hat.)
So, with some effort, I dug the thing out of where I'd put it for safety's sake. Then, I sat down to find a repairman who might be able to fix an old Zippo.
I'm probably the last person in America to learn this, but I wouldn't need to look far. Zippo fixes their lighters, free, forever. I mailed it to them; they sent it back today, less than a month after I'd shipped it. It works perfectly.
Having not smoked much in my life -- an occasional cigar only, on Doc Russia's recommendation -- I was not steeped in the Zippo legend. It turns out they've got quite a history, including honorable participation in WWII.
My thanks, ladies and gentlemen of Zippo. I'm glad to have my grandfather's old lighter back. I'll carry it proudly, and pass it on to my son.
Michael Totten's latest from Lebanon visits a moderate imam, one of a high degree by the accounting of such things. It's worth reading, to see something good growing up right in the middle of Hezbollah country.
Mindset
Professor Glenn Reynolds, known of course as InstaPundit, has a piece in the New York Times. It is on the subject of communities passing laws requiring gun ownership.
Professor Reynolds was just this weekend advocating the late Colonel Cooper's work. Jeff Cooper was the sort of man I expect to see 'get' this: a fighting man who happened also to be a careful thinker, and student of history. InstaPundit is, of course, a law professor, who came to his views by studying Second Amendment issues in the law.
I've always liked InstaPundit, which hits on a number of interesting issues every day. Reynolds largely stays out of the way of those issues -- although you know what he thinks about them, he usually provides more of an invitation to think about the matter for yourself than an answer to digest. I like that approach (and so do a lot of others, apparently), though I don't often use it myself.
Still, one gets a sense for the guy by reading his posts. He is a happily married, decent, peaceful guy who likes to make fairly intricate meals (that he thinks of as easy and simple), brew his own beer, and talk to attractive or interesting ladies. In other words, a normal, decent guy whose tastes are those one expects of the upper-middle class.
It's good to see a man like that write something like this:
Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.A practical point, which is linked to this analysis:
And it may not be a bad idea. While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.
Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.
Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.I'm sure you've grown tired of reading me write that "a citizen has a duty to uphold the common peace and lawful order," to perform which duty he has a right to the appropriate tools. Colonel Cooper likewise wrote on the topic, persuasively to those who read it through, for decades. And there are others in the blogosphere who do so: Kim du Toit and Geek with a .45 being two of my favorites.
The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the Second Amendment’s language encompassing both the importance of a well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants[.]
I suspect that the average American would admire Colonel Cooper if they knew anything about him, but would consider him 'out of the mainstream.' He surely was, for entirely positive reasons: but for whatever reason, the American public puts an odd amount of weight on the notion of 'mainstream.' An idea needs a legitimizer to become widely accepted, someone who can say, "Yes, this is normal and OK to believe."
I'd like to thank InstaPundit for bringing these ideas before a larger audience, in a form that they will consider. Some will reject him as "mainstream" simply because he holds this view. Otherwise, however, there is no reason to do so. He's doing good work talking about these issues in that forum, and I appreciate his doing so.
The New Statesman's article on Darfur is disturbing, as it ought to be. It also asks an interesting question: why doesn't China do something about this?
President Omar el-Bashir's government has taken a series of gambles on the indifference of the world to the fate of Darfur's people, and he will continue to do so. At the same time he cannily presents Sudan as an Islamic state that is the victim of imperialist intervention in search of oil. It isn't, and the imperial power chasing oil hardest in Sudan at this moment is communist China.The question grants that the history of Western imperialism makes it impossible, or at least substantially more difficult, for Westerners to stop the slaughter in Darfur. Surely there is some truth to that proposition: it is both that a certain class of people in the West believe imperialism was an unmitigated evil, and distrust their governments enough to think that even a humanitarian intervention is 'all about the oil'; and also that the third world is sensitive to the history and reluctant to accept what might be perceived as a surrender to imperialism.
There is a simple enough response to this charade. The deployment should be made up from Asian, African and Arab states and the regional organisations representing these states should make it clear that the government of Sudan will be completely isolated unless it moves to control the Janjaweed. Equal pressure must be put on states and groups currently supporting the rebels, especially Chad. The role of the west and nations that trade with Sudan - for example, Japan, China and Malaysia - is to bring economic pressure to bear on the Sudanese government and to offer economic incentives.... Western imperialism can be blamed for many things, but there is no imperialist explanation for why African, Asian and Arab states do not act over Darfur. They face no logistical obstacle to establishing a no-fly zone. The problem is one of will, not agency or capability.
That ends up being an excuse not to do anything about the genocide.
Why shouldn't China, though? It aspires to being a rising power, and while it has the power projection capacity to establish a no-fly zone or something similar, it lacks the power projection capacity to assert direct (i.e., imperial) control over Africa. Why do they not?
I think the fellow is right to say it is finally, "Because they don't really care." I think we must admit that the West is no better in this regard -- the Western Imperialism excuse is just that. One can say, "America has bigger things on her mind at the moment" with some justice; but how do you explain Rwanda, then?
I have a suggested solution to the problem. We oppose genocide, in theory; but we lack the will, or interest, to do anything about it in practice. Scroll down to the section on genocide.
GWB Hates Cowboys
A deeply amusing, and insightful, post at Cassandra's contrasts the disasterous Colorado blizzards with Katrina. For Colorado:
George Bush did not come.This goes on for quite a while, and then praises the state, local, and individual responses that have served so well. Whereas a far more vigorous FEMA response prompted cries that "George Bush hates black people," a far lesser response from FEMA in a predominantly white area has not prompted any such outcry. People didn't expect to be taken care of; they expected to take care of themselves.
FEMA did nothing.
No one howled for the government.
No one blamed the government.
No one even uttered an expletive on TV .
Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.
Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.
Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.
CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.
No one looted.
Many of these people are ranchers, whose cattle are in serious danger due to the blizzard. The comments section looks at the situation of the cattlemen and the ranchers, and notes two things of interest. The first is that PETA refused to help feed the cattle.
Colorado governor Bill Owens correctly explained that this is because PETA are "frauds" and "a bunch of losers." He kindly neglected to mention it is also because feeding cattle in the snow is hard, physical work, and PETA is composed of soft city folk who have no taste for that.
The other interesting thing is Cricket's recipe for stuffed tenderloin steaks. Because, um, well, we can't save all the cattle, so...
Good luck to the cattlemen. I trust they were insured against the losses, but watch them go out and risk their necks anyway, rather than watch animals starve and freeze to death. Then, watch the folks in PETA -- who supposedly care about animals -- sit in their heated living rooms, watching the disaster on television, and sniffing disdainfully at any request for help.
It's all Bush's fault. If only Bush didn't hate cowboys, he'd be out there fixing this.
UPDATE: Heh. One of Cassidy's commenters points out that this is one of those emails that's been re-used for several disasters over the years. That, of course, means that there have been multiple disasters without looting... and with FEMA simply providing eventual repayment, in the fullness of time, with local, state and individual responses handling the actual disaster.
It's always amusing to me when these emails are re-used for event after event. I suppose we can't help that these things remain relevant.
Crossbow
Today's headline: "Senators fear Iraq war may spill to Iran, Syria."
I'm afraid that's not a typo -- apparently they really do mean "fear," rather than "hope." Or, rather, "Senators recognize that Iran is hip-deep in the Iraq war already, and it would be lunacy to leave enemies with safe havens."
Joe Biden in particular seems to be guilty here. Chuck Hagel's remark may have been intended to 'express fear,' but it seems more like common sense to me.
"You cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand -- but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border," said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and possible 2008 presidential candidate.Right. You can't. We will, and should.
Update on Mexican border
Heidi at Euphoric Reality ran a story that uniformed Mexican paramilitaries conducted the recent border probing raid. Her version differs on several critical details from what was reported in the MSM.
She's got an update today, in which Customs and Border Protection confirmed her version of events.
I'd assumed it was gangsters testing the defenses. It may have been something more dangerous than that.
Beating in SF
Is the great surprise in this story is that anyone at Yale still sings "The Star Spangled Banner"? Even when I was in college in Georgia, I don't recall hearing it sung on campus, although I did have a history professor once perform "To Anacreon in Heaven."
To Anacreon in Heaven, where he sat in full glee,Alternatively, is the biggest surprise to see such a ringing endorsement of Mr. Hedge's thesis? I hadn't expected to read that the national anthem was being assaulted by alumni of the Sacred Heart Cathedral. Maybe this is more California secession talk? It seems to be an acting out of "the Battle Cry of Freedom"'s secessionist version:
A few sons of harmony sent a petition,
That he their inspirer and patron should be.
When this answer arrived from that jolly old Grecian:
Voice, fiddle and flute no longer be mute,
I’ll lend you my name and inspire you to boot,
And besides I’ll instruct you like me to entwine
The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus’ vine."
Our Dixie forever, she's never at a loss!Amazing. "Christian fascist secessionists in California assault patriotic Ivy Leaguers." The world's gone mad, boys.
Down with the eagle and up with the cross.
France
...for writing an article. A story from modern France, where criticizing Islam is a dangerous business.
California Seceeds?
The fervent hope of many people I've spoken to over the years (actually, usually expressed less as a desire to see it seceed as a desire to see it fall in the ocean) may come true. California the "nation-state" is not a bad concept. Headline writers are having some unjustified fun with Arnold's statement. Still, it's true: California really does have the economic muscle of a nation.
(So does Texas, another place I've often heard people wish would seceed. The difference is that the people wanting Texas to seceed are usually Texans wanting rid of the rest of the country; whereas the advocates of California secession want rid of Californians.)
The nation California is most often compared to is Iraq -- how often have you heard someone refer to Iraq as 'a nation the size of California'? Plus it also has unsecured borders. Well, and LA cop 'Jack Dunphy' points out that it also has urban snipers killing policemen -- though, so far, fewer of them.
So, goodbye, California! It's been nice knowing you, and we wish you all the best in your new endeavors.
What?
Hm. Too bad. I'd hoped he was serious about that.
A Counterargument
There's a new book out called American Fascists, which posits that certain Christians are more or less Nazis. John Wiener writes a rebuttal that begins, "There are problems with this analogy." Yes, indeed, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
The book's author, Chris Hedges, writes that "the Christian right 'should no longer be tolerated,' because it 'would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible.'" That's a restatement of Mark Steyn's position re: Islamist movements. Steyn wrote some years ago that we have a real challenge ahead:
This is what we’re fighting for—the right not to tolerate any intolerance of our tolerance.Where does that leave us with Mr. Hedges? Tolerating his intolerance of intolerance that tolerates?
It's a tricky problem, but one that seems to me to be suceptible to a clean rule: Intolerance does indeed threaten an open society, but is only over the line when the movement threatens unlawful, physical violence toward the non-tolerated party. Otherwise, it's a 1st Amendment right. You're not required to like anybody, and you're free to say so.
One assumes Mr. Hedges will survive without any intolerant notes being pinned to his chest with a knife. If Robertson or Falwell try to lead an uprising to violently suppress him, I'll be on his side (supporting my right to tolerate his intolerance, that is).
Until then, I think he's a lunatic.
Cowboy test
Who knew there was a cowboy test online? That seems a little odd to me, but whatever. I was sent to it, and so here are the results. Those of you who wanted to know, know who you are.
Badass Outlaw
Yeehaw pardner! You scored 98%!
Yee-haw! You're badder than Cash and Wayne combined! Way to go, darlin' Let's head on down to the saloon and celebrate! Yee-haw!
I don't know about being badder than Wayne or Cash. Wayne was a horseman, and I think we all know Johnny Cash was a man for all times.
If any of you take the test, let us know how you make out. I had to laugh about the question that asked if you'd 'ever drunk beer from a Mason jar.' I was doing so right at the moment -- one of the old fashioned kinds, with "MASON" in sunken letters. I mean, it had spaghetti sauce in it when I bought it, but why waste a good Mason jar?
CENTCOM Podcast
Now this is a pretty good idea. Central Command is now doing podcasts, which shows that the folks at CENTCOM PA continue to be attuned to developing new media.
Listen here.
Shameful unlearning
A probing attack against our border overruns a US position held by National Guardsmen. How did this happen?
A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona's border with Mexico.More here.
According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.
How did it happen? I'll bet this is how:
The guardsmen are unarmed and wearing hardhats instead of Kevlar helmets — “we do not want to appear as if we’re militarizing the border,” Greeff said.That refers to a different unit of National Guards, but it has been common to deploy them without arms. Also in the Tucson sector, tribal law bans armed Guardsmen from performing the Border Patrol support duties. The confluence of the need to obey tribal laws, and the desire not to inflame Mexican sentiment by 'appearing to militarize the border' has kept many of our people from deploying with even defensive arms.
Since the Guardsmen apparently neither shot at nor were shot at, the odds are very high that they were not able to resist an incursion by armed men. That's not acceptable for soldiers on a contested frontier.
One would think we might have learned.
Steve Edward Russell, an E-5 sergeant with the 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., was in the guard post directly in front of the lobby when he heard a loud snap, "like a two-by-four breaking" out by the main gate. When he turned to look, he saw a large Mercedes water truck coming through the open gate, leaning heavily as it swerved around barriers. Russell fiddled briefly with his sidearm, but realized it was not loaded - in keeping with the rules of engagement for this "peacekeeping" mission. Then he saw that the truck was coming straight for him.A moment later, two hundred and forty-one Marines were killed by the truck bomb.
The Long War
I have an article on the subject at BlackFive. Due to the length, I posted it there (lacking "jump" coding here).
Kerry explnd
I'm guessing this explains the flip-flopping of Senator Kerry. He's just a feature of the culture. Consider today's session of the MA legislature:
Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban the practice.So, let's get this straight. If you want to amend the constitution in Massachusetts, first you vote for a ballot initiative. Then, you can immediately vote to reconsider -- not, notice, revote -- that is, reconsider right now. Rather, you are actually voting to reconsider the issue later. So then, later, you actually do reconsider, vote a third time, and change your mind back to the original decision. However, it only counts if you still think so next year! Plus you can always reconsider. Or even revote.
Within two hours, they voted to reconsider, but then voted again to uphold their initial decision.
Sixty-one lawmakers voted in favor of advancing the measure, which would appear on the ballot in 2008 and declare marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The proposal still needs approval of the next legislative session.
Wow.
Coffee
It's not a new year's resolution, but I have been getting less coffee lately. That's because of my piece of crap "Mr. Coffee" coffemaker. The hot water running through it repeatedly for a year or so has deformed the plastics, so that about half the coffee runs out onto the countertop. I put it in a pan to cut down on the mess, but so far I haven't replaced it because I don't know what else to buy.
I have a metal coffee pot I use on the trail and at campsite -- all it needs is fire (or a stovetop). And I have one of those 'press' style coffemakers, which is more or less the same thing except you don't boil the water in it, you add almost-boiling water heated elsewhere. Both produce excellent coffee if you know how to use them correctly, but both sorts of coffee are unfiltered -- that is, you don't drain the coffee through a paper filter. This means all the oils are still in the coffee, which makes it extra delicious but also raises your cholesterol sharply.
So, at least, my doctor informed me after my last cholesterol test a year or so back. That's why I bought the sorry-piece-of-crap coffee maker.
So, I'd like suggestions. I have the following needs:
1) At least 8 cups of coffee to be brewed.
2) Paper filter.
3) Stainless steel pot. This one is b/c of the wife's temper -- she's destroyed several of the hardened glass ones over the years.
I'd also like something I won't have to replace right away. You know, if possible.
Eh, I'll probably just go back to boiling the coffee. It's cheaper, the coffee's better, and all it costs is a few years off the end of my life when I'll be sick and old anyway. :)