Deep Breathely

On 'immigrants'

2006-04-07T13:32:00.000-07:00

I have a door on my house. Originally, the purpose of such doors was to keep the elements, rain, wind, out. In fact, I remember well that, when I was a kid, we didn't even bother to lock our doors when we left the house. (yeah, shocking, isn't it?)

Now, however, we always lock up when we leave our abode. It's necessary because, failing that, we'd be leaving our home open to less scrupulous folks who have the belief that what's mine is theirs, if I don't lock it up.

You might be saying, "What's that got to do with immigrants? They just want a shot at the good life in the USA." First, let's get clear on the word 'immigrant'.

We have laws that determine the nature of immigrancy. We have processes through which prospective immigrants must proceed, lawfully, to arrive in and stay within the USA. Failure to abide by these processes does NOT make you an 'undocumented immigrant', anymore than failure to procure a personal invitation into my home would make you an 'undocumented guest'. The desire of undocumenteds to live better is not exculpatory, anymore so than an 'undocumented guest's' desire to live in my comfy home would be.

Now, back to doors. If my house needs a door to keep out elements, it has a lock on the door for the entirely different reasons. Logically, any nation, like any home, without a lock on its door is a place begging to be pilfered. There's probably 85% of the people in any third-world country that'd dearly love to be in America over where they are presently. Only the lack of proximity limits their MIGRATION. Mexico is the lucky one. Just cross the border and escape from the hellhole THEY've created for themselves and walk into the USA. They've done this in the millions. They can do this because we have no lock on the door.

Suppose you and I were each building a car. We both put our efforts into it and, at the end, I have a running vehicle, but, yours is just an abject failure, won't run. A smart person might examine what I did right and emulate it, to make their own car. Instead, what we are seeing today is the demand, the RIGHT, for you to ride in my car, because, after all, we both want to go places.

So, maybe I'll give you a ride. Just keep in mind that it's my car and I make the rules. You don't get to drive, or tell me what speed to travel at, or what route to take. You're here by my sufferance, not because you have a right to go places. Likewise, you don't secure those privileges
just because you hid in my trunk or hid behind the seat. It's still my car and you didn't even ask for permission to ride.

We still use some doors in the USA. Did you know that half the criminals in jail in California are illegal 'immigrants'? I'm betting there are locks on THOSE doors.

For a better blade

2006-03-16T10:33:00.000-08:00

It's not easy getting respect. I know this because I've raised children. There are a lot of ways for kids to get into trouble, really bad trouble, and a parent imagines each and every one of those ways every day, hence my gray hair. ( I like to think of it as silver, though, cuz that seems so much classier)

Anyway, a parent's toughest job is preparing their children for the days when they make decisions that could scar or break them should they decide unwisely. That's a key word, 'unwisely'.

You see, wisdom is the domain of the elder, not the child. Children' experience is, perforce, limited, thus they make their decisions either by whimsy or based upon received knowledge. If, as a parent, we limit their received knowledge by avoiding tough subjects (drugs, sex, etc), we are setting them up for a likely failure because, without our sage preparation, their only teacher will be 'experience'.

If the sole arbiters for their actions are their, likewise, knowledge/experience-limited peers, then, we should not be too surprised when they dabble where angels (ie, grownups) fear to tread. It's said that you can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make him drink. On the other hand, if you never show him the path to water you should not be surprised if he follows his own nose and wanders off the safe path.

For instance, you wouldn't give your child a '1st place' ribbon for a race he'd never even run. You'd be conflating the mere possession of the goal with its achievement. So, you teach that any goal, love, money, success, whatever, that comes without a race is valueless. You teach that failure is just an obstacle in the race, not the end of the race.

Take Donald Trump. If you thought he's driven by the possession of wealth, you'd be wrong. Money is just the measure of of his success, not it's goal. For 'The Donald' it's the race that matters. The ribbons, i.e., money, are just acknowledgement of his skill in the race. If making the finest swords were his goal, a finished blade would be just another ribbon in the race to make a finer blade.

In the end, one might offer that our children are our own effort to make a finer blade, a better version of ourselves, in our own race for posterity. So, do a good job, if for no other reason, do it for yourself because your children are the mirror of your soul.

Socialism, Europe's religion of 'Cargo'

2006-03-08T09:34:00.000-08:00

During the Second World War, the advancing Allies needed bases closer to the Japanese front and they carved them into the wilds of New Guinea. They stumbled across a primitive tribe. Those primitive people were amazed at the wonders of these strange new people, perhaps gods, with strange craft that flew, with new foods in astonishing amounts, blades of metal, and other wonders. Just imagine flying a B-17 into Pharoah's Egypt. That scale of shock and wonder.

Eventually, the war moved on and the Allies moved on, abandoning the new bases and leaving the primitive tribe behind to ponder that brief visit from the gods. The primitives wanted them back! So, they did what the limitations of their experience allowed, they emulated what they'd seen in order to induce the return of the gods. With mocked-up airplanes, built of wood and grasses, with praises and prayers, they tried to induce the occasional overflight to, again, return with its mana, the 'cargo'. The 'Cargo Cult' was born.

To quote Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The people of the 'cargo cult' had no comprehension of how the wonders came to be, but, they knew they wanted them. With no understanding of technology, they called upon the magics of prayer to deliver.

Now we segue to Europe where, through a retrograding of education via the discipline/religion of socialism, they are devolving into a new cargo cult. The birthplace of the industrial revolution is in the process of forgetting the lessons they once taught the world, how to create wealth and wonders. As a people, Europeans are greatly interested in receiving the 'cargo' but much less interested in its creation. Socialism is the religion of 'cargo', mana received by those who cannot create their own. The creaking governments of Europe are destroying the sources of their wealth/cargo, through burgeoning taxation and stultifying regulations, even as they promise their dwindling populations ever greater portions of the cargo.

I read of an American entrepreneur who'd bought a part interest in a factory in a former Warsaw Pact country. In discussions with the workers he'd be employing he was asked why the company had to make a profit. He was stunned, of course. Here was a people who wanted the wealth capitalism could produce but had not a clue as to how that wealth might be achieved. At least two generations under communist regimes had been reduced, unknowingly, to cargo cultists. They looked forward to receiving the same wealth that Westerners could display and fully expected that their governments would provide it. That, in essence, is the cargo cult. Substitute Gods for governments and the beliefs are similar.

Meanwhile, in Western Europe, vast numbers in their populations had, likewise, been schooled to disdain capitalism's flaws while learning nothing of its benefits. Simultaneously, the demands for the wealth created by capitalism grew while the promises of 'free' cargo, through the beneficence of government, were continually expanded. Homes, jobs, health, and wealth were all to be had, so long as the peoples continued their praise and prayers. When, as is happening, limits are reached and the wealth dwindles, the peoples are exhorted, not to produce, but, to believe. The peoples are urged to shun 'Anglo-Saxon Capitalism' lest they lose they lose their kinship with the cargo gods of Socialism.

Predictably, Europe is being surpassed by nations that converge on capitalism and reduce their enthrallment to socialism. Asia, as a whole, is advancing upon Europe, while individual nations make astonishing leaps forward, India and China, notably. Having cast down their false priests they've emboldened their people and opened up to greater possibilities. The difference is that one must pray to the Socialist shrine that will be built. Under capitalism, people understand that one needs to make bricks in order to build.

Europe gets mugged... by a cartoon

2006-02-05T10:24:00.000-08:00

It's often said that a liberal is a conservative that has never been mugged. If there's any truth to this, then, Europe is presently learning the lesson of conservatism.

The recent publication in a Danish paper of cartoons depicting Mohammed has resulted in protests that have avalanched into embassies burning and cries for the murder of any westerner within reach. The French can claim a fair share of credit/blame for it because a French paper re-printed the cartoons, followed by papers in numerous other Euro countries. The effect has been the enraging of the Middle East against this show of European solidarity for Denmark's cartoonists.

For a long time Europe rested comfortably under the laurel of multiculturalism, secure in the belief that their tolerance of radicalism would co-opt the radicals of Islam. Belatedly, they have learned that they are in a war of ideas and that Europe was getting whiplashed by dutifully turning the other cheek. Indeed, they had not enough cheeks to turn to appease their abusers.
Europe is finding that they cannot enact laws fast enough or wide enough to satisfy those whose ultimate desire is Sharia law without depriving themselves of the body of laws which permitted Europe to flourish.

Many Europeans are now asking themselves why they'd been so blind, or lead so blindly. Must be a real shock to them to have found the 'root causes' they so wished America would seek in response to 9-11 are, in fact, in Europe. All we can say is, "Welcome to the real world'.

Pacifist and pitbulls

2006-01-24T20:27:00.000-08:00

A guy named Joel Stein wrote, in the LA Times, that he doesn't support the troops in Iraq. There's a flurry of responses in the blogosphere and elsewhere now.

Mr. Stein, it seems, is a pacifist who's determined that moral rectitude lies with those who decline violence under any circumstances. Well, we're Americans, so, we believe he's entitled to his own opinions/beliefs/voice, etc. And his voice is loud, coming from a major newspaper, so he's getting, at least, a fair share of justice for his views. If it's okay with Mr. Stein, I'll grab my own, though lesser, megaphone now.

There are no pacifist nations, only pacifistic enclaves within nations. Indeed, if any pacifist nation ever existed it would be but a footnote in history for it certainly was absorbed by a less morally constricted neighbor.

There have been some admirable pacifists in history, and some admirable pacifist groups, as well. Ghandi's name comes to mind easily. One can certainly admire the depth of his belief, his faith. Yet, a Ghandi-led India would've been marched into the ovens of a Nazi Auswitz or a Soviet gulag to die, if not for the fortunate lack of proximity to the butchery and the protection of more martial nations. Pacifists proudly proclaim their willingness to be herded to what ever fate or slaughterhouse a forceful sheperd desires. They survive only by the protection offered by another who is less morally straight-jacketed.

Pacifists pride themselves on the virtue they perceive derives from their denial of aggression and, even, defense. I wonder, though, what might be a pacifists' response if he, or his child perhaps, were attacked by two or three pitbulls?

Does one lose his virtue if he picks up a stick to beat off the dogs? Must he, simply, permit himself or a loved one to be mauled? Perhaps he might just grab the offending animals and try to pull them off?

So, does the pacifist fight in this scenario? If so, then their belief is either very shallow or very false. Maybe you'll posit the case that a pitbull is a lower animal and, thus, not protected. Well, these things do vary, don't they? Cows are sacred in some places, rats and snakes in others. I guess it depends upon where you believe the starting point is when respecting life. The religious can, at least, explain that having a soul sets the threshold. The non-religious have to set themselves a much more arbitrary, and far less logical, threshold. Species-ism, anyone?

Mr Stein, you, and those like you, are permitted to survive ONLY because me, and those like me permit you your moral cocoon. Do us, your moral inferiors, a courtesy and don't assail us for our permissive nature. To people like you, the only good soldier is Cindy Sheehan's son. Without us (and him), you and yours could not indulge yourselves.

Children's Games and other trivia

2005-02-22T12:04:00.000-08:00

Imagine, if you can, what a child's life was like in the early 1300's. The Black Plague has struck Europe and everyone is dying. This plague will kill almost half the people in Europe, alone. Still, a child is a special kind of person and they need only little things to bring out their natural resiliency, like games.

One game, which you almost certainly have played, dates back to those days. A group of children will join hands in a circle and, rotating their circle, they recite a short poem until, upon reaching the last word of the poem, they simultaneously drop to the ground. In my old neighborhood we called it 'Ring around the Rosy'. It goes like this:

Ring around the Rosy!
Pocket full of posies!
Upstairs! Downstairs!
We all fall DOWN!

The game is the story of the plague, from a child's view. One symptom of the plague was buboes.
That is a swelling in the lymph glands that was particularly painful. They could be recognized by the red, or 'rosy' central swollen area surrounded by (a ring) of blanched skin.

Strangely, it was thought that the inhalation of 'bad air' caused the plague, hence, special masks were often worn, incense burned, or, one might carry flowers to provide 'good air', a 'pocket full of posies'.

The plague respected not rank. Both nobles and peasants were afflicted. Rich, poor, high, low, upstairs(the wealthy), downstairs(the servants), all were struck down impartially(we all fall DOWN).

Interesting, no? It occurs to me that, when I was small, we called out little injuries 'boboes'. Coincidence?

While we're on the subject of olden times, I know you've heard of small pox. That also goes way back. There was also a 'large pox' in those days. We now call it syphilis. Going yet farther afield, did you know that syphilis was EXTREMELY common in the 1700-1800's? I was reading about the Lewis and Clark expedition in which virtually everyone on it suffered from syphilis. It was considered just one of life's miseries, like the common cold.

Lastly, the yoke harnessed animal power to the plow and made it possible for one to farm five times as much land and pull much heavier loads. When they took the yoke off the animal's neck to lower on its chest, and stopped choking off its wind, they doubled their productivity. A little thing, but, very important.

Truth + Bias vs Honesty

2005-02-21T16:50:00.000-08:00

There's been two trains of thought that I've been tossing around lately that I want to write down before they're lost as I move onto some else. The first is Truth + Bias vs Honesty. The second is a characteristic shared between lawyers and terrorists, that of loophole abuse.

The MSM is generally truthful. I say that despite Rathergate and other such defamations. For instance, when the Washington Post trots out a story with a poster child that demonstrates how social security reform will hurt that person, that may well be truth. But, is it honest? The facts of their story can be totally accurate but honesty demands that an opposing argument be made. Bias enters when no opposing argument is offered, at all.

If a reporter accurately relays a quote which savages someone, say Bush, that's truth. If that reporter then asks Bush for his response, he's probably being dishonest. If the quote is truly newsworthy, it should be placed in context and the validity of it should be appraised. The purpose of the quote should be determined. Is the reporter merely to carry water for those quoted? If so, then he's not a reporter, merely a repeater.

And, that's the problem with the MSM today. They are truthful, but, biased and, therefore, not honest because they usually only present the argument which their bias approves. They repeat the arguments of those they support and require those in opposition to do the work of honestly reporting their side from outside the MSM.

That second thought, that most confuses me. We live under laws that try to provide for the social body a environment in which people can live and prosper while maintaining their freedoms. The laws that protect our freedoms were created to prevent those who have power in our society from abusing that power. Lawyers typically seek loopholes through which their clients can skirt the law and continue actions the law was created to prevent. Clever lawyers get paid well for their innovative use of loopholes. Society must endlessly upgrade its laws to cover the loopholes that clever lawyers find.

Similarly, terrorists use our laws against us. Or, in this case, the Geneva Convention. Clearly terrorists have no intention of obeying the Convention. Indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians is a common attribute of terroism. However, the Convention is an accord between its signatories, agreeing on what is permitted in wars between them. Why should terrorists be allowed the benefit of such an accord? They are neither signatories, nor nations. This is a case of abusing a loophole, that being that nations which submit to the Convention are then called upon to treat terrorists as actual nations, and signatories. At least, that is the argument that some offer, particularly terrorists.

What about torture? Our laws forbid torture because it was frequently used by the powerful, and criminal, to extort confessions, admissions of guilt, etc. We protect the individual by forbidding torture. But, what about a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb or bio weapon? Do we protect the indiviual's rights by permitting the killing of many individuals because we won't torture a terrorist for information? I admit it, I'm confused by this issue. This is the kind of thing that persuades people to relinquish, or weaken, a right for the purpose of security. I'd be interested in others thoughts.....

Sometimes democracy doesn't work....

2005-02-12T11:06:00.000-08:00

The Iraqi people voted overwhelmingly for freedom recently. It was in all the news. I'm very happy for them and I never doubted that they would do so, given the opportunity. That's my liberal instinct kicking in, assuring me that people always want to be free.

Unfortunately, that's not always true. Sometimes, they'd prefer security to freedom. It has a lot to do with opportunity.

For instance, in the former Soviet Union everyone got to vote. That's democracy, of a kind. They got paid for their work efforts in rubles. That's economy, of a kind. There was little they could buy, however, with their hard-earned, or saved, rubles. To misquote the Bard," Aye, there's the ruble". One worked in the USSR with little hope for bettering one's condition. If the ruble had any value it was not that which Americans are used to from the dollar, that is, what you could buy with it, for there was little to buy in the USSR. A world power with ambitions and nuclear weapons collapsed because the thing it could not provide its people was opportunity, opportunity to own a car, build a PURPOSEFUL nestegg, buy a dacha or even windshield wipers.

Again, for instance, the new Russia. It's presently headed back into its dark history of oppression because, once again, it has failed to provide opportunity for people after their Communists were cast aside. Their new freedom came with expectations of western-style affluence. They were more free, more democratic, thus the fruits of the West would now be there for them, right?

Of course, that was not the case. There was no cultural infrastructure built up over decades, even centuries, upon which they might depend, no broad understanding of personal responsibility within which the people fitted themselves and went on to create a vibrant economy. All they had was the generally antiquated Soviet industries, run by former apparatchiks whose only experience with production was how to gloss over their failure to produce under Communism. The Russian people are willingly trading their new-found freedom for security in the form of government support, even on a minimal basis. Freedom to starve, after all, is not much to cling to.

Similarly, what used to be East Germany is in the doldrums, economically. It's far worse there than in the rest of Germany. There is a resurgence of the Communist party because the people, having little experience with personal responsibility for themselves, are pretty much waiting for someone to house, feed, and provide employment to them, and that of a long term and secure nature.

The connection to the Iraqi people is similar. They've now voted for their freedom, but, will it also give them opportunity? The unemployment there is over 50%, so far. The industrial infrastructure suffered under Saddam's neglect. Much of the work done, thus far, has been replacing decades-old equipment to improve communal life, water, electricity, and the like. The part of the population that did best under Saddam was rigidly controlled through direct handouts from the Baathist party, that is, Saddam. There's an entire generation that has zero experience with personal responsibility for their survival, much less success.

Hopefully, the Iraqis are going to do better for themselves than some of the failed communist states have. There's Poland, the Latvian States and the new Czech states to look to as examples. It can work if a people has both desire and initiative. The Iraqis, at least, have a bonafide sugardaddy, the US, to help them along. I've got my fingers crossed.....

Exit Jordan, enter.....???

2005-02-12T10:19:00.000-08:00

Eason Jordan has resigned. A lot of credit is due to the blogosphere, at least the non-radical part of it, for their sisyphean effort. I'm not denigrating their effort by describing it so for Eason Jordan was just one head lopped from a hydra, certain to be replaced soon by yet another, similar, head. Just as Dan Rather will be replaced by a partisan liberal whose purpose is to keep Republicans out of office and promote European socialism, so will Eason Jordan be followed by a sibling from the incestuous liberal news family.

The pool from which their replacements will be drawn is, you must admit, limited to like-minded fellows. It's as though a bullpen consisted only of southpaws. No matter what pitch they throw, it always comes from the left. In order to balance their roster they'd have to hire outside their organization. I don't expect to see that happen.

I saw a movie in which a prisoner escapes only after chipping away with a tiny hammer through his wall, breaking into a sewer and crawling through 500 yards, or so, of filth before he got to daylight and freedom. That's pretty much what the blogosphere just did. Now, let's see if the evil warden gets taken down.

Why I'm a Liberal.....

2005-01-27T16:23:00.000-08:00

Man, this is depressing. I just realized I'm a Liberal. Not a Progressive, just a Liberal.

For instance, if a question comes up on the gender of the person stroking someone's genitalia, I just say, " Not my business, what's his politics?". Thus, I'm a Liberal.

When a public person gains cachet BECAUSE the gender of the person stroking his genitalia is identical, that's Progressive. And, If I said, "Don't' knock it if you haven't tried it", that'd mean I'm gay....which I'm not! Not that there's anything wrong with that! (Seinfeld, anyone?)

There's more~!

I know I'm a Liberal because I care about other people. For instance, if one person feeds another person into a wood chipper, I think that's bad. But, that, alone, doesn't make me a Liberal, that just makes me Progressive. I'm a Liberal because I want something done to stop it. Which is a very un-Progressive attitude. 'Contumely,yes!, Confrontation, No!' just seems a lame response to people being turned into ground burger.

I know I'm a Liberal because I believe that, even though they may have no experience of it, I think people want to be free. Even people who live under bloody rulers that can sweep them up in the night, take them off and torture them, chop off the odd hand now and then, or toss them off of tall buildings. I really believe that, somewhere in his depths, that person is saying to himself, "I wish this didn't keep happening to me". Which is where I differ with Progressives, who think that such a person would MUCH prefer those things over, say, ending them by the aid of some (ugh) foreigner.

Just as an aside, there's a saying that goes, 'No good deed goes unpunished'. That's a Scottish saying, so, I'm beginning work on the theory that all Progressives are Scotsmen. It's just a theory.

I know I'm a Liberal because, after the tsunami hit, I wanted those poor victims to get help, fast. Fortunately, they did receive that help. I'm not a Progressive because I didn't want to wait for the UN to deliver that aid. Which they will. Sometime in the near future. As soon as the 'UN Committee to Discern the Findings of all the Previous Committees concerning the Potential for Ending Committees and Actually doing Things' publishes its findings.

I know I'm a Liberal because I think aborting babies is probably a bad thing psychologically for the mother, and, almost certainly, detrimental to the baby. I can't be a Progressive because I don't believe that executing adults is evil but executing babies is ok.

I know I'm a Liberal because I believed, all along, that the latest terrorists were attacking western freedom and democracy. Of course, it also helps now that Zarqawi has said publicly that he is, indeed, fighting against democracy and the evil people who believe in it. I'm not a Progressive because I can't pretend he didn't really mean it.

So, sad to say, my mind is in turmoil. I've become what I once ridiculed... a Liberal. I know these are all Liberal sentiments because I grew up a Liberal. I only THOUGHT I'd become a Conservative because all those old Liberal sentiments were cast aside by Progressives. Not my fault the Conservatives picked them up off the ground. I guess that's ok with Progressives, they weren't using them anymore.

Call campus insecurity, please

2005-01-26T14:44:00.000-08:00

I just watched a film by Evan Coyne Maloney called 'Brainwashing 101'. It's his documentary on political correctness on US university campuses. The problem is bad, the film is good. See it here! (regards to Instapundit for leading me to this)

http://academicbias.com/bw101-wmv.html

Let the healing begin....

2005-01-26T13:16:00.000-08:00

After 9-11 there was a lot of talk of how Americans needed to address the 'root causes' for terror. How, if we'd only listen to their grievances we could reach those who drift into terror only because they are powerless against the various evils the US represents.

Well, the research has been done and the results are in. We now know their grievance. All we have to do is dismantle democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501261009.asp

Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of al Qaeda in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology,"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let the healing begin!

Broken to the plow....

2005-01-25T10:37:00.000-08:00

I've been readin a lot of stories, lately, about crime in the UK. Specifically, home break-ins, burglaries. In the US, around 14% of burglaries occur when the home is occupied. In the UK, that number is over 50%.

When I read such things, I always feel myself in the other guy's shoes. Family is threatened, what's one to do? In the UK, next to nothing. In fact, if you defend your home forcefully, it's likely the burglar will sue you and the government will prosecute you.

Conversely, in the US, if you touch a burglar up with a piece of hardware, your worst case scenario is if the piece isn't licensed. For that you'd be prosecuted, not for shooting the burglar.

Self-defense is an individual thing. That's you protecting what is yours, self, family, possessions, against someone has no compunction about taking what is not his, or harming those who'd prevent him from doing so. If a cop arrives on the scene in time, that's society acting. Until one does, the individual must decide his actions.

In the UK, there's a broad movement to eliminate the individual. Indeed, that's happening over much of Europe. It's working, too. I read a story on German demographics, which are falling, in which a woman said she couldn't have more children because the government didn't pay enough in benefits. That woman is broken to the plow. She's surrendered one of the most important decisions in her life to the caprice of a government official. In the US, a woman would look for a better bread-winner. In Germany, they just don't have kids.

Back in the UK, there was a notorious burglary in which the home owner killed one burglar and crippled the other. He'd been burglarized repeatedly. He'd gone to extremes to make his home burglar proof, yet, they still came back. In a rarity in the UK, he was armed, so, he used a shotgun on them. And, he went to jail. With an 8 year sentence. He was refused early parole because he'd shown no remorse or regret.

Recently, a wealthy man and his wife were attacked in broad daylight. In their home. He died at the door. She, though stabbed repeatedly, survived. This was a well protected home, all the latest. Now, the government is advising its threatened citizens to protect themselves by hiding better or in a less accessible room. Failing that, they are advised to be non-confrontational. Had this citizen fought back better, there'd be at least one perp in jail today...himself.

It's sad to note that the English and Euro governments have done what the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht could not.... break proud peoples to the plow.

It's not easy, being superior......

2005-01-24T17:06:00.000-08:00

IF your first impression was, "gotta be another left-wing moonbat", well, ok, fair jibe. Leftists do, generally, believe themselves to exist on some higher plane than Red Staters, Conservatives, and Fascists. And they, quite often, suspect those are simply stages in a metamorphosis.

I'm pretty sure I'm morally superior to anyone who says that being in Iraq is wrong because Bush hasn't produced any WMD there. I'll explain.

You see, way back when his (Bush43's) father was president, I was particularly incensed when Saddam invaded little Kuwait, next door. There's something about brutal sadists (or Saddamist's ) wielding modern weaponry that strikes me wrong, to begin with. When said sadists invade inoffensive neighbors, I just want to jump into the fight. That's my nature.

My son, who is now 24 and serves in the Coast Guard, was twice suspended (6th and 10th grades) from school for fighting. On both occasions, when I asked him what the fights were about, he explained that he'd had to..... some little kids were being bullied. I didn't punish him. The fruit had fallen not far from the tree.

Thus, when Bush-the-father took us to war against Saddam, I was all for it. I was less supportive when we stopped short of deposing him, but, a deal's a deal. Bush had agreed, beforehand, that the restoration of Kuwait was our goal and he must keep his word.

In the years intervening between Iraq War I and Iraq War II the US and UK maintained about 150k of troops, an air force, and a navy on Saddam's border, just to keep him honest. Conservatively, we spent about a billion a year for 12 years doing this. Conservatively, Saddam murdered 250K of Iraqis during that period, too. That's Saddam's nature. So what if he could no longer slaughter Iranians or Kuwaitis? We couldn't stop him from murdering his own, now, could we? That's how realpolitic works. We accept unconscionable acts, so long as we are not affected directly. We don't threaten the status quo, not ours or anyones. So long as we don't suffer from it, that is.

Then, 9-11. Realpolitic wouldn't solve this one. Only one thing to do.... go to the source. So we did and Afghanistan's bloody crew was thrown out or cut down. Attack me or mine and I fight back. That's what Bush-the-younger did, too. Bravo! When the Afghan business was completed, what next? Encore? Realpolitic again? You must be kidding! Realpolitic has outlived its usefulness. Its time had come and gone. What's the fallback position?

I'll admit it. I was surprised when eyes were next turned on Iraq. Not opposed, surprised. We'd been swimming in realpolitic for so long, I didn't think there was anyone in politics that had cojones. Ordinary people, like me, have experienced bullies and their behavior. We know they don't go away or grow out of it. It's their nature. Like a wolf that kills cattle, just because he didn't kill any while I watched the herd didn't mean he wasn't waiting for me to end my watch.

Saddam was active. He was undermining the sanctions on Iraq. Long before we knew how well they were being paid to do so, the French, Russians, and the UN were advocating elimination of sanctions. The US and UK, who'd watched the herd for a dozen years, would be told to go roll a hoop. The wolf would be free to roam, again. Realpolitic.

I never bought into the MSM line that Saddam had received 99% in his latest election. The MSM didn't either, really, but, they pretended it was true, for access. I was supposed to pretend with them, be more European, as it were. To stop pretending was to indict the MSM and all those who pretended with them for amity's, and profit's, sake. Any mention of real atrocity in Iraq was sub rosa. Some folks can live with such hypocrisy. I don't.

So, we invaded Iraq and finished what was started over a decade before. Maybe you don't agree with Bush' rationales for invasion. He didn't find WMD? So what? As I've already told you, I'm not with the pretender crowd. 270 mass graves later, if all you can raise in complaint is "No WMDs" then I won't waste time pretending that your sensibility is outraged. I'm your superior, morally. I didn't study for it. I didn't work for it. It's the mantle you gave me, by default.

And, what beats three-of-a-kind, again?

2005-01-22T17:18:00.000-08:00

For the last year, or so, I've been enjoying watching Pro Poker on television. That's the Texas Hold'em version, not blackjack or whatever. The hook is that you, the audience, can see what cards the player is holding. It's truly interesting to watch these pros bluff and counter-bluff, try to read their opponent, and, finally, put it all on the line by going 'All In'. It's all very interesting,yet,.....now I'm seeing CELEBRITY poker on tv.

What? There wasn't enough face time in their last movie/sitcom? Now they have to invade Las Vegas, too? One reason that PRO poker players are interesting to watch is that they have something on the line. Their money, their reputations. When they play, they do so with earnest and their faces, winning and losing, reveal them.

On the other hand, if William Shatner or some other 'B' grade actor drops his/her wad on the table, or wins the whole thing it means nothing to them. They are 'acting', you see. It's just another gig for them. Worse, they are poor players. A short while back, it was cachet in Hollywood to adopt babies. Now the in thing is to pretend that one is a clever card player. Gotta blame it all on that movie, 'Rounders'.

Who knew?

2005-01-22T15:22:00.000-08:00

I wanted to post a comment at a blog. Simple. Just click on 'Comments' and post away, yes?

Ack! You mean, I have to actually sign up for a blog just so's I can reply to a blogger?

But, shouldn't a blogger have something to say, something weighty to contribute, a cause, a raison d'etre, in order to be considered a 'blogger'? Apparently not! Like Groucho Marx, I'm not sure I want to belong to any organization that would have me as a member.

I mean, what, really, is blogging about? Is it blogging if I merely read another blog and then comment on it? If I read the newspaper and then mention an article in it to my wife, did I just, unwittingly, blog?

Oh, humbug. I'll tell you what this is about.... it's about being afraid. I'm afraid I'm gonna be like that weird (and very large) child on Mad TV, Stuart, who, periodically, says, "Look what I can do!", who then proceeds to flutter his arms and legs inanely, to the bemusement of the onlooking adults. I really don't want folks reading something I'll say and walking away muttering, " Bemused, be VERY mused".

So, I'll make a pact with whomsoever should accidentally (and you KNOW you didn't get here any other way) accost himself with my drivel...... this is NOT a blog and I am NOT a blogger. If you came here to BE blogged, you're outa luck. I don't do that kind of thing. I got children, ya know, and a dog, and guppies! See? Bloggers get e-mails and stuff, get news from mysterious sources, talk with intelligent folks. Bloggers have contacts! I wear glasses. I talk to my dog. I get mysterious rashes. I get Spammed by porn sites. It's not the same.

Ya see, bloggers write about important things like, elections, fraud, civil rights, UNcivil rights, things like that. They have insights! I was stumped, for years, when I read the line, "The Iliad wasn't really written by Homer, but, by another guy with the same name." (Frankly, it's still confusing.)

I'm also not a pundit. You say 'pundit' to me and I think 'Fourth down and gotta give up the football'. Besides, pundits don't REALLY have to know what they're talking about. They're pundits BECAUSE they have something to say, even on topics on which they know little. They're EXPERTS in one field, usually, and merely pundits on everything else in the world. On their one subject, they speak expertly. On everything else, they.... pundate?

Oh, that reminds me of a girl I dated, once. For some reason she brought out a ball of Gouda cheese and I started making puns/jokes out of Gouda til she finally just told me to leave. (eg: What do you get if you cross a lawyer with a cheese ball? A barraGOUDA) Oops! I digress...... Thus, I can never be a pundit, because I'm not an expert at anything, nor am I, apparently, capable of sustaining a single chain (or is that train?) of thought for long.

Anyway, if you should get here and read this, or worse, post here, don't mention it to anyone or, you, too, may unwittingly become a blogger. And, if you are already a blogger and should arrive here...... you oughta be ashamed of yourself!

Regards, Tom Hazlewood

Addendum: This ( http://instapundit.com/archives/020558.php) was all I really wanted. A stroke, a mere plum. Me and Judy Garland, discovered!

Addendum: Blogspot NO LONGER requires you to create a blog in order to post on one of theirs.