Real War
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Bluegrass Radio
Topic: Real War
052018AUG05

"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper.” --Robert E. Lee

The legacy of two wars now dominates the future of the War on Terror. One of the two should be manifestly clear: the Vietnam War. That war, the sin quo non of military history for the Left, has been thoroughly explained, analyzed, and interpreted by this pundit as well as many others. However, another war, one whose influence is just as palpable as that of the Vietnam ghost, has, thus far, gone without comment. The war of which I speak is the first war against Iraq---Gulf War One (a.k.a. Desert Storm).

Why do I consider this smashing victory of 1991 as so influential? Because it set America’s expectation of what a modern, high-tech warfare can deliver way too high.

Desert Storm was a remarkably clean war after our nation’s gritty experience in South East Asia. To start, it was every United Nations aficionado’s dream come true: 34 separate nations, united under U.N. auspices, cooperating to expel the Butcher of Baghdad from Kuwait. It was seen as a ray of hope, after a long, divisive Cold War, that a turbulent globe could join hands and work for the greater good of mankind---in this case, undoing a manifest wrong against the Kuwaiti people. Furthermore, this international cooperation also helped bolster America’s resolve. We were not ‘going it alone’, but could count on the support of a vast community of nations, even Middle Eastern states that, heretofore, were less than eager to assist any Western military operation.

Better, the actual military operations were just as encouraging. After hearing dire predictions from the experts, vis-a-vis the robust size and capabilities of the Iraqi military, the actual armed confrontation was almost anti-climatic. America began the war with a four week air assault, the size and complexity of which had not been seen since World War Two. Glitzy Cold War-era technology served to guide smart munitions to their targets with pinpoint accuracy. American’s could watch, with rapt attention, missiles and bombs attacking targets through windows and air shafts---from the weapon’s point of view, no less! The Iraqi military forces and command centers were quickly shattered with few loses to air personnel.

After the drubbing from the air, America sent in our vaunted armor and infantry forces. This was when everyone really held their breath---after all, America had not had to face a large ground war for over two decades. And not since World War Two had we faced an enemy so well endowed with tanks and armored vehicles of their own. Would the unproven M1 Abrams tank hold its own against the Iraqi owned and operated Soviet equipment? The answer was a resounding “yes!” After only 100 hours of direct combat, America’s “boots on the ground” had decisively bested their Iraqi foe, smashing even the vaunted Republican Guard formations that held much of Saddam’s neighbors in a state of perpetual fear.

America had won a victory of epic proportions, and all in less than two months worth of combat time. Even better, U.S. casualties were miraculous: 148 killed, with a sizeable percentage of that due to “friendly fire” incidents. It would seem America had rewritten the rule book on warfare.

And therein lays the problem.

Because of Desert Storm, the average American has come to demand that every war achieve the lofty heights of perfection set by Gulf War One. If victory is not achieved in 100 hours or less, if American ground casualties mount beyond 148, if a huge body of the world politic does not cheer us on, well, then, clearly defeat must be just around the corner, no?

This attitude is proving poisonous to our efforts in Iraq and must be overcome.

Americans must be given a crash-course in military history. They must be made aware that every war is different, each with its own peculiar set of conditions, its own standards of victory. The glorious radiance of Desert Storm must not be allowed to blind us to the fact that that war was the exception, not the rule. Wars, even American wars, have been bloody, tiring affairs. Consider the following:

During the Revolutionary War, total American deaths are estimated to be in the range of 6,824 over a period of eight years. America suffered over 400 killed in action at the Battle of Bunker Hill alone, a fight lasting a few hours.

During the War of 1812, this nation’s original ‘forgotten war’, we suffered 2,260 deaths and an additional 4,505 injured from 1812 to 1815.

Our brief, two year war with Mexico (1846-1848) generated 1,733 dead and another 4,152 wounded.

With the American Civil War, the victims really start piling up. From 1861 to 1865, America sustained a staggering 610,000 (360,000 Union, 250,000 Confederate) dead, with total casualties at 1.1 million! During the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest single day in U.S. history, both sides suffered a combined 23,000 casualties. At the later Battle of Gettysburg, both sides endured 53,000 dead and wounded during the course of a three day battle!

The single-year Spanish American War (1898) resulted in 2,446 deaths, and 5,500 wounded soldiers. All that for one year….

The 20th Century would set new records for costly martial contests:

World War One (U.S. involvement: 1917-1918): 126,000 killed in action, 234,300 wounded.

World War Two (U.S. involvement: 1941-1945): 405,500 dead, 671,750 wounded. One D-Day alone (June 6, 1944), we lost 1,465 dead and 3,184 wounded. With the surprise attack now known as the Battle of the Bulge (December 16, 1944 to January 25, 1945), America suffered another 19,000 dead, and 38,446 wounded.

Korea (1950-1953): 36,934 dead and 103,284 wounded.

Vietnam (U.S. involvement: 1965-1975): 47, 378 killed in action, 10,799 wounded.

This is surely a grim list. It is interesting to note that as the technology of war became more sophisticated, the death toll increased accordingly. This fact teaches a lesson that stands against our experiences with Desert Storm: high technology is not a cure-all for the carnage of the battlefield.

In light of these figures, how does the fight in Iraq compare?

Operation: Iraqi Freedom (as of August 2005): American deaths number 1,830 since March of 2003. Total wounded is a higher figure at 13,769.

In comparison to our historic experiences for other major wars, our losses have been exceptionally light---that’s right, I’ll repeat it again: exceptionally light. Considering that America is fighting a war for over two years, one involving at least two fronts (i.e., against terrorists trained and equipped by both Syria and Iran), we have managed to deal far more death than we have received (thank God!). Even better, despite our enemy’s ruthless efforts, we have succeeded in creating the first freely elected, soon-to-be constitutional government in that region!

Of course, if you listen to the popular pundits, many of whom only can view our successes through a Vietnam-Desert Storm prism, we are failing miserably. They daily count off the American dead with the precision of an atomic clock (of course, never bothering to mention enemy casualties and setbacks), and demand to know why our troops have not squelched all armed opposition. What a sorry, pessimistic sham.

This is a real war, people!

We are facing an enemy just as determined to win as we are. Worse, we are fighting a foe that is desperate, with his back against the wall, for if the United States succeeds in creating a liberal democracy in Iraq, the very real end of Islamo-fascism will soon be seen on the horizon. Just as the mere existence of a free West Germany served to undermine the East German totalitarian rulers, an Iraq conceived in liberty will also serve to pull the rug out from under the mad mullahs of the Middle East.

Another thing: don’t let the words “terrorist” and “insurgent” confuse you. We are not fighting the orient’s equivalent of minutemen--- farmers armed with muskets. The people we are fighting are some of the best equipped and trained soldiers that the despotic regimes of Syria and Iran can muster (in addition to renegade Ba’athists). These are the shock troops of such bloody organizations as Hizballah and Ansar al-Islam---paramilitary organizations with extensive experience in maiming and killing. These guys might not wear a uniform, but they are as capable as any army that has ever marched under a national flag.

America must reacquaint itself with real war. This struggle has far less similarity to the quick and painless Desert Storm than it does with the titanic and bloody American Civil War and World War Two. There is no magic bullet, no amount of troops, no single weapon, which will prove a cure-all for enemy resistance. Just as the massive, armed might of General Eisenhower’s forces could not stop a determined Hitler from launching the Ardennes Offensive, there is nothing Iraq’s commanding general, George Casey, can do to win this struggle overnight. We must learn from the past. Abraham Lincoln, along with the soldier-hero of the Union, General Ulysses S. Grant, understood that the sole path to victory against the Confederacy was unceasing offensive operations until the rebels cracked. This strategy is appropriate for the War on Terror as well. President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld understand that the enemy will never cease until they are smashed in detail. Battles will be fought, casualties will mount on both sides, but if we hold firm to our just cause, we will prevail. It will take time, it will not be easy, but, with God on our side, and the unceasing support of the American people for their fighting men and women at the front, we will succeed. And that is the sole formula for victory.

Fascist Lizards and Republican Presidents
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: The Return of "V"
272215JUL05

Fascist Lizards and Republican Presidents

You can always tell when a conservative-Republican president is in the White House. Suddenly, Hollywood studios and television production companies begin to take a keen interest in the political ideology of fascism. Driven by left-wing paranoia, directors and producers start releasing a flood of films and television shows that have us all looking under our beds for Hitler and in our closets for Francisco Franco. One such notable show during the so-called Reagan Years was a remarkable bit of science fiction known as “V”.

“V” first aired in 1983 with a well-received plot of invading fascist alien lizards. These lizards, cunningly disguised as humans with a vocal disorder, openly played to our hopes and desires, offering mankind a smorgasbord of new technology to solve our societal ills in exchange for an Earth-manufactured chemical needed to save their home world. Of course, all of this was just a cover story. In secret, the invaders were plotting to drain the Earth’s water supply and harvest its human population for food. To help achieve their nefarious plans, the aliens, who came to be known as “Visitors”, engineered a state of martial law by uncovering “criminal conspiracies” against the “peaceful” Visitors. The scapegoats for many of these conspiracies were the human scientists who threatened to unravel all of their scheming.

Is any of this starting to sound familiar? Obviously, “V” is an allegorical retelling of the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. From the alien’s swastika-like emblem, to their efforts to round-up and eliminate scientist troublemakers (Jews in the 1930s), everything about the aliens was an open allusion to the Nazi party. And let me assure you that through such clever history-inspired plot elements, the series created an alien race that contained far more motivational depth and fear-inducing realism than your typical green-man-from-outer-space baddie. As a result, “V” quickly became a science fiction landmark, and rightly so, with a huge fan base still active today. Its success ultimately led to “V: The Final Battle”, a three part miniseries released in 1984 that also received a lot of praise, albeit this component of the story focused more upon the action-packed heroics of the human “resistance movement” than plumbing the depths of historic allegory.

Now, any person who follows American politics knows that liberals habitually believe that every conservative has a pair of SS storm trooper boots hidden in his closet. It is for this reason that fascist conspiracies become such a popular plot element when the conservative star rises on the horizon. Anyone who has even the slightest political inclination will be able to watch the original “V” series and see the concealed swipes at the political environment which had ushered Ronald Reagan, the popular conservative Republican, into the White House. One of the most telling scenes involves an argument which erupts between Mike Donovan (played by Mark Singer), a TV news cameraman and member of the resistance, and his wealthy, power hungry, and Visitor-sympathetic, mother. During the argument, Donovan strongly warns his mother that one day you can wake up and discover that you are living in a fascist nation and realize it is too late to do anything about it. With lines like that, it would seem that the Visitors are not the only masters of propaganda.

Of course, Ronald Reagan served his two terms without instituting any fascist conspiracies. During the next decades, we would see one moderate Republican, George H. W. Bush, serving a single term, and one scandal-ridden liberal president, William J. Clinton, serving two terms with a noticeable lack of fascist warnings from Hollywood or television. The entertainment industry went dormant…at least temporarily.

With a sea change in national politics, the gurus of mass entertainment have reawakened with a strong sense of d?j? vu. Most interesting, NBC has deemed it to be the proper time to announce a remake of the original “V” miniseries, with a sequel possibly following soon after. One must wonder “why now?” Of course, the answer is rhetorical as the motivation is clear. With another conservative Republican serving as president, for his second term, no less, the fascist fetish is once again en vogue. History often repeats---just like a television series. And in this case, we have a repeat of both!

As a fan of the original series, I detest the idea of remaking the original miniseries. Sure, with today’s CGI technology, a new “V” could look great, but why tamper with a classic? Haven’t we had enough remakes? Hasn’t Hollywood suffered enough at the box office to get the hint? Where is the originality in the entertainment world? With fresh, new science fiction ideas lining the shelves of countless bookstores around the country, including a sizeable number of “V” spin-off books as well, why is NBC wasting money with a retread?

Worse, I know that the remake is going to be even more politically charged than the original. Don’t take my word for it, read the words of the series creator himself, Kenny Johnson:

“I've fashioned a remake story which maintains the integrity and thematic essence of my original themes and characters while updating it to address current lifestyles and issues facing society today.
The World War Two references have been replaced by much more recent incidents from the dark side of humanity. This has allowed me to sustain the underlying power of historic resonance that made the original so compelling and so well-received by critics and audiences alike.”

Those are some pretty scary words. Why jettison the titanic ordeal of World War Two? As the largest conflict in human history, a war the literally spanned the entire globe, anyone with even a minimal grasp of history can relate to the ordeal of opposing a technically-advanced menace such as the Nazis. Why jettison the very aspect of the story that made it so clever and smart?

Exactly what enemy does Mr. Johnson have in mind to replace the truly evil acts of the Nazis? Of course, the scourge of terrorism seems obvious. But let’s be honest---does anyone really expect Mr. Johnson to use an NBC production to portray Islamic terrorism as the honest to goodness threat that it is? Or perhaps Mr. Johnson has the threat of rogue nuclear nations, such as Iran or North Korea, in mind? Yeah, right! No, we all know how this remake is going to play out. Much like David Koepp, the script writer for Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, who said that “the Martians in our movie represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land…”, I suspect we shall get similar left-wing rant of the evils of a conservative administration and the evils of the American military. No doubt there will be long lectures on the ease of duping people with promises of security against an imaginary foe, sermons detailing how easily liberty is squelched by strong and popular leaders, and how one man’s concept of liberty is another’s tyranny. Sigh, I can see it all now…..

Of course, I could be wrong. Mr. Johnson seems to be an individual with a firm grasp on world history (did you know “V” was originally a script about the French Resistance during World War Two?). Perhaps he will not follow the lemming-mentality of his liberal associates and will work his magic once again to deliver a fresh interpretation of a classic science fiction story. We can all hope. But given the record of contemporary television and movies, I am not optimistic.

Lock and Load! We're Going to War!
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: Bach's Passion of Christ
Topic: Replacing O'Connor


With the surprise announcement that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be retiring from the Supreme Court, the nation suddenly finds itself preparing for a political civil war. Needless to say, this is going to be a nasty, polarizing fight of Lord of the Rings proportions! Within minutes of the official announcement, a number of Democrats (the Orks!), most notably Ted Kennedy amongst them, had rushed to the nearest microphone to issue an ultimatum to the president: either appoint a replacement justice that meets the loony-Left’s standard of quality (i.e., a justice that values a bloated and powerful central government more than the time-tested wisdom of the Constitution) or prepare for political obstructionism of immense magnitude.

For President Bush and the Grand Old Party (the Free Folk!), it is put-up or shut-up time.

As the recent, nasty confirmation battles over a few conservative appellate court nominees indicate, the Democrats are not going to go quietly into “that good night.” With every election relegating their party to the fringes of political authority, they fully understand that the court system is their last hold on real political power. Without the courts, especially the Supreme Court, their ability to continue to remake America in their twisted image will all but vanish. That is something they cannot allow…ever, no matter what the cost.

Conservatives, likewise, are determined to bring sanity to America’s legal system as they know that it has done real harm to the very fabric of this nation. From the legalized infanticide of Roe v. Wade, to the Darth Vader-like expansion of eminent domain powers in Kelo et al. v. City of New London, conservatives are prepared to set things right. “Enough!” they declare, of judges who seem to often base their decisions upon everything but the U.S. Constitution. The recent sorry history of the Court has it basing its decisions on everything from “constitutional penumbras” (that are really nothing more than black-robed chimeras) to international law! Heck, in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union and Van Orden v. Perry, the highest court in the land even used the convoluted logic of geographic location to determine whether or not the Ten Commandments could be displayed on public land! Silly me, I thought the First Amendment would be a better yardstick….

The whole issue revolves around the concept of judges being “strict constructionists” or not. You see, the Left of this great nation believes that the U.S. Constitution is a “living document,” that is, that the meaning of the Constitution changes from time to time; it is subject to reinterpretation whenever a judge feels the need. As anyone with even a modicum of intellect can realize, such an idea will (and has) led to legal anarchy. Once justices are no longer bound to the black-and-white, written word of the Constitution, they are free to make up the law as they go along. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that what you see is what you get; that there is nothing hidden between the lines of that hallowed document. It is as the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the functioning of a limited government---no constitutional shadows are found, no surveys of European legal thought are necessary. This is the most sensible legal outlook. Think of it this way: would you want to play a game of chess with me using a set of “living rules?” If you did, you might discover, to your detriment, that all my pawns have the power of queens---just because, at the moment, I say they do ….

Now the Democrats are going to filibuster anyone President Bush nominates unless he is a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Republicans must be prepared for this. Even Senator McCain and his fellow apostate Republicans cannot prevent this (ironically, his “deal” lasted a mere few weeks). The so-called “nuclear” or “constitutional” option is going to be put back on the table. It has to be as a filibuster cannot be tolerated with such an important position needing to be filled. Compromise is not an option! The nation needs a hardcore, strict constructionist in that High Court chair. A lesser, not as well vetted candidate cannot be allowed; no more Warrens, please! We had enough of stealth-libs, thank you very much.

Democrats are going to try and argue that since Sandra Day O’Connor was a “moderate” or “swing-voter”, that a similar person should be appointed. Nonsense. Just because Justice O’Connor preferred inconsistent legal reasoning does not mean a similar candidate must be appointed. We seek constitutional clarity first and foremost, not switch hitters.

So it comes down to this: neither side can afford to back down---the stakes are just too high. One thing is for sure: the American people twice elected President Bush, and twice increased the number of Republicans in Congress. They are expecting noticeable results. They are watching. The G.O.P. cannot back down. This is the moment when they must decide if they prepared to fight for what they ostensibly believe in. The side that flinches loses---perhaps for years to come.

Lock and load, we’re going to war!

Hit 'em Again!
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: The Laura Ingram Show
Topic: Karl Rove Hits Back

Hit ‘em Again!

As a student of American history and politics, I am loathe to ever label a particular American institution as something less than worthy of praise, but in the case of the modern Democrat party, I will make an exception. The truth of the matter is that modern Democrats, and their parent organization, the D.N.C., is as anti-American as you can get. They are no longer just a party with differing opinions as to the best solutions to the problems that face this great nation, they are now a party that a) refuses to acknowledge the greatness of this nation whatsoever, and b) actively seek to undermine the principles and beliefs that have proven essential to our national well-being. This is not the work of patriots, this is the work of traitors.

Now, before I continue, I guess I need to offer the requisite disclaimer so that the nitwitted Left does not feel compelled to object with their standard “no stereotyping!” tactic. So, this is for them: not ALL Democrats are traitors! But, having said that, the Democrat Party is clearly dominated by extreme Leftists that hate all things American. How else could one explain the election of Howard Dean, a hateful, irrational man of Michael Moore proportions, as the head of the Democrat National Committee, and thereby, the boss of all Democrats? If there are so-called “moderates” in the party anymore, clearly they have been neutered by their “liberal” friends who installed one of their own into the top-spot.

By the way: don’t let words fool you. Left-wingers love to describe themselves as “liberals” or members of the “Democratic (sic)” party. They are neither champions of liberty nor defenders of democracy. They are just the opposite. This is an old trick first used by Lenin when he decided to name his new political party the Bolsheviks. “Bolshevik” can be roughly translated as “majority”, with the implication that his party was preponderantly popular with the Russian people---something decidedly not true. But Lenin understood the value of propaganda, as the modern Democrat party does as well. So when it comes to the chosen names of various liberal organizations, just assume they champion the values opposite of those proffered by a particular appellation.

Back to the argument at hand.

I think the clearest indication of the patriotism of the Left can be found by examining the words of top Democrats regarding our valiant war in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Republicans, and sane Americans of all political stripes, see the manifest value of winning this fight, Democrats have done nothing but seek to actively undermine the war effort and all those associated with it---including the troops. How else to explain House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly calling the Iraq war "a grotesque mistake"? Or Democrat John Conyers crafting a petition, now hosted by Moveon.org, asking the president to explain if there was “a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community…to ‘fix’ the intelligence and facts” concerning the justification for going to war in Iraq? Or Senator Ted Kennedy proclaiming that President Bush “concocted a war for political gain.” Or Richard Durbin, the Democrat’s number two man in the Senate, equating the behavior of U.S. troop at Gitmo with Nazis concentration camps, Soviet gulags, or Pol Pot’s killing fields? I could go on, and on, and on. The point is that these are not the words of patriots who claim to support the troops. These are the words of individuals who seek to pull the rug out from under the very troops that have liberated millions from despotic regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is treason in my book.

No one should be surprised by this type of behavior. After all, this is the Democrat Party that willingly lost the Vietnam War via the same tactics. First they innocently questioned the war’s legitimacy. Then they proceeded to emphasize all the innocent civilians being harmed by U.S. military operations. Next, using their colleagues in the media and pop culture, mass protests of the war were organized with assured network coverage. Before long, demands for a timetable for troop withdrawal were heard from the left side of the aisle, no matter what the harmful implications it would have for the people of South Vietnam. Finally, once their goal was within sight, all pretense of supporting the troops were cast aside, and the U.S. military was made focus of all evil in the world.

When it was all said and done, millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians were sentenced to death by the communist regimes that moved into the vacuum left by our troops. Worse, the American military was a shattered wreck, and U.S. prestige around the world was at brought to an all-time low. Of course, for liberals, this was a victory for their global, anti-American, Marxist cause---a victory still cherished to this very day (alongside the ousting of Nixon, of course).

And this is exactly what the modern Left, as represented by the D.N.C., seeks to achieve yet again. You see, to your mainstream liberal, America is the worst nation on the face of the planet. Even when we do undisputed good, such as deposing a thug like Saddam Hussein, libs just assume it is all part of a nefarious plan to further enslave humanity with the American yoke.

This is why I found it so encouraging to hear the word’s of Karl Rove this past week. He had hit the nail on the head when he said that liberals, who had witnessed 9-11, wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy to the terrorists. This, of course, is quite true (as evidenced by the MoveOn.org memo telling the president to use “restraint” when responding to the attacks), and is why the Left is going absolutely nuts over this candid accusation! The truth is not the friend of the modern leftist because they know that if they were made to come clean concerning their beliefs and goals, the average American would run screaming in the opposite direction. So for Rove to make this statement was to come dangerously close to “outing” the average liberal Democrat.

I found it particularly amusing how New York Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton felt obliged to have a press conference demanding an apology from Rove. While Dick Durbin was comparing American troops to Nazis, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton managed to be blissfully unaware of that national controversy. Hillary was too busy pushing another form of her socialized medicine (during a radio interview, she was asked about Durbin’s remarks, but refused to offer any comment on the issue), and Schumer was too busy demanding the resignation of Ken Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (clearly, Tomlinson’s crime was to have the audacity to utter his belief that PBS had become too liberal and needed more political balance without first checking with the D.N.C.). However, when Mr. Rove made his truthful observation, the Dynamic Duo sprung into action almost instantly! How dare Rove speak that truth without their permission!

The hypocrisy is simply staggering.

Now, some Republicans have been off the mark in responding to the words of Mr. Rove as well. Bill Kristol said that the comments went too far. Brit Hume disagreed, but was quick to point out that Rove was not criticizing all liberals, just those of MoveOn.org. The truth of the matter is that Karl Rove was criticizing all liberals, and rightly so! We must not shrink from the truth! Liberals are not the friends of America and deserve no polite consideration or courtesy when discussing their motives and methodologies. The sooner they are exposed as what they are, traitors to the American way of life, the better we will all be.

This whole incident reminds me of the Charles Sumner affair. On May 19, 1856, Whig Senator Charles Sumner, an ardent abolitionist, made an impassioned speech in which he denounced the pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" in Kansas Territory. Three days later, an enraged Southern Democrat, by the name of Preston Brooks, entered the Senate chamber and bludgeoned Sumner with a light cane! When word of the attack spread across the nation, Brooks received new canes from supporters and well-wishers, many inscribed with the motto “Hit him again!” Brooks ultimately resigned his office, but was overwhelmingly re-elected to his former position as South Carolinian congressman once again.


In my opinion, Democrats have continued to beat their opponents around the head ever since. Strapped for good ideas, they have had little else to offer than ad homonym attacks to counter G.O.P. ideas. But, for a few moments last week, a senior Republican had the courage and audacity to snatch the cane from their hands and issue a beating of his own. So, to the brave Karl Rove, I offer this: Hit ‘em again!

The Metal Monster that Ate London!
Mood:  down
Now Playing: The Mark Levin Show
Topic: Adams versus Hydra
The Metal Monster that Ate London!

Take these pieces, set them in their rank and file upon an 8 x 8 magic square and you have the recipe for endless centuries of romance and intrigue. – Donald McLean

Back in 1997, Garry Kasparov, perhaps the world’s finest chess player ever, matched wits with a metal monstrosity by the name of Deep Blue. In a previous 1996 match, Kasparov had handily defeated the chess-playing machine. But in the 1997 New York rematch, Deep Blue, now supercharged with the latest technology and new chess programming, defeated humanity’s reigning chess champion. It was a stunning blow. But man was not crestfallen; a glimmer of hope could be seen. After all, Deep Blue could only obtain victory after playing six games against Garry, winning by a mere point! All in all, not a bad showing for a man who was mentally-dueling a machine that could “see” 200 million chess positions per second!

Now, in 2005, a similar contest has taken place in London. The contestants were a grandmaster by the name of Michael Adams, ranked seventh strongest player in the world (with a rating of 2737), and Hydra Scylla, a chess playing 64-way cluster computer that never suffered a defeat at the hands of a human being! There were high hopes that Adams, fully aware of the awesome capabilities of these contemporary HAL 9000s, would prepare carefully, fight hard, and ultimately dispatch the checkmating Terminator to the computer trash bin.

Alas, no such good news can be reported.

Not only did Hydra defeat Adams, he defeated him with maximum cruelty by only allowing the human grandmaster a single draw over the course of six games! It was a crushing defeat that has all but extinguished the flickering flame of hope for the eventual triumph of man’s rational supremacy.

The Berserkers have won the day….

[Event "Man-Machine"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2005.06.21"]
[Round "1"]
[White "HYDRA"]
[Black "Adams,Mi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2737"]
[EventDate "2005.06.21"]
[ECO "C42"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Be7
8. Re1 Bg4 9. c3 f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Nbd2 Na5 12. Qc2 Nc6 13. b4 a6 14. Rb1
Bd6 15. h3 Bh5 16. b5 Na5 17. c4 dxc4 18. Nxc4 Nxc4 19. Bxc4+ Kh8 20. bxa6
bxa6 21. Ne5 c5 22. Bd5 Rc8 23. Be6 Rc7 24. Bxf5 Bxe5 25. dxe5 Rxf5 26.
Qxe4 Bg6 27. Rb6 Rf8 28. Qe3 Rcf7 29. Rd6 Qa5 30. e6 Re7 31. Ba3 Rfe8 32.
Bxc5 Qxa2 33. Rd2 1-0

[Event "Man-Machine"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2005.06.22"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Adams,Mi"]
[Black "HYDRA"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2737"]
[EventDate "2005.06.21"]
[ECO "B47"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Qc7 6. g3 a6 7. Bg2 d6 8.
Nxc6 bxc6 9. O-O Nf6 10. Na4 e5 11. c4 Be7 12. Be3 Be6 13. Rc1 O-O 14. b3
Qb7 15. Qe2 Rfe8 16. h3 Rab8 17. Rfd1 Bf8 18. Kh2 h6 19. Rc2 Be7 20. Bc1
Qc7 21. Bb2 Nd7 22. Bc3 Nf8 23. Qe3 c5 24. Bb2 Bd7 25. Nc3 Ne6 26. Nd5 Qd8
27. f4 Nd4 28. Rf2 Bc6 29. fxe5 dxe5 30. Bxd4 cxd4 31. Qf3 Rf8 32. Qh5 f6
33. h4 Be8 34. Qf3 Bf7 35. Bh3 Rb7 36. h5 a5 37. Kg2 Qe8 38. Bg4 Bc5 39.
Rh1 Qc6 40. Rb2 Rfb8 41. Bf5 Kh8 42. Rhb1 Qe8 43. g4 Qc6 44. Qd3 Bg8 45.
Qd1 Qa6 46. Rd2 a4 47. Rdb2 Qa8 48. Kh2 Bf7 49. Kg2 Bf8 50. Kh2 Be8 51. b4
a3 52. Rb3 Ba4 53. b5 Qa7 54. Kg2 Qc5 55. Qd3 Bxb3 56. Qxb3 Ra8 57. Rd1 Qd6
58. Rc1 Qb8 59. Kf3 Bd6 60. Ke2 Bc5 61. Kd3 Qa7 62. Rb1 Qa5 63. Qc2 Qd8 64.
Rh1 Qd6 65. Qb3 Re8 1/2-1/2

[Event "Man-Machine"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2005.06.23"]
[Round "3"]
[White "HYDRA"]
[Black "Adams,Mi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2737"]
[EventDate "2005.06.21"]
[ECO "C91"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8.
c3 O-O 9. d4 Bg4 10. d5 Na5 11. Bc2 c6 12. h3 Bc8 13. dxc6 Qc7 14. Nbd2
Qxc6 15. Nf1 Be6 16. Ng5 Bd8 17. Ne3 Bd7 18. a4 h6 19. Nf3 Rc8 20. axb5
axb5 21. Nh4 Nc4 22. Nxc4 bxc4 23. Ba4 Qc7 24. Bxd7 Qxd7 25. Nf5 d5 26. Ra6
Qb7 27. Rd6 Be7 28. Bxh6 1-0

[Event "Man-Machine"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2005.06.25"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Adams,Mi"]
[Black "HYDRA"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2737"]
[EventDate "2005.06.21"]
[ECO "B23"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. Nge2 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. d4 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Nxd4
8. Qxd4 Bg7 9. O-O O-O 10. a4 Qa5 11. Qd3 Bd7 12. Nd5 Nxd5 13. Qxd5 Qxd5
14. exd5 Bf6 15. c3 a5 16. Re1 Rfb8 17. Bf1 b5 18. axb5 Bxb5 19. Bxb5 Rxb5
20. Rd1 Rc8 21. Ra4 Rcc5 22. c4 Rb3 23. Be3 Rc8 24. Bd4 Kg7 25. Kf1 Bxd4
26. Rxd4 Rxb2 27. Rxa5 f5 28. Ra7 Kf6 29. g4 Rb4 30. g5+ Kxg5 31. Rxe7
Rcxc4 32. Rxc4 Rxc4 33. Rxh7 Kf6 34. Rd7 Ke5 35. Rg7 Rg4 36. f3 Rg5 37. Kf2
Kxd5 38. h4 Rh5 39. Kg3 Rh6 40. Re7 Kd4 41. Re1 d5 42. Rd1+ Ke5 43. Re1+
Kd6 44. Rd1 Rh5 45. Ra1 Kc5 46. Rc1+ Kb4 47. Rd1 Kc4 48. Rc1+ Kd3 49. Rc6
Rh6 50. h5 f4+ 0-1

[Event "Man-Machine"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2005.06.26"]
[Round "5"]
[White "HYDRA"]
[Black "Adams,Mi"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2737"]
[EventDate "2005.06.21"]
[ECO "C87"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 d6 7. c3 Bg4 8.
d3 Nd7 9. Be3 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 Bg5 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. Nd2 O-O 13. Qg4 Bxe3 14.
Rxe3 Rb8 15. b3 Nc5 16. f4 exf4 17. Qxf4 Ne6 18. Qf2 Rb5 19. Rf1 Rg5 20. d4
Rg6 21. a4 Rf6 22. Rf3 Rxf3 23. Qxf3 Qg5 24. Nc4 Qg6 25. h4 f6 26. Ne3 Re8
27. Nf5 h5 28. b4 Kh7 29. Ng3 c5 30. d5 Nd8 31. Rb1 Nf7 32. bxc5 dxc5 33.
Rb7 Rc8 34. Ra7 Nd6 35. Rxa6 Re8 36. Rc6 Nxe4 37. Qxh5+ Qxh5 38. Nxh5 Kh6
39. Re6 Rd8 40. Rxe4 Kxh5 41. a5 1-0

[Event "Man-Machine"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "2005.06.07"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Adams,Mi"]
[Black "HYDRA"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2737"]
[EventDate "2005.06.21"]
[ECO "B42"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Bc5 6. Nb3 Ba7 7. O-O Ne7
8. c4 d6 9. Nc3 Nbc6 10. Qe2 O-O 11. Be3 e5 12. Rad1 Nd4 13. Bxd4 exd4 14.
Nd5 Nc6 15. f4 Qh4 16. Nd2 Be6 17. Nc7 Rac8 18. Nxe6 fxe6 19. g3 Qe7 20. a3
e5 21. f5 Nb8 22. Kg2 Nd7 23. b4 Kh8 24. Bc2 Nf6 25. Rc1 Rc7 26. Bb3 Rfc8
27. Rc2 a5 28. Rfc1 Qe8 29. h3 a4 30. Ba2 Re7 31. c5 dxc5 32. bxc5 Rec7 33.
Be6 Rd8 34. Qd3 g6 35. Kh2 Qc6 36. Qf3 Rf8 37. g4 Qb5 38. Qg3 Qe2+ 39. Qg2
Qe3 40. Qg3 Rxc5 41. Qxe3 dxe3 42. Nf3 Nxe4 43. Kg2 Kg7 0-1

Final Score:
Hydra 5 1/2
Adams 1/2

The Obligatory Michael Jackson Post
Mood:  don't ask
Now Playing: WABC--Laura Ingram Show
Topic: Michael Jackson and Satan
The Obligatory Michael Jackson Post

The long wait is over and now we know. Michael Jackson has been ruled “not guilty” on ten separate criminal charges. The magnitude of error this blanket acquittal represents is staggering. How twelve adults could reasonably conclude that the mountain of evidence presented against Jackson was of no account what-so-ever is simply beyond understanding. Like O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake, a celebrity criminal has been set free to haunt the Golden State once again. Regrettably, America will be forced to accept this judgment as yet another example of California justice.

Let’s get one thing straight: Michael Jackson is not innocent, just “not guilty”. He is still clearly a man in the grip of evil, a slave, unwillingly or not, of Satan. Some of you might conclude that this statement is nothing more than hyperbole. It is not. I truly believe this to be the case. Why? Consider the following.

It is well know that Satan, the father of all evil, delights in mocking and perverting the goodness of God. From tempting Adam and Eve, God’s special and beloved creation, into Original Sin, to his foiled attempts to do the same with Christ, he exists only to ruin all that God does for the benefit of mankind. It is his jealousy and self-idolization that motivates him; his desire to be God rather than to serve Him.

Michael Jackson is no different. He, too, mocks God. I find it quite interesting that Jackson chose to use the terms “Jesus juice” for white wine and “Jesus blood” for red wine. Of all the possible code-names that one could create to disguise the proffering of alcohol to a child, it is curious that he would deliberately tie the name of Jesus to his crime and sin against the innocence of childhood. What could be more deliberately insulting to the sacrifice offered by Christ?

Likewise, one must consider Jackson’s appearance. Some call it “weird.” I call it a deliberate affront to God. To paraphrase Shakespeare, God gave him one face, and he made himself another. His very image is a rebellion against the wisdom of God in his creation. Satan cannot create life, he can only pervert it. Michael Jackson’s image is testimony to that fact.

Likewise, the nature of his alleged crimes is more testimony to the evil that might grip Jackson. Child predation is one of the worst of all possible human offenses. Christ himself spoke to the special place children occupied in his Sacred Heart:

“Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name, receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me…. And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” ---Mark 9: 36, 41

If the allegations against Jackson are true in fact, if not in law, and I still believe they are, he is guilty of doing far worse than just scandalizing children---he robs them of their innocence through alcohol, homosexual pornography, and worse. He is preying upon the beloved of Christ. He is elevating his own perverted pleasure above the well-being of others, in effect, elevating himself above the law of God as expressed by the Ninth Commandment.

It is for these reasons that I believe Michael Jackson to be guilty of the charges that were formerly levied against him. Of course, I fully recognize that I may be wrong, that the charges were in error and he was justly acquitted. Only God knows for sure and he will judge accordingly when the time comes. As an old-fashioned Roman Catholic, I believe in the ancient tradition of the Church Militant. This idea expresses the fundamental truth that this world is the chessboard upon which a war of good versus evil is continually waged. I believe evil has won this battle and has protected a tool of world-wide perversion. But it has not won the war. Christ will ultimately prevail. Perhaps this traumatic experience will compel Jackson to change his ways, confess his sins, and return to the Lord. Remember, even when it appeared that evil had triumphed at Calvary, with the crucifixion of Christ, it had actually lost for all time. Satan had won the battle, but lost the war by the saving sacrifice of Jesus. Let us pray that this spectacle of the Jackson trial proves the same. It’s in God’s hands now---and always was.

The America-haters are at it again!
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: Notorius---Duran Duran
Topic: The Anti-American IFC

The Anti-Americans Are At It Again


9-11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century. Approximately 3000 innocent men, women, and children were murdered by a pack of Islama-fascists who had been fueled by a lifetime of heresy-inspired hatred for the United States of America. But instead of achieving success, these terrorists ultimately failed. Similar to December 7th, 1941, the attacks on September 11th signaled not the doom of a strong America, but the waking of a sleeping giant whose beneficent leadership had been missing from the world stage for far too long. Because of the subsequent determined leadership of President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, terrorist thugs, and the regimes that provide support to them, have been captured, killed, or toppled around the globe. The results have been immediate and impressive. The Middle East, now liberated from tyrannical regimes like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is changing for the better. True democratic reforms are taking place, as in Iraq, weapons are being laid down, as in Libya, and even the ever turbulent relationship between Israel and the PLO has calmed greatly as regional terrorist networks are disrupted by our efforts.

This is the true legacy of 9-11. Not one of Islamic tyranny, but American liberty.

But will you hear about any of this at the proposed World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex, as designed by the International Freedom Center (IFC), that is to be built upon Ground Zero?

I am afraid not.

You see, a handful of America-hating Leftists have seized ideological control of IFC planning, and is proposing to build a 300,000 square foot center that does not honor the heroes and victims of 9-11, but rather seeks to ?blame America first?. As detailed in an excellent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece by Debra Burlingame (http://takebackthememorial.org/?p=6), the likes of prominent America-haters, such as George Soros and Eric Foner, are planning on constructing a monument that will focus upon ?man?s inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich?s Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond.? What, exactly, does any of this have to do with 9-11? The answer, of course, is nothing. The radical anti-patriots are clearly using their favorite rhetorical tactic of ?bait and switch?, a ploy that is all too necessary for the Left when the majority of Americans don?t want to buy what they are selling. In this case, they pretend to honor the American victims of 9-11, but instead switch the discussion to their favorite hobbyhorses: alleged American failings and the trumpeting of globalism.

Needless to say, Ground Zero is not the place for such discussions. It has been consecrated by the blood of the heroes and victims of 9-11. As such, any memorial must be exclusively focused upon these patriots and the great, liberty-loving nation for which they died.

Fortunately, it is not too late to act. Visit http://takebackthememorial.com/ for how you can make a difference and prevent the enemies of America from marring what will be a hallowed site for generations to come.

A New Name for the Blog!
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Duran Duran
Topic: Archive 1
The Forum is now The F.E.B.A.!


I have decided to rename my blog from The Forum to The F.E.B.A. What is a F.E.B.A., you ask? It is a military acronym that is short for the Forward Edge of the Battle Area. Considering the contentious nature of my posts, I thought this moniker was both more colorful and more accurate!

Is it News or is it Science Fiction?
Mood:  chatty
Now Playing: Duran Duran
Topic: Sci-Fi News
Is it News or is it Science Fiction?


While reading a recent issue of the always excellent Federalist Patriot, two topics caught my attention that really brought home how the modern world is on the verge of bringing ideas, formerly found in countless science fiction novels, to reality. Read the following from the FP:

"On the National Security front...

As mentioned recently in The Patriot, the U.S. Air Force has been preparing for an expected presidential directive authorizing the development and deployment of space weapons -- and eventually space forces. While the usual suspects on the Left will howl (indeed, have been howling since 1968) about the "weaponization" of space, the arguments behind the use of force in space are irresistible.

Much like the oceans, space cannot yet be permanently occupied, nor can any nation claim ownership of space. Space itself has no inherent value, except as it provides advantage on earth to those who can utilize it for economic or military reasons. The United States supports the free use of space by all, just as we support and defend freedom of the seas for all. However, the U.S. Navy exists expressly for one reason -- to take control in wartime of any portion of the seas necessary to protect our interests, and to deny enemies the use of the seas. Applying force at or from the sea to influence events on land has proven a lifesaving capability for the nation in the past.

So it must be in space. Today, more than ever, space holds strategic commercial and military importance. Even while championing freedom of space, the United States must have the ability to take control of space in wartime, to protect our interests in space, and deny it to others who would use space against us. Just as the Navy is required to apply force on the seas, space weapons and forces are needed to carry out this mission in space."

and

"In the Leftmedia's view, nothing can save us from the health insurer bogeyman except for government-provided healthcare. Apparently unbeknownst to the Times is that many states already prohibit genetic discrimination or severely restrict its uses (Congress is also debating the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act). Other laws overlooked by the Times are state laws protecting the confidentiality of genetic information; state laws restricting health insurers to using only certain underwriting criteria; and "guaranteed-issue" requirements in most states which are pursuant to federal law, but which raise premium rates. All of these effectively preclude genetic testing for health insurance in addition to the impractical cost of genetic testing."

Think of it: two hot issues of the day revolve around space warfare and genetic discrimination! Just a mere few years ago, such topics were strictly to be found between the covers of Asimov's or Locus. Now, these topics are at the center of contentious policy debates and legal battles.

I shudder to think about what we will be discussing in the not-so-distant future. Could a future headline read: Spielberg's War of the Worlds: What did he know and When did he know it? Don't laugh, it could happen....

Wargaming, World War Two, and Evil
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: WBAB
Topic: Wargaming, WWII, and Evil
Wargaming, World War Two, and Evil


What is it with some people? Why is it that the concept of “evil” just does not exist in their world? How did morality become such a gray area for them? Questions such these began unexpectedly popping into my head after reading about a new World War Two simulation from Relic, a producer of many popular PC real-time strategy titles. Usually war, especially World War Two, has a way of putting morality into focus. But such does not seem to be the case over at Relic where their new game project seems to be muddled in moral relativism.

Let me explain.

In a recent Gamespot.com interview (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/companyofheroes/preview_6124417.html), Relic producer John Johnson described Company of Heroes, a real-time strategy (RTS) game that looks to be visually spectacular. The game’s engine plans to make use of cutting-edge graphics technology that will serve to raise the bar of visual realism to lofty heights. In addition to visual FX trailblazing, the game will also incorporate a set of novel RTS features, such as semi-autonomous soldiers, that Mr. Johnson hopes will revolutionize the tired RTS genre.

In all honesty, the game sounds good. Unfortunately, the game is not the problem---the Gamespot preview is the problem.

As a wargamer, I take issue with the following statement made by the writer of the Gamespot preview:

“But why World War II? Isn't ‘World War II strategy game’ a synonym for ‘slow-paced, overly complicated game where you fight drawn-out battles by crunching numbers and moving tiny chits on an abstract-looking board’?”

Um, no. In fact, after reading this statement, one is hard pressed to discern whether the article is referring to paper wargames or antiquated PC wargames. Regardless of which mode of wargaming is actually being referred to, the statement is still simply wrong. Many exciting and easy to learn WWII strategy games, on the PC and off, have been released in recent years. From the much-lauded board wargame Ardennes '44, to the devilishly addictive PC title Panzer General of 1995, World War Two wargaming has long since removed itself from the realm of “slow-paced, overly complicated” gaming. The truth of the matter is that a straw-man argument is being made here. Relic has decided to release yet another World War Two RTS game into an already dangerously bloated market. So, I suspect, in seeking justification for their efforts, an argument is put forth whereby Company of Heroes is contrasted against imaginary opponents of inferior quality. The truth of the matter is that, based upon information so far released, Company of Heroes seems little more than Battlefront’s Combat Mission series with wickedly enhanced graphics set in a RTS environment. There is nothing wrong with this, but do not try to make the game into something it clearly is not.

I do question the wisdom of adding another World War Two title to the market. Since the release of Saving Private Ryan, it would seem that every game producer who has seen the movie is hell-bent on releasing his own game version. As a result, there have been a veritable flood of titles that run the gamut of every conceivable style of gaming, from RTS to FPS. Now, as a wargamer and military history enthusiast, I enjoy World War Two as much as the next guy, after all, it was the largest, most destructive conflict in human history. But enough already!!! You know, there are other wars to explore!

But my purpose here is not to attack a game that, in all fairness, is only in a pre-alpha release stage. Nor is my purpose to disparage a period of history that has offered much fodder for compelling gaming experiences. I needed to speak out because the aforementioned example of corporate bombast rankled my sensibilities as a grognard. However, the following statements rankled my sensibilities as an American.

During the interview, John Johnson stated that "World War II is modern mythology". World War Two as “modern mythology”? This is a questionable observation. Perhaps World War Two as legend would be a more accurate comment as the deeds of the Greatest Generation have been welcomed with worldwide fame and recognition. World War Two as mythology would suggest that Mr. Johnson questions the reality of those larger-than-life heroes and epic battles against malevolence that shaped the world in which we live. Surely he doesn’t believe that?

But perhaps he does. Read on:

"Unlike something like Star Wars, the war doesn't have clear-cut good and evil sides. This is what makes the war interesting."

I had to read that twice the first time I came across it. “The war doesn't have clear-cut good and evil sides”? Could he possibly be suggesting that the Nazis occupied a moral gray area? That the Imperial Japanese were misunderstood? That Hitler did not butcher over six million Jews, and countless millions of Russians? That the Rape of Nanking never occurred? How can anyone believe that World War Two lacked clear-cut heroes and villains, that there was a moral equivalence between the Axis and Allies? I would expect such a statement from a public school student who has had his mind muddled by years of a politically correct curriculum, not by an adult who is presumably well-educated and, based upon the nature of his latest project, well-versed in World War Two history.

World War Two was the last “good war” whereby everyone knew, at least then if not now, why the war was necessary. England and America were fighting to put an end to specific forces of tyranny that, for all intents and purposes, was the closest this world has ever seen to the massed forces of Hell being unleashed upon the globe. Our foes sought to conquer, we sought to liberate. Our foes gleefully bathed in the blood of their victims, we sought to heal their wounds. Our foes fought for plunder and pillage; we fought for a better world.

Now, now, I can hear many of you protesting that not every German or Japanese soldier was evil, that not every Allied soldier was virtuous. Of course, such a point is obvious. But when examining the nature and motivations of our Axis enemies vis-a-vis those of the Allies, a clear distinction can be made (with the exception of the pitiful Russian people who suffered evil from within and without): the Allies sought peace and self-determination, the Axis sought war and subjugation.

Statements of moral ambiguity greatly concern me, especially when the ambiguity concerns an issue of manifest clarity. If we are not able to say with confidence that something is “good” or something “bad”, that something is “right” and something else “wrong”, then we are truly lost souls, forever inhabiting a shadow-realm of moral relativism where the meaning of “virtue” shifts like sand, and “right reason” becomes a meaningless contradiction of terms. Evil beckons to all of us from the dark corners of our world and when we are unable to use God-given Reason and Natural Law, when we become morally vacuous, then Evil fills that void and a Hitler or a Tojo rise to power, a Buchenwald is built, or a Nanking is destroyed. And that must never be allowed to happen again otherwise the massive sacrifices of the Greatest Generation were truly in vain, a thought too disturbing to even contemplate. No clear-cut good and evil sides, Mr. Johnson? Nothing could be further from the truth, and as wargamers, we are honor-bound to remember that. So continue to push your Tigers and your Shermans on the simulated battlefield, but remember: which side you’re on in real life makes for all the difference in the world.

They Still Don't Get It!
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: Mostly Autumn---Catch the Spirit
Topic: Vox Populi
092029 MAY 05

They Still Don’t Get It!

The other day, while watching FOX News Watch, an interesting topic came up for debate. Recently, CBS News posted some of its lowest Nielsen ratings in its history! Likewise, NBC News also saw its viewership decline, with ABC receiving the best news: stagnant viewership with no appreciable change. Print media has also suffered similar declines in readership. A spirited argument promptly resulted amongst the assembled media experts with each offering a reason why the mainstream media (henceforth MSM) were doing so poorly among contemporary audiences. Some offered that hard news was losing out to softer entertainment news. One suggested that the medium was to blame---print and TV was just unable to compete with the instant delivery that wireless devices and the internet could offer. That was the best answer, but still short of the truth.

The reality of the matter is that Generation X’ers just do not trust the MSM!

Once upon a time, people were content for heavyweight reporters to prepare and package the news for them. Murrow, Cronkite, and Rather were considered inerrable. Likewise, CBS, NBC, and ABC, or, for that matter, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, were considered to be the paragon of veracity and analysis. The American people were content to have others do the hard work of gathering the facts and presenting the core issues that were so crucial to understanding the events of the day. After all, what else could they do? Unless they were prepared to go out and gather the facts themselves, their hands were pretty much tied. The professional news outlets had presented a fait accompli.

This is no longer the case.

Gen X has resources available to it that those of the Baby Boomer Generation could scarcely dream. With an ordinary PC and an internet connection, or even an AM radio, one is now capable of ferreting out the core facts for himself by way of Alternative Media. No longer is he forced to be satisfied with the selective reporting of a particular name-brand journalist. Now, an individual is free to research a topic to his heart’s content with the massive resources available via the internet. Want to know what is happening in Iraq? Do not take Koeppel’s word for it, check it out yourself. With websites such as GlobalSecurity.org, one is able to get a detailed review of the military situation that provides far greater detail than anything ABC is willing to offer on their night newscast. Want to know what really is behind the ethics investigation into Congressman Delay? Check out FederalistPatriot.us or www.DrudgeReport.com for some snappy investigative work into the issue.

The point is this: the mainstream media is redundant at best, obsolete at worst. Gen X’ers can get to the heart of a matter quicker, and with greater depth, via alternative media than an entire newsroom of reporters could do with an unlimited budget.

As a bonus, via the interactivity of the internet, we can now have the news custom-tailored to our liking too. Superficially, this includes the obvious tailoring to fit an ideological perspective. With the recent meltdown of the MSM, whereby major news networks openly attempted to skew the coverage of the recent presidential elections to the Left, most net-savvy news junkies now know that the major media outlets are no more objective, or biased for that matter, than any other source available to them via the World Wide Web. If your news is going to be spun, you might as well as have it spun in your direction.

However, this tailoring also extends beyond the ideological. With the increasing capabilities of smart search agents, a person can now specify exactly what type of news he find relevant and wishes to read. Politics, entertainment, international news, even the much neglected black sheep of the family, science news, can now be culled and emailed to a specific user on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Needless to say, this is an ability that the MSM will never be able to match. With the less flexible nature of print and TV, the rule of the day is “one size fits all”. This is a deficit that may well prove fatal as interactive news becomes more powerful with every passing news cycle.

But there is another aspect to alternative media that the MSM will find increasing difficult to match as well. This ace-up-the-sleeve of alternative media is interactivity. That is, with talk radio and the internet, one is able not only to read about the news, but also contribute his own point-of-view for others to consider. Whether he calls into a talk radio program, posts a message at a news website, or adds his own thoughts to a blog, he can directly participate in the news process. Need I remind anyone that it was a blogger who broke Rather-gate? THAT is the power of alternative media. The news is no longer a passive experience; quite the opposite, it has become an active, give-and-take, process where every man can be his own Thomas Paine.

These are the reasons why the MSM is losing disciples like never before. In a turn of events quite the opposite of anything George Orwell might have envisioned, the power of the people has come to eclipse the might once wielded by the so-called Fourth Estate. Not content to be told the news, the American people are making the news---yet another example of what it so right about the American experience. This great nation has shown the world the true power of the Vox Populi! And that, dear readers, is something the mainstream media may never be able to contend with….

Return of the King
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: Holst---The Planets
Topic: Hamemus Papam

The Return of the King!


We are very happy in seeing Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger become our new Pope Benedict XVI. It is the dawn of a new day for the eternal and universal Church, one that will offer many opportunities and be fraught with challenges. I believe Pope Benedict will prove more than equal to the task that is before him. May his pontificate be fruitful and blessed for many, many years!

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ---Matthew 16:18

Please say a rosary for his successful pontificate. Not sure how? Visit: Virtual Rosary

On a clear night....
Mood:  spacey
Now Playing: Holst---The Planets
Topic: First Astro-photos
The following are my first-ever astronomy photographs. I took them using a Meade 8" SCT and a Nikon Coolpix 4500 digital camera. The first two shots of the moon came out fine, albeit there is room for improvement:

Unfortunately, my shot of Jupiter was a disaster:

Clearly, I have a lot to learn. But one thing is clear: JUPITER WILL YET BE MINE!!!!!

Fort Sumter and the Doctrine of States' Rights
Mood:  on fire
Now Playing: Eddie Condon's Dixieland All-Stars
Topic: Sumter and States' Rights

Fort Sumter and the Doctrine of States? Rights

April 12, 2005, will mark the 144th anniversary of the start of the American Civil War (henceforth ACW), also know as the War Between the States, and the War of Southern Secession. When it was all over, over 600,000 Americans would be dead. Ironically, many of the issues that sparked the blaze were not resolved at the end of the war, but continue to linger with us to this very day---such as the issue of States? Rights.

But first, some history.

One could argue that the ACW actually started on December 20, 1860 when South Carolina, distraught over the election of Abraham Lincoln, formerly passed an Order of Secession, a document remarkable for its lengthy legalistic rationale; in many ways, it is a strictly Southern Declaration of Independence. Contained within it are the justifications for the state?s drastic steps:

?The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions?.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution?.?

Slavery, the blight that has plagued our fair land since its earliest days, reared its ugly head to ignite a war unlike any other this nation had witnessed. South Carolina, not willing to be consoled with an electoral loss that signaled a shift of power from South to North, felt itself obliged to do the unthinkable and leave the Union:

?We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.?

Whether or not South Carolina?s decision to secede was rash, and I believe it was, the time for calm discourse had passed.

Events would now move quickly.

On December 26, Major Robert Anderson, seeing storm clouds on the horizon, prudently moved his small force from Fort Moultrie to the more easily defended Fort Sumter. The first shots would ring out approximately two weeks later on January 7, 1861, after Anderson had refused the demand of South Carolina?s governor, Francis Pickens, that the garrison surrender. Star of the West, a vessel laden with provisions, was fired upon as to prevent the victualing of Fort Sumter. Fortunately, the shots caused only minor damage to the vessel, but did force its withdrawal.

In a most remarkable show of restraint, President James Buchanan did not retaliate. However, his show of magnanimity would do nothing the stop the deepening crisis. More states soon followed South Carolina?s example. Mississippi on January 9, 1861; Florida on January 10; Alabama on January 11; Georgia on January 19; and Louisiana on January 26. On February 4, the Confederate States of American (CSA) became a political reality.

By March 4, when Abraham Lincoln took formal possession of the White House, six more states has seceded and only two forts, including Sumter, remained in federal control in all of the newly-created CSA. Lincoln, like his predecessor Buchanan, was determined not to provoke a war that he knew would tear the nation apart, perhaps for all time. As such, on April 8, with Fort Sumter running dangerously low on supplies, he notified Pickens that he would be sending a fleet of supply vessels, guaranteeing a cargo strictly limited to foodstuffs, with the intention of buying time for further negotiations.

On April 11, CSA President Jefferson Davis ordered General Pierre G. T. Beauregard to demand the fort?s evacuation before another attempt at provisioning was made. The unfortunate Anderson and his isolated men had their backs to the wall. His reply to Beauregard was that if he had not received victuals nor instructions from Washington by April 15, he would be forced to capitulate.

The CSA was not willing to wait.

On April 12, 1861, at 4:30am, like the first thunderclap of a long-expected summer storm, the war that all dreaded but none could stop arrived when Fort Johnson fired the initial volley in a bombardment that would last 34 hours. Ironically, Lincoln?s provisioning fleet arrived the very same day, but due to the intensity of the bombardment, was powerless to complete its mission. On April 14, Anderson surrendered the fort without the loss of a single man.

On April 15, a state of war was declared by the Lincoln administration, but no real fighting would take place until First Manassas, on July 21. But that is a story for another time?.

There are many tragedies to be found in the ACW. But perhaps the greatest is that the war would serve to undermine the cherished American principle of States? Rights, a doctrine that finds expression in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This idea was not some novelty snuck into the blueprint for our government, but a long-held belief dating back to the earliest days of the Republic. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

?We do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall hereafter have the power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.?

Likewise, the Articles of Confederation states:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States."

Clearly, the first two forms of government that this nation created distinctly mentioned the fact that state government was held to be the primary form of government, and a national authority could only exist with the consent of the states. Furthermore, these states retained their right to reassume complete sovereignty at any time they deemed it necessary for the welfare of their people. A number of states even included explicit statements of state sovereignty in their constitutional ratification documents. New York State is a perfect example (emphasis mine):

?We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York...Do declare and make known,-

That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.

That the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are essential rights, which every government ought to respect and preserve.

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same?.?

It strain?s credulity to argue that states, which have traditionally maintained themselves to be the principle form of government among the American people, would suddenly enter into a compact which demanded a complete and perpetual surrender of power to a distant federal authority.

I think it was the great John C. Calhoun, having served as both senator and vice president during his political career, who best got to the heart of the issue during the famous Calhoun-Webster Debates of 1850 (Calhoun was so gravely ill at the time, that he had to be carried into the Senate Chamber on a stretcher):

?That the Government claims, and practically maintains the right to decide in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will scarcely be denied by any one conversant with the political history of the country. That it also claims
the right to resort to force to maintain whatever power it claims, against all opposition, is equally certain?Now, I ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a government claiming and
exercising such rights? And, if none can be, how can the separate governments of the States maintain and protect the powers reserved to them by the constitution?or the people of the several States maintain those which are reserved to them, and among others, the sovereign powers by
which they ordained and established, not only their separate State Constitutions and Governments, but also the Constitution and Government of the United States? But, if they have no constitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by this Government, it necessarily follows, that they hold them at its pleasure and discretion,
and that all the powers of the system are in reality
concentrated in it. It also follows, that the character of the Government has been changed in consequence, from a federal republic, as it originally came from the hands of its
framers, into a great national consolidated democracy.?

Calhoun was correct in his logical assertion: power that is held only at the behest of a higher authority signifies no power at all. To acknowledge a political system whereby the federal government supercedes all state authority is to relegate the states a status as little more than adjuncts to federal authority, a proposition the framers of the Constitution would have found ludicrous.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the idea of secession was not something first advocated by the CSA, in fact, it was contemplated on more than one occasion by various regions of the nation. For example, New England twice considered secession, first in 1814 when New England threatened to leave the Union due to economic fallout from the War of 1812, and again later when John Quincy Adams argued for the secession of New England in opposition to admitting Texas to the Union. This demonstrates that state sovereignty was not a crutch for Southern aspirations, but a form of legitimate political redress recognized by the entire nation.

Unfortunately, the de facto, if not de jure, end to States? Rights would come from the very war that the doctrine was used to justify. States? Rights had become synonymous with Southern slavery and secession, and, as such, was quickly cast to the wayside by a victorious North. After the end of the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court, along with an expanding federal government, had begun chipping away at the Tenth Amendment, rendering it little more a political lame duck all but put out of its misery. Unfortunately, the process continues to this very day (the most recent example being Roper v. Simmons whereby the court has now decreed that states are incapable of even establishing their own criteria for a capital offense). The very fears that so many statesmen had articulated so passionately over the course of this nation?s history have finally come to pass.

Fortunately, this nation has often proved itself to be most resilient. There is hope, and, yes, even a few signs, that States? Rights will be restored to their proper place of reverence in American political thought and jurisprudence. But for this to happen, federal authority will need to be significantly rolled-back, a process not easily accomplished as those who have power usually resist parting with it. Our hope lies, as it always has, with the American people. Once again, I defer to the comments of John C. Calhoun:

?Besides this cry of Union comes commonly from those
whom we cannot believe to be sincere. It usually comes from our assailants. But we cannot believe them to be sincere; for, if they loved the Union, they would necessarily be devoted to the constitution. It made the Union,?and to destroy the constitution would be to destroy the Union.
But the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the constitution is, to abstain, on the one hand, from violating It, and to repel, on the other, all attempts to violate it. It is only by faithfully performing these high duties that the constitution can be preserved, and with it the Union.?

One can hope that such incisive words as these will one day ring again across the American landscape.

Please support the Civil War Preservation Trust, an organization dedicated to preserving Civil War battlefields around the nation:

CWPT

Remember the dead of the Yamassee Massacre
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Yamassee Massacre
The Yamassee Massacre


On April 15th, 1715, hundreds of men, women, and children, all settlers in South Carolina, were massacred by the Yamassee Indian tribe. Please remember the dead of this brutal attack as we mark the 290th anniversary of what has come to be known as the Yamassee Massacre.