Democrats and OBL
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: Classical Mix
Topic: Democrats and OBL
After watching The O’Reilly Factor, I am even more confident that the November elections are going to be a huge victory for the Republicans. Why? Tonight, James “the Ragin’ Cajun” Carville and Paul “talk radio listeners are malcontent shut-ins’ Begala, both former senior staffers for the epically corrupt Clinton administration, have revealed their strategy for regaining control of Washington. Their solution? More of the same left-wing nonsense---seriously! I could not believe my ears! To quote General Honore, they are clearly “stuck on stupid”.

It would seem that Democrats are hell-bent on recycling the botched Kerry campaign strategy of labeling President Bush as a failed war time leader. Even Mr. O’Reilly, whose political analysis can be erratic at times, laughed with derision when Begala mentioned that the Afghani battle of Tora Bora, during which Osama Bin Laden is alleged to have escaped from U.S. forces, would be an excellent campaign issue (you can’t make this stuff up!). Mr. O’Reilly, after he stopped chuckling at this nonsense, correctly pointed out that if the DNC really desires to regain control of Congress, they would need something better than harkening back to a battle from December 2001. What new policy ideas should the Democrats promote? After receiving a momentary blank stare, O’Reilly kindly suggested the issue of border security. Both Carville and Begala lapped up the issue with the usual platitudes about Republicans being weak on the issue (for once they were correct) until, yet again, O’Reilly asked what they would do differently. Another round of blank stares commenced until their host suggested a border fence, to which Begala answered with an ambiguous “I am open to that” remark.
Unbelievable.

I could go on and one with even more examples from these two ridiculous Clintonites, but the point is clear: Democrats still have no clue about how to win an election in this nation. The DNC has become so beholden to their far-Left extremist base that they unable to come up with any fresh, mainstream ideas. Paralyzed with fear of offending their leftist core, slaves to their internationalist-socialist-relativist philosophy, they are unable to shift into gear and actually offer a platform that is suitable to the American electorate. By default, they have decided, time and again, to run against a figment of their imagination, attempting to allure the citizenry with dark, conspiratorial fear-mongering platforms that only an “X-Files” devotee could find pleasing and believable (I am really surprised that the Kerry campaign slogan was not “The Truth Is Out There”). As Zell Miller remarked, the historic Democrat party is a “national party no more.” Or, as Ann Coulter recently concluded:

"In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc."


In other news, like a kid crying “uncle!”, Bin Laden has graciously offered America a “truce” in the War on Terror. As he put it:

“This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end those wars…It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way…In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to.”

Now, what is interesting about this quote? As indicated above, Bin Laden is offering a truce! Of course, such a truce is meaningless. As Arab military history has demonstrated time and again, such a truce is a mere ruse to gain time for rebuilding an army’s strength for the next round of hostilities (the communist North Vietnamese used the same tactic). Clearly, with such a perfidious character as Bin Laden, any such offer amounts to little more than a deal with the devil. But what is significant is that the very same Bin Laden, who, in the past has been so strident about bringing America to its knees, has now offered a cessation of hostilities. Simply put: you don’t do this if you are winning. Bin Laden and his cronies are feeling the heat---intensely! All in all, it reminds me of the final days of Imperial Japan, its would-be Pacific empire in shattered ruins, desiring a truce by early 1945….

Another interesting point of the message is how OBL refers to American polling (does anybody know the whereabouts of Dick Morris?!?). Not just that, but also how many of his comments sound as if Howard Dean (John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, et alia) uttered them. For example:

“Bush tried to ignore the polls that demanded that he end the war in Iraq…There is no problem in this solution, but it will prevent hundreds of billions from going to influential people and war lords in America - those who supported Bush's electoral campaign - and from this, we can understand Bush and his gang's insistence on continuing the war."

This guy has got to be on the DNC mailing list! I’m surprised that he didn’t take a page from the shameless Al Gore and demand an end to Al Qaida wiretaps!

The important point is this: Despite the best effort of the terrorists, despite the best effort of democrat fifth columnists, and despite the best effort of an appeasing liberal media, America is winning. We are winning because of the strong wartime leadership of the Bush Administration, the fighting excellence of the American soldier, and the rugged determination of the majority of the American people to win this war and set the world right once again.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists. [We] destroy them."---Dick Cheney

The White House Christmas Card
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Handel's Messiah
Topic: WH Christmas Card

Of late, there has been a lot of misguided hubbub over this year’s White House Christmas card. Why? Well, the President and the First Lady have chosen this years message to be:

“With best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness.”

It is the reference to a “holiday season” that has many up in arms, especially during a year when the cold “Christmas War” has threatened to go hot! Those who rightly believe that the term Christmas is being deliberately expunged from civic life are complaining that the card is proof that the White House has succumbed to the politically correct mentality of “holiday” greetings, making the larger War on Christmas that much more difficult to win. Critics of those who defend Christmas in public point to the “holiday” card as proof that even the “great conservative-Republican George W. Bush” finds nothing wrong with substituting the phrase “holiday season” for “Christmas”. And if he doesn’t mind, why should the rest of us?

Both critics are missing the most important message of the card.

Defenders and attackers of Christmas fail to note the following scriptural passage at the header of the card:

“The Lord is my strength and my shield’
In Him my heart trusts;
So I am helped, and my heart exults,
And with my song I give thanks to Him.”
Psalm 28:7 (RSV)

I would argue that the above quotation makes it more than clear as to what the “holiday season” really means to the White House. In fact, I think the White House card provides an excellent template to resolve the bitter and divisive Christmas argument that many stores and civic associations currently find themselves trying to resolve in the most inclusive manner possible. Solution: If you want to eschew “Merry Christmas” in favor of the supposedly more inclusive “Happy Holiday”, go right ahead! But in exchange, you must also display and/or recite a biblical quotation. Simple, right? “Happy Holidays” for all those non-Christians out there (approximately 15% of the United States population), and a biblical passage for the remaining 85% of us---I think that is more than fair. Heck, I can assure all those big retailers that I will eagerly shop at any store that has a banner quoting Psalm 28 right below a “Happy Holidays” sign! Wouldn’t you?

Problem solved.

As for me, I am glad that I am on the White House Christmas list, along with about 1 million other people, and have proudly displayed my card.

Merry Christmas!

Quality TV for a Change
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: The Mark Levin Show
Topic: Quality TV for a Change
In the midst of the open sewer that is television, there have been two iconoclastic shows that deserve real merit:

During the mid-1980s, when the Cold War looked to go hot, ABC’s Nightline did a surprising good program on the U.S.S.R. as seen through the eyes of Soviet citizens. Using clips of popular TV shows on Soviet TV, as well as select interviews, it was an all-to-rare look inside the mentality of the ordinary citizens of the “Evil Empire” that proved to be as illuminating as it was entertaining. Well, this past Saturday, the king of cable news, FOX News, had a fascinating documentary in a similar vein. Entitled Winning Iraq, this one hour long program toured the Iraqi landscape showing the positive sites and sounds of the “new Iraq” that other news networks have done their best to ignore. From open-air technology markets, to the burgeoning business of American-style TV programming (including reality television shows!), Greg Palkot & Co. provided an altogether fascinating and uplifting portrait of a fledgling democracy in the making. Well done FOX, well done.

A second show, this time on CBS, is the two-part biography Pope John Paul II. Starring John Voight as the late pontiff, this miniseries has proven to be an all too rare glimpse into the life of a man who had dedicated himself not to just some amorphous spirituality, which is the closest most television programming can come to religion these days, but to serving Christ and the Roman Catholic Church. We glimpse the immense bravery of Karol Wojtyla during the difficult times of German and Soviet occupation of Poland (this is one of the *very* rare shows in which the communists are truthfully shown to be as bloodthirsty as the Nazis) as well as his immense intellect and faith that sustained him during his numerous trials. Not only is this program very kind to the pope, but it also bucks the heretical trend of always portraying the Church and its ecclesia as mired in dark conspiracy (as in The Da Vinci Code). Instead, we are presented with numerous examples of priests, bishops, and cardinals who stood bravely against the forces of evil, armed with only their faith and wits. What a breath of fresh air! Kudos to CBS!

Finally, A&E offered some chess programming in the form of The Knights of the South Bronx. Starring Ted Danson, this two hour factual drama demonstrated how an unassuming public school teacher by the name of David MacEnulty used chess to motivate his students to succeed in school, as well in their harsh, ghetto life. Initially, I was not too interested in watching this show as it seemed to be yet another “me too” effort to copy the unexpected popularity of Searching for Bobby Fischer. To be blunt, how many shows about kids and chess do we need? But I was wrong. Not only was this drama a wonderful tribute to the “Royal Game” I so love, but it also brought the very uplifting message that the only aristocracy that really matters, is the aristocracy of the mind. If you work hard and train the brain (and play chess, of course!), you will succeed---and that is a message everyone needs to hear. Bravo A&E!

Bias in Hollywood and Debunking the Da Vinci Code
Mood:  suave
Now Playing: Beethoven---Mass in C
Topic: Bias in Hollywood
Some time ago, I happened to witness an interview with a senior head of one of the Hollywood movie studios (I’m afraid that I no longer remember his name). During this interview, he was asked about liberal bias in the movie business. He was quick to vehemently deny any left-wing bias, and assured the interviewer that like any other business, Hollywood just wants to make money and was not filtering scripts for political correctness or ideology. At the time I believed him because as liberals always demonstrate, despite all “common-man” rhetoric to the contrary, they are as desperate to amass a fortune as the more honest alternative side of the political spectrum (please see Peter Schweizer’s Do As I Say (Not As I Do)).

I now know I was wrong. The last four years have demonstrated that Hollywood is so left-wing, that it would rather go down in flames than change its message. Consider the following:

On 9-11, America had been attacked in a fashion so severe that the closest historical comparison was 12-7, i.e., the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Suddenly, this great nation was at war all over the globe, fighting an enemy as ruthless and bloodthirsty as the Nazis and Imperial Japanese of World War II. The battles have been both large and covert, from the Middle East into the far islands of the Pacific. Yet, has Hollywood made a single film about 9-11 or the War on Terror? Nope. Not a single one. Think about that! We are living through a period of history that has, and will continue, to shape the future of the 21st Century, but Hollywood has determined it to be a topic that is not of any interest to its moviegoers! Sure, we have had some oblique swipes, such as the awful Kingdom of Heaven, the malicious Jarhead, and the unearthly War of the Worlds, but that is the closest Hollywood has come! Heck, if I ran a studio, I would have had Tom Clancy’s Rainbox Six in production within minutes of the actual attacks! How can we explain this complete lack of interest in such a pivotal topic? Left-wing, in this case, anti-war bias.

But there is more proof.

In the dismal past five years (Hollywood profits have bottomed-out to record lows), there was one BIG surprise hit. I am referring to Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Using a formula that any sensible studio would find very attractive, Mr. Gibson produced a record revenue generating film that involved a minimal budget (no mind-blowing special effects were required) and a script faithfully lifted right from the New Testament of the bible (no high paid scriptwriters or hefty copyright fees were required) . With a carefully selected cast of first-rate actors and actresses, Mel Gibson tapped into the Christian heritage of this land and reaped the massive rewards. Both in the theaters and on DVD, The Passion of the Christ gathered devotees, and their cash, with incredible ease. The message was clear: traditional religion sells…and massively! Of course, Hollywood was quick to jump on board, right? Nope. Here we are some two years after its initial release, and the closest Hollywood has come is the soon to be released Chronicles of Narnia, which, of course, is Christian religion disguised as fantasy. However, next year we will be treated to another Christian film, a big budget extravaganza called The Da Vinci Code. That’s right! After witnessing the huge turnout for that “old time religion” known as Passion of the Christ, the closest Hollywood can come to matching Mr. Gibson is to produce one of the most divisive, anti-Catholic screeds that has besmirched the Roman Catholic Church since the arrival of Chick publications.

Bias in Hollywood? Of course not. This is just how Hollywood chases the money. At this rate, they should be bankrupt by the end of the decade and the country will be a better place as a result. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Speaking of that second-rate, French author Dan Brown, The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, a conservative Roman Catholic organization, has released a new book debunking the myriad lies contained between the covers of his bigoted novel. I reprint it here with their permission and for your edification. Enjoy!

------------------------------------
Rejecting The Da Vinci Code: Setting the Record Straight

Fictional bestsellers may be sensational but rarely cause controversy. Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is an exception.

In the course of his fast-paced 454-page narrative, the author manages to have his characters cast doubt on the foundations of Christianity and the Divinity of Christ. He also manages to embed in his text resurrected Gnostic doctrines, feminist spirituality and conspiracy theories.

Setting the record straight, the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) has just released the book, Rejecting The Da Vinci Code: How a Blasphemous Novel Brutally Attacks Our Lord and the Catholic Church. It is certain to be part of the controversy surrounding the soon-to-be-released film version of the bestseller.

Written by the TFP’s Committee on American Issues, the 124-page book puts its readers in a position to dispute Dan Brown’s claims against the Church scattered throughout his fictional story. Moreover, it denounces the hidden “code” behind The Da Vinci Code – Gnosticism.

As the title states, the TFP book does more than just refute: it calls for outright rejection. It rejects as offensive the assertion that the Catholic Church is guilty of the “greatest cover up in human history.” It rejects as blasphemous the core premise of the plot that Christ was not God and was married to Mary Magdalene and had offspring. It rejects as absurd the idea that Christ wanted Saint Mary Magdalene not Saint Peter to be head of His Church.

The book also rejects the oft-repeated assertion that the novel is only fiction and therefore harmless. That certainly is the not the intention of Dan Brown who claims he wants the novel to be “a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.” Indeed many are taking the “facts” presented his fictional characters very seriously.

With this book, readers will be able to join in the discussions with verifiable and reliable facts and not questionable historical assertions and gratuitous claims. They will unravel the esoteric doctrines of ancient Gnostics. In his foreword, Father Andrew Apostoli calls the work “an apologetic handbook.” Father John Trigilio, President of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, calls it “a brilliant, succinct and convincing refutation.”

With all the publicity given to the book and movie, a controversy is raging. The TFP book invites readers to join the controversy.

To order this book, Click Here!

A Review of War of the Worlds (2005)
Mood:  spacey
Now Playing: Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds
Topic: War of the Worlds (2005)

I am a huge fan of H. G. Wells’ classic War of the Worlds, the first and penultimate tale of an alien invasion from space. Smart, witty, and terrifying, it is a story that has never been matched by any sci-fi author…ever. In fact, War of the Worlds holds such a special place in my science fiction heart that it is one of the very few works of literature that compels me to collect every rendition ever made for any medium. For example, I own and greatly enjoy the musical play by Jeff Wayne (available on CD---I highly recommend it!). Likewise, I worship at the altar of George Pal’s 1953 cinematic interpretation, a movie that ranks amongst the finest sci-fi films ever. So, when I discovered that Steven Spielberg, America’s reigning genius of the cinema (and I don’t use that term lightly), was crafting his own version of this classic story, I was greatly excited. Unfortunately, I never did manage to see the film while it was in theaters this past summer, but I eagerly snatched it up as soon as it was released on DVD and had it spinning in my DVD-player within minutes of stepping inside my home. My verdict? Pure genius---but not perfect. Let me explain….

War of the Worlds (henceforth, WotW) is a remarkably complex film---so complex that it almost resists classification. Is this a science fiction film? A horror film? Poltergeist meets ET? Hitchcock meets Wells? The truth of the matter is that it is all of these elements, each blended masterfully by Mr. Spielberg into something that can best be described as a psychologically-harrowing cinematic experience. It is the sum-total of common bump-in-the-night creeps and funhouse frights. It is, in this regard, quite unique cinematic science fiction.

The plot of WotW is so ingrained in our culture that no real explanation of the premise is needed; suffice to say that aliens, hell-bent on the extermination of mankind, launch a surprise global attack that sweeps all before it. The original story had the aliens, Martians to be exact, landing in meteorites which also contained their mechanical killing machines. Mr. Spielberg plays with this original concept a little by positing the notion that the alien war machines had been pre-positioned below the surface of the earth some millennia before mankind arose. However, the alien operators (Spielberg offers no explanation as to the origination of the invaders) of these tripod machines arrive via massive EMP-generating (electro-magnetic pulse) lightning storms. While not faithful to the original, I found this idea to be very clever as, like the rest of the movie, it plays on a very real psychological fear. I, for one, will never look at a thunder and lightning storm the same way!

Needless to say, in the wake of the lightning storm, aliens run amok murdering all that cross their path. Into this maelstrom the movie’s main characters are thrust. Tom Cruise plays the blue-collar and somewhat irresponsible single dad Ray Ferrier. After witnessing the terrifying arrival of the first alien tripods, he rushes home to retrieve his teenage son, played by Justin Chatwin, and young daughter as portrayed by the always superb Dakota Fanning. The trio quickly find themselves swept along with untold thousands of other refugees from the alien onslaught, thrust into life-or-death situations that would have been unimaginable a mere handful of hours earlier in their pre-invasion humdrum lives. The resulting trek to perceived safety, from New Jersey to Boston, Massachusetts, is as exhausting for the viewer as it is for our protagonists. Much like Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, you do not watch this film as much as participate in it!

At this point, I need to pay special respect to Mr. Cruise. Even though he is quickly becoming the self-righteous thespian all the world loves to hate, Mr. Cruise’s performance is absolutely brilliant. His “flawed everyman” portrayal is dead-on, serving to humanize events that are often portrayed with the clinical coldness of epic-history (in this case, pseudo-history). To watch Mr. Cruise is to empathize with him as he battles both aliens and his fellow humans in his desperate struggle for the survival of himself and his family. I honestly believe that Mr. Cruise may have given one of his finest performances ever in WotW. Well done. Mr. Spielberg also deserves a pat on the back for, at long last, bringing some depth of character to a science fiction flick. In a genre often littered with protagonists that are little more than two dimensional heroes, WotW brings the fantastic down to the level of ordinary humanity, allowing an all-to-rare breath of fresh air into the oft stale environment of sci-fi. Again, well done!

WotW also defies the genre in other ways. This film could have easily been yet another vehicle for mindless special effects and action sequences. Mr. Spielberg defies the trend by deliberately taking his film down a very different road, a path more in keeping with Orson Wells’ War of the Worlds Halloween radio broadcast of 1938. Instead of a big budget light show, we get a very frightening movie that plays out in the deep recesses of our minds. WotW is very Hitchcockian in nature, at times more akin to Psycho than Independence Day. The movie dwells not on fireballs and big battles, but on the horrific nature of being hunted by aliens and their machines. Spielberg carefully culls events from the original literary story to craft scenes that are almost as suspenseful and downright dreadful for the audience as they are for the characters. Not content to stop there, Spielberg also taps, very subtly, into our contemporary fears by using our disturbing memories of 9-11 to punctuate key moments of the film. These clever techniques, combined with the perfect musical score of John Williams (again, also very Hitchcockian), combine to make a film that resembles Poltergeist (also by Spielberg) more so than it does any previous telling of Wells’ tale. In many ways, Spielberg gave us a movie more in tribute to Orson Wells radio play than in acknowledgment of the actual novella! Perhaps this is why the bulk of the film takes place in New Jersey?

I have few criticisms of the film, and those that I do have are more matters of preference than an actual disapproval. For example, as a purist, I do prefer Martians and their meteorites to unnamed aliens and their bolts of lightning. To me, there is nothing more properly sci-fi in nature than an invasion begun by a meteorite storm from Mars (as well as being plausibly realistic). However, I do understand how an atmospheric event is better in keeping with Spielberg’s psychology of the film which desires to bring the fantastic down to a more believable scale (especially in our climatologically-sensitive times).

I also would have preferred more scenes of outright battle between the aliens and the armed forces. Again, I understand how Spielberg wanted to keep the film pointedly focused on the intimate plight of ordinary citizens just trying to survive another few hours. However, what is the point of imagining an alien invasion if not to provide at least one grand battle? After all, even H. G. Wells included such scenes in his novella (the battle of the Thunder Child comes to mind). Alas, Spielberg forgoes anything but fleeting glimpses of combat to maintain his tightly focused narrative. As such, the aliens always seem to be more of a shadowy threat just over the next hill than an actual, tangible enemy force. Disappointing, but only minimally so.

Likewise, he also deliberately contrives to limit the perception of the invasion to a very local affair and not of the global nature as portrayed in George Pal’s version or in the more recent Independence Day. As such, the film often seems artificially circumscribed and more like a personal tragedy than the potential last hours of all mankind. Again, disappointing but not fatally so.

I am somewhat stunned that in a movie which is notably faithful to the original, there in no mention of the poison gas of the Martians. As the film clearly taps into contemporary fears of terrorism, I would have thought that the “WMD” of poison gas, as possessed by the literary aliens, would have been a natural inclusion. Alas, this was not so and its absence was surprising. Again, more a preference than a criticism.

So, what does this all add up to? Is Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds the ultimate cinematic version we fans have been awaiting since the release of its dim-witted sibling Independence Day? Alas, no. Mr. Spielberg’s interpretation is truly excellent, as well as innovative, but George Pal’s 1953 version still reigns supreme as it maintains the best balance of end-of-the-world calamity versus personal horror. Nonetheless, Mr. Spielberg’s film is a fitting tribute to this classic tale as well as a worthy addition to our shared science fiction cinematic heritage. By combining two disparate genres, sci-fi and horror, WotW becomes something very original and worth watching. I give it 8 out of 10 deathrays.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: Classic Jazz
Topic: Happy Thanksgiving 2005

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!

But what is Thanksgiving all about? I'll let this nation's first president, George Washington, explain why T-Day has such a special place in our proud heritage:

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor...

"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplication to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

"Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, AD 1789."

Amen!

PS: So much for the alleged theory of America being founded as a "secular" nation....

Join the Ranks!
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Join the Ranks!

Poster from: India Wargamers


Do you enjoy reading articles on military history? Do you find yourself watching The History Channel until the wee hours of the morning? Does the mere mention of A Bridge Too Far or Saving Private Ryan cause you to spontaneously begin debating the historical accuracy of these films with anyone within a 10 meter radius? If so, a career in wargaming might be for you!

What is wargaming, you ask? Well, odds are you already have wargamed at some point in your past (doubly-so if you are male and of over-average intelligence). If you have ever played a game of chess, you have wargamed (indeed, chess is the world’s most ancient wargame at 1300 years old)! If you have ever played Risk or Axis and Allies, you have wargamed. And, needless to say, if you enjoy the athletic sport of paintball, you have wargamed. Indeed, any game that mimics the elements of warfare can rightly be called a wargame.

Now, don’t be ashamed, lots of people wargame. Even celebrities have wargamed! For example, did you know that Curt Schilling, the Boston Red Sox pitcher, is an avid wargamer? It’s true! In fact, he is so enamored with the hobby that he is part-owner of Multi-Man Publishing, a producer of the classic wargame Advanced Squad Leader. He once remarked that he likes to prepare mentally for the coming ballgame by indulging in a little wargaming!

I bet you didn’t know that H. G. Wells, the famed science fiction author, was a wargamer? It’s true! He was so addicted to the avocation that he crafted and published a set of wargame rules, as well as his thoughts on the hobby, in a wonderful little booklet called Little Wars (now available at my companion website WarTech Consolidated). As Mr. Wells remarked:

“Here is a homeopathic remedy for the imaginative strategist.
Here is the premeditation, the thrill, the strain of accumulating victory or disaster--- and no smashed nor sanguinary bodies, no shattered fine buildings nor devastated country sides, no petty cruelties….”

Even when it comes to wargaming, Mr. Wells displays his usual acumen.

People of all types and descriptions, of every conceivably age, not to mention the professional armed forces, all engage in wargaming. It is a truly worldwide phenomenon---and one that is growing. Why? Due to affordable yet powerful personal computers and the internet, wargaming has become more accessible than ever before. Gone are the days of complex, “bookkeeping-heavy” board games, and crude computer simulations which were as ugly to behold as they were difficult to master. Today’s wargamer has an impressive library of elegant and inviting non-computerized wargames as well as a huge selection of computerized wargames that are easy to use, ultra-realistic, and downright beautiful! Best of all, because of the internet, wargamers can now organize on a global level ensuring a ready opponent at any time of the day or night! In short, wargamers have gone from small, scattered groups to a large, vibrant community on the verge of going mainstream in the near future. Talk about the speed of progress….

By now you are probably hankering, or at least curious, about exploring this wonderful pastime. But how to begin? There are two principal methods of wargaming: with and without a PC.

Without a personal computer involves two options. The first, often known as ‘American-style’ wargaming, involves a paper map, usually subdivided by hexes, and a set of cardboard chits to mark the location of various units. Using these chits, and a set of rules that govern play like any other game, the wargame is conducted by moving the chits across the map and, usually, rolling a die (or dice) to determine the outcome of a battle. Like a game of chess, the battle is primarily in the mind as the map and chits provide little excuse for visual excitement. Grognards (hardcore wargamers) often prefer this method, but I do not recommend novices to begin here.

Which brings us to our second non-PC option: miniatures wargaming. This format, which has always been very popular in Great Britain and mainland Europe, and has only recently traveled across the Atlantic to the States, utilizes plastic or lead models and figurines, faux terrain, and, of course, a set of rules. The best way to think of this method of wargaming is by imagining an elaborate toy train set, complete with little people and houses, and then visualizing the destruction of that world with charging troops and falling artillery! That is wargaming with miniatures. As can be imagined, it is probably the most aesthetically pleasing method of wargaming. It is also the most creative method as you often build and paint the units, trees, bunkers, etcetera, yourself. The problem with this technique is the cost, which can be formidable, and the time commitment to build an army and scenery, which can be substantial. Therefore, I recommend this means only for those with deep pockets, a demonstrated love of wargaming, and an abundance of free time (did I mention a lot of space too?).

Therefore, if you are completely new to wargaming, I suggest you start with a computer wargame. Why? Nowadays these often combine the best elements of wargaming: exciting play, military realism, and ease of play (as the computer handles all the behind-the-scenes details that can often overwhelm a new player). And of computer wargames, I strongly urge you begin with Battlefront’s Combat Mission series of World War Two tactical-level wargames (please see Battlefront Software for more info). In my long years of wargaming, on the PC and off, these wargames are damn-near perfect in every way.

The carnage of the Battle of Beda Fomm (CMAK)

Combat Mission (henceforth, CM), of which there are three variants (Beyond Overlord, Barbarrosa to Berlin, and Afrika Korps) provides everything that any wargamer, especially novice wargamers, could want:

1) Point and click play: unlike other computerized wargames which often utilize an interface that requires some expertise to navigate, CM is almost completely point and click. Just select your unit, select an order (move, attack, hide, etcetera), specify a destination / target, and you are done! Like real generalship, you are encouraged to focus on the tactics and strategy and not on the minutiae of command. In the best spirit of wargaming, CM elevates gameplay beyond the nuts-and-bolts of game mechanics to the intellectual plane of sublime enjoyment.

2) Incredible realism: Every conceivable, quantifiable dynamic is factored in, not to mention just about every conceivable piece of equipment that fought in WWII!

3) Beautiful graphics: As I indicated above, the great strength of miniatures wargaming is the beauty of all the little models and soldiers that function as an ersatz army. However, since the initial release of Combat Mission, wargamers no longer have to envy our lead-pushing counterparts as CM captures the beauty of miniatures wargaming unlike any other PC wargame every created. Soldiers, their equipment, as well as the surrounding terrain, are all simply stunning in their detail. Even weather, from sunny days to blizzards, is included for your enjoyment (and their very real affect on combat). Best of all, unlike real miniatures, these will move and fight as we call the tune! In many ways, CM can be considered virtual miniatures.

The Waffen-SS has a winter surprise for the Allies! (CMBO)

4) WEGO play. This is a wonderful way to wargame. Unlike traditional “I Go-You Go” play where both sides alternate taking turns (think chess), or Real Time Strategy games where everyone goes simultaneously in a chaotic mass, WEGO is a unique system whereby BOTH SIDES enter their moves and then BOTH SIDES watch the results play out in a sixty second movie. Not only is this a realistic manner of play, but it also ratchets up the tension when entering your orders. For example, will your squad of infantry make it to the objective or get gunned down by an unseen MG 42? You simply don’t know until the turn plays out and the movie is shown! Best of all, unlike a chaotic RTS wargame, where you are often too busy managing the battle to enjoy the impressive graphics, the passive nature of the sixty second movie allows you to sit back and marvel at the realist war film you and your opponent have unwittingly created!

5) Quick Battles: Simply put: enduring value. Battlefront’s decision not to just include a detailed scenario creator, but also the ability to whip up a ‘quick battle’ via a few parameter selections (year, size of battle, type of terrain, etc.), provides an infinite amount of replayability. So whether you are the type of wargamer that likes to place each pine tree on a custom map, or the lazy variety who just wants a fresh, new scenario created with a minimum of effort, now we have a game that caters to both parties. And, best of all, no matter how you go about creating a new scenario, the program’s AI will be available as a ready opponent!

These are the reasons why I believe Battlefront’s Combat Mission is the finest wargame ever and the ideal place to start for green wargamers. Neophytes will get to fully experience the excitement and intellectual thrill that can only be achieved by the development and execution of a realistic battle plan. And, like the glitzier games of other genres, CM provides a healthy does of eye candy as well! Best of all, the enduring, and swelling, CM community provides a wide variety of new opponents as well as new scenario and “mods”.

Whether or not you decide to play Combat Mission, I urge you to give some method of wargaming a try. Why confine your love of militaria to passive experiences? Why limit yourself to watching movies or reading articles? Isn’t it time that you try your hand at command? Isn’t it time to find out whether or not there is a real armchair general within you? Wargaming provides you with a safe and fascinating opportunity to find out. Enlist today!

A Review of "Stealth" (Now on DVD)
Mood:  lazy
Topic: A Review of "Stealth"
I greatly enjoy science fiction, especially science fiction that deals with men versus out-of-control machines. Perhaps it is the chess player within me, but this sub-genre has always seemed to offer wonderful scenarios for the doom of mankind, from Fred Saberhagen’s Berserkers, to James Cameron’s Terminators. Stealth, the summer movie recently released on DVD, takes its own crack at this ever popular theme. The result: a cinematic equivalent of the Atari 1040ST---lots of unfilled promise that, nonetheless, does manage to hold your attention for a spell.

Briefly, Stealth is a movie that revolves around an elite team of three pilots (as played by Josh Lucas as Lt. Ben Gannon, Jessica Biel as Lt. Kara Wade, and Jamie Foxx as Lt. Henry Purcell) who fly super-advanced aircraft capable of striking targets in the most hostile regions of the world. The wrinkle arrives in the form of EDI (pronounced ‘Eddy’), an untested AI-controlled warplane that threatens to make human pilots anachronistic via its unmatched flight capabilities. Worse, during a trial run, EDI is stuck by a lightning bolt, becomes self-aware, and quickly becomes a menace not only to the pilots that fly with him, but to world peace in general. Such is the set-up for the film. Sounds like the makings for a good movie, no? The right elements are there, but unfortunately the movie plays out like the gut-wrenching aerobatics displayed during the film’s many action sequences: lots of ups and downs with little straight and level flight in between.

A big part of the film’s problem is its derivative nature. Like Independence Day, this move borrows heavily from a number of predecessors such as Fire Fox, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Top Gun, and Iron Eagle. While it is okay to borrow elements from other films, it is definitely NOT alright to do so and dump the various parts into the lap of the viewer without any attempt to tie them all together in a coherent fashion that makes sense. Unfortunately, this is what happens with Stealth. You get a lot of clever, if rehashed, elements, but nothing is really developed beyond the “wouldn’t it be cool if….” stage of scriptwriting.

Take, for example, EDI and the idea of AI-operated warplanes replacing human pilots. Cool sci-fi idea, but it is never really developed to believable proportions. Even though the creator of EDI, a man by the name of Keith Orbit, is introduced into the movie, we are never really given a glimpse into how this technological wonder was developed and what possible flaw might have suggested his later eccentric behavior. Instead we are subjected to a few lines of standard techno-babble that tell us nothing. This, of course, hinders the believability of EDI and harms the whole film as a result. The movie would have been far better served if we were given an explanation of EDI’s creation along the lines of Colossus in Colossus: The Forbin Project or the W.O.P.R. in Wargames, perhaps the two finest celluloid examples of super-machines gone wild because of cold logic unmitigated by human morality.

EDI lacks development in other regards too. Even though he is clearly based upon HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey, he never conveys the insane malice of that computer. Part of the problem is his voice. Unlike the inhuman perfection of HAL’s speech, or Joshua’s (a.k.a. the W.O.P.R.) tone of childlike innocence in Wargames, his voice is simply annoying in the nasally fashion of a cheap HAL knockoff. It is, quite frankly, just hard to take seriously as a maniacal computer and more believable as a, well, nerdy teenager! This idea is reinforced by EDI’s unfathomable desire to play blaring rock music while attacking enemy targets (a la Iron Eagle) in the fashion of a high school student playing a video game. All these elements combine to create the feeling that you don’t fear EDI as much as you want to steal his lunch money. This is not good when EDI is expected to be the primary villain of the film!

Another annoyance of the movie is its insistence on modeling its pilots along the line of Tom Cruise in Top Gun. To be fair, this flaw is not limited to this film, but has been incorporated by every scriptwriter and director since Top Gun’s release in 1986. How many times are we going to be subjected to the fighter pilot as an ‘order-disobeying-party-animal-with-fashion-model-looks’ stereotype? Top Gun has done more to besmirch the reputation of real world pilots than any other film. When will Hollywood figure out that real warplane ‘drivers’ are some of the most mature, serious, and intelligent people on the planet? You would have thought some director would have tried a different characterization path just out of boredom by now! Alas, this is not the film to break the mold. Not a major flaw, but one I am quickly become very tired of witnessing.

Another problem with the film is its climax---it is strangely anti-climatic. Now, don’t worry, I am not going to spoil the film. But I will say that after watching almost two hours of aerial battles, the final conflict, OVER NORTH KOREA NO LESS, was remarkably sedate! We witnessed terrorists with formidable firepower and the warlord of Myanmar firing surface to air missiles in abundance, but for some strange reason, the North Korean side of the DMZ is portrayed as manned solely by two machineguns and a searchlight! What was rightly expected to be a huge, edge-of-your-seat battle quickly fizzles to the disappointment of all.

Lastly, the film suffers from an identity conflict. Part of it wants to be science fiction, part contemporary techno-thriller. So, while we are subject to present-day elements involving terrorism and nuclear proliferation, we are also shown such sci-fi concepts as AI-controlled aircraft, implosion weapons, and giant, lumbering dirigible fuelers (cool concept!). I found myself asking “which is it?” Are we in the future or the near present as the film postulates? With concepts like these, you cannot have it both ways. I think the movie would have been better served with a pure sci-fi setting as there are precious few (any?) movies that deal with futuristic warfare in a realistic way. This could have been one of the few. Alas, yet another missed opportunity.

Not that the film is entirely bad. The special effects, as you can imagine, are truly spectacular. The dogfight over Russia is particularly well done, leaving the viewer gasping for air like the pilots on the screen. Unfortunately, the F/X are clearly expected to carry the film---something I wish directors would discover is simply not possible without a coherent plot.

Likewise, the film does have an abundance of action, both on the ground and in the air. Some of the scenes are quite clever, such as Jessica Biel’s unusually harrowing ejection sequence. Again, though, like the special effects, an abundance of action cannot substitute for a plot.

In fact, I would gladly sacrifice some of the action for more dialogue. To Stealth’s credit, there are a few scenes that offer some fleeting promise of plot depth, such as when Lt. Ben Gannon debates Capt. George Cummings about the dangers of machines replacing men in warfare. But such moments are invariably clipped short so as to move on to the next battle. This is a shame because you get a glimmer of intelligence in these brief moments that serve to break the vapid expanse of mindless action that dominates the rest of the film.

Finally, the film does have a few unexpected plot twists that breakup a largely linear plot. From EDI’s unexpected personality shift to the development of a corporate-government conspiracy (another hackneyed concept), there are some genuine surprises to be had. Unfortunately, like the dialogue, these moments are clipped and under-developed so as not to, you guessed it!, delay the next action sequence.

So how does Stealth rate? Succinctly: it’s a rental. Stealth will be one of those films that will prove to be perennially popular on late-night television; a film custom tailored for those moments when there is simply nothing else to watch or do. For that, if nothing else, we should be grateful. However, at its worst, Stealth is yet another missed opportunity from Hollywood; another eye-candy effort at churning out the loudest, most action-packed film without ever stopping to properly develop a plot. It is a film marketed to an audience that, for some strange reason, Tinsel Town producers believe is as mindless as the movies they shove down our throats year after year. In short, like the Spruce Goose, Stealth is a magnificent lame duck.

PS: Be sure to stick around through the credits for a (predictable) surprise.

PPS: Is it me, or is Jessica Biel’s closing line one of the worst ever uttered on screen?

PPPS: I’m stilling trying to figure out why the movie is called Stealth when the stealthy characteristics of the aircraft were never developed in the least!

An Exercise in Rhetoric
Mood:  cheeky
Now Playing: The Mark Levin Show
Topic: An Exercise in Rhetoric
The press has been grimly wringing its hands in anticipation of the so-called “2000” mark of American casualties in Iraq. Why the press considers the 2,000th dead American soldier (Staff Sergeant George Alexander---a true American hero!) anymore significant than the 1,999th, 753rd, or 12th dead soldier, I don’t know. Presumably this has something to do with the press corps combination of ignorance and ideological distaste of all things related to warfare, especially the current War on Terror. Whatever the reason, the true significance of this “event” is meaningless except to illustrate, yet again, why America is so indebted to alternative media for providing a refuge from the mindless propaganda of the “elite” liberal media.

Imagine, if you will, how the contemporary mindset of the modern press, best summarized as left-wing cynicism, might have affected the reporting of other historical events. For example, what if the Battle of the Bulge occurred today? What if World War Two was being run by an “extremist” Roosevelt that had earned the ire of Dan Rather and company? Let’s take a look:

16 December 1944
German Forces Launch Surprise Attack Upon Unsuspecting Allied Troops!
---Allied Generals Unprepared to Meet Resilient Adversary
---White House “In Chaos”

---UP Wire Services: In an unexpected offensive, allied troops were thrown back from the Belgian- German border as an unbowed Wehrmacht launched their most effective attack in months. While details of this new offensive are still being assembled at the ever more confused headquarters of the Allied High Command, it would appear that the enemy is employing over 40 fresh divisions to split the Anglo-American front lines in a possible drive towards Antwerp. Many experts are already labeling this event as yet another major set-back in the so-called War on Fascism, a global conflict that has been dragging on for almost three years with no end in sight.

Initial reports are grim; many American units have been completely over-run with numerous reports of other units abandoning their positions and fleeing for their lives from the advancing enemy onslaught. One unnamed officer was sympathetic with the plight of these retreating troops, “Heck, these guys didn’t volunteer! They were drafted! Many were counting the days until they could go home and now they are being attacked by an enemy that the Army said was ‘beaten’. Can you blame them for getting out of Dodge?” Others echoed this sentiment.

Initial casualty reports are quite high with the preliminary figures “in the tens of thousands”. It has been rumored that General Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, has already quietly conceded to his top generals that his adversary’s new offensive could prove to be unstoppable and “possibly jeopardize the entire war effort."

“I am not at all surprised by this turn of events,” stated Senator Alan Smith, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “The White House has been increasingly insulating itself from criticism of its conduct of the war,” he added. “Indeed,” he continued, “just the other day I warned Mr. Roosevelt to pay heed to recent speculation that our foe was planning a nasty surprise, but he wasn’t interested in listening to my advice.”

Many experts echo these sentiments. Professor James Hickam, of the Political Science Department at Harvard, said that “Roosevelt and his team have been determined to portray this war in Europe as nearly finished. Any opinion that would contradict this point of view has been rejected by Roosevelt and his cadre of close supporters. This is an administration with a message to sell to the American people and they don’t want any interference with that message,” he concluded.

Colonel Jaques Martel, a retired French Army officer and expert in modern combat, expressed his concern during a telephone interview from his new home in North Dakota. "The European mainland theater is very fluid, very complex. But from what I have learned, via sources in England, is that this is a major attack. It is quite unusual for this enemy, any enemy, to fight back like this. Clearly SHAEF [Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces] has dropped the ball on this one. Something like this was fully preventable."

Some on Capital Hill have already begun clamoring for an investigation into why a build-up to such a massive attack had not been detected by U.S. intelligence experts. An agent of the top-secret Office of Strategic Services, who would only agree to speak on a condition of complete anonymity, said that the O.S.S. had detected a major build-up, but an institutional desire “to tow the party line” was strictly enforced by his superiors. “Oh, sure, there were all kinds of signs that this was coming, that the Germans were just as defiant as ever, but we were put on notice that conclusions that didn’t fit into the optimistic assessment of the White House were to be disregarded.” But he was quick to add, “Not because of politics, you understand, just because the White House was very confident in what it was being told from its senior field commanders.” Republican Senator Sam Schumer was blunt: “I think we need to appoint a special prosecutor for this. Something is seriously wrong and we need to get to the bottom in as non-partisan way as possible. It’s for the good of the country, after all.”

The White House, rumored to be in a state of “complete chaos”, could not be reached for comment.

If rampaging German troops were not bad enough, American GIs have had to also put up with inferior equipment. Many preliminary combat reports indicate that the ubiquitous Sherman tank and Willys MB Ford Jeep has proven inadequate in combat against Wehrmacht equipment. The Sherman tank’s 75mm gun has not been able to penetrate the thick armor of Panther tanks. However, the Sherman’s thin armor is easily penetrated, often resulting in catastrophic explosions due to the tank’s gasoline engine. “They’re deathtraps!” commented Sgt. Len Engler to the supportive calls of his fellow tankers. “Not at all sufficient for combat,” was how Lt. Joe Gripper, a P-47 pilot, described the Jeep. “I really don’t understand how anyone could expect one of those jeeps to be useful in a ground offensive. It is way under-armed and under-armored.”

Johan Swenson, a Swiss defense expert, believed this was the result of a US War Department trying to do things “on the cheap”. Mr. Swenson said that “due to a weak, if recovering, US economy, the War Department went out looking for the lowest bidder on military equipment, so that it could get the most from its reduced budget.” He added that this was partly the fault of the Roosevelt Administration’s tax policy. “They weren’t willing to raise the necessary tax revenue with unpopular tax hikes, so they made the conscious decision to do with less.”

Some have a more subtle idea of what happened with American equipment. “Follow the money,” stated Greg Blover, director of the Share the Wealth Foundation. “It is no secret that many in this administration have close ties, personal and financial, with many military-industrial business magnates. How hard would it be to throw some business the way of friends---whether or not they are qualified to manufacture such complex equipment?” He is quick to point out that he has no proof to back this assertion, but he asks if it is really so hard to believe. “Roosevelt is a son of the privileged class, after all.”

This latest set-back may well prove fatal for an already beleaguered Roosevelt Administration. A slowly recovering economy, declining popularity of his New Deal programs, the Pearl Harbor disaster, (currently under the scrutiny of several congressional committees), and increasing criticism of President Roosevelt’s policy of interning Japanese-Americans, a plan many have called “racist”, have all burdened the White House. Some question whether his presidency can recover from this latest failure.

Senator Harry Franks, widely considered a moderate, echoed this sentiment. “I just don’t know whether we can rely on Mr. Roosevelt to see this war to a successful conclusion, what with all that is on his plate.” When asked why, Senator Franks replied, “Clearly we are in a quagmire here! The White House is telling us that the war will be over by Christmas, and now this massive attack happens! I just don’t think Roosevelt has a viable exit strategy.”

Chuck Kelly, a congressman from California, agrees. “Mr. Roosevelt is clearly beholden to his extremist base. He cannot afford to alienate them by recognizing that the war has no clear end in sight. I think if the president really cared about the nation, and the soldiers, that he would set a strict timetable for withdrawing our troops.” Indeed, this is a common sentiment of many critics of the war who anxiously note that the total number of US casualties is edging towards the 305,155 mark. “I’m telling you,” added Kelly, “as soon as that unfortunate 305,155th soldier is killed, all support for this war is going to evaporate!”

The popularity of President Roosevelt has reached a new low with some voters. Barbara Stickland, an actress, questions why we are in Europe at all. “Can someone explain to me why we are at war with Germany when Japan attacked us? I mean, this White House has insisted on linking Germany to Japan and I just don’t understand why! Where’s the connection?” Murray Crowley, a writer, agrees. “This European sideshow is all about an America New World Order. Clearly Roosevelt was just looking for an excuse to make most of Europe an imperial outpost for a resurgent American foreign policy. It’s all part of the hawkish influence of those so-called New Democrats that have this president in their back pocket.” Alan Drummond, an artist, added his own interpretation, “He told us he was going to keep us out of any European war! Suddenly our fleet is attacked by Japan, and the next thing I know, we’re at war with the whole globe! Come on! Does anybody really believe that Roosevelt didn’t arrange the 12-7 attack on our Pacific fleet? The president needed a reason to get into the war and enrich his war-profiteer friends. Looks like he made sure he got one!” Stan, a 4-F college student, seemed to agree. “Roosevelt lied, soldiers died!” he shouted from a nearby corner. Such sentiments seem very popular with the public.

Even the legalities of the battlefield seem to be suffering as the war drags on. Initially, both Germans and Americans enjoyed a degree of mutual civility in this martial contest. Not any longer. There are reports that some advancing Wehrmacht units, particularly those commanded by Colonel Jochen Peiper, have massacred surrendering US troops near Malmedy. Why the sudden change in tactics? “Anger,” answers Karl Kronenburg, of the German-American Legal League, an organization dedicated to preventing anti-German bigotry in America. “Can you blame them? The Germans have seen their cities blasted by American planes, their ports blockaded by American warships, and their soldiers taken prisoner and whisked away to secretive POW camps in the States without the benefit of a trial. They are very angry at the double-standard of treatment they have received at American hands.” He explained that these grievances weren’t just related to contemporary events, either. “Many people forget the shameful way that Germany was handled by America, and her allies, at the conclusion of World War I. Germany just wanted to be treated fairly and respectfully in the wake of the Great War. Instead, Germany was made an outcast state, beholden to the mercy of her neighbors. It is clear that the US was heavily involved in this demeaning, some would say imperialistic, effort. America’s hands are just as bloody as those of the German people,” he concluded.

What ever the truth of the allegations, one thing is clear: America has suffered a severe setback in its European ground campaign. "It could take months or even years to recover the lost territory," commented military historian Norm Hale. "For all intents and purposes, we are starting this war from scratch," he concluded.

Tomorrow: The League of Nations: The hidden truth of its many successes.

Next Week: Is Christmas undermining our war effort? Experts say "Yes!"

A Prescient Moment
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Talk Radio
Topic: A Prescient Moment
Did you ever have one of those moments where the future seems so clear? Where the events of tomorrow can be seen with all the clarity of a moment from the decided past? I can recall one such incident. It was a bright day in March of 2004---the first day that the liberal radio station Air America hit the airwaves. My liberal friend approached me that day and asked “You know what today is, don’t you?”

I replied, “No. What’s today?”

“Today’s the day that Air America begins broadcasting!” he replied with a gleam in his eye. “Aren’t you worried?” he asked, knowing that I, as a conservative, had little more than contempt for the modern American Left.

“Worried?” I asked. “Why would I be worried?”

My friend rolled his eyes with dissatisfaction at my coy attitude. I knew what he was getting at, but I wanted to hear him articulate it. “Because now Rush has competition!” he exclaimed.

I chuckled and replied, “My friend, it is you that should be worried.”

He frowned at my unexpected reply. “Why is that?” he asked.

“Because after today, the American Left will have no more excuses as to why they are constantly losing election after election,” I answered. My friend just frowned, so I continued. “You see, we talk-radio conservatives have been listening to the Left for years complain and moan about how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have managed to brainwash America because there is no competing liberal talk radio network to counter ‘their lies’. Well, now they finally have their own radio station, with a hand-picked selection of the best, brightest, and most talented liberal intellectuals, and you know what?” I asked.

“What?” he cautiously inquired.

“When it is all said and done, and the hype which will drive the initial ratings is over, Air America is going to fail because they are providing nothing more than the same tired, doom and gloom rhetoric that the American people can get from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times…well, you get the idea. The station will fail and when it does, you guys are going to have to face that the majority of Americans just don’t like liberal anti-American pseudo-logic.”

He was not happy with my analysis.

So, has my prediction proved true? Check out this recent quote, from The Washington Post, concerning the state of Air America:

“Air America, the liberal talk network carried on WWRC-AM (1260), went from bad to nonexistent. After WWRC recorded a mere fraction of a rating point in the spring with syndicated shows from the likes of lefty talkers Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo and Stephanie Miller, Arbitron couldn't detect a measurable listenership for the station this time around."

Check and mate.

Yes, these would have to be hard times for libs. First they witnessed America “go red” in the aftermath of the 2004 election, and now their super-weapon, the radio station hyped by the left-wing media to unbelievable proportions, and even financed by George Soros himself, has proven to be a dismal failure. Yes, these must be demoralizing times for our wacky friends on the Left.

Can I call ‘em, or what?

By the Way: Not only is Air America in trouble, but it would seem Al Franken is in a bit of hot water himself. From the Federalist Patriot:

"The author of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken, appears to be caught in a little prevarication of this own. Several weeks ago The Patriot reported on his Air America scandal, whereby the Leftist start-up radio enterprise "borrowed" 75,000 from the taxpayer-subsidized Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club in the Bronx. Air American later refused to pay it back, insisting the loan was the responsibility of the previous owner. On 8 August, Franken told his listeners, "I didn't know anything about this until late last week."

However, new documents would indicate Franken certainly did know about the transfers, or so he attested in November, 2004. The document in question is a settlement agreement between Air America's former and present owners, with Franken's notarized signature, outlining the company's liability to Gloria Wise. For somebody has made a career of accusing conservatives of lying?Franken now appears to have full knowledge of shady loans from a tax-funded urban children's charity to subsidize his rant-radio outlet. Perhaps a revised edition of Lying Liars is in order."

Trouble in Mordor
Mood:  rushed
Now Playing: Blue Dolphin Street
Topic: Trouble in Mordor
Things are not going well for Mordor and its minions. Recently, an email sent from Al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri to freelance Iraqi butcher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was intercepted by US intelligence officials. The contents are fascinating. He begins with his strategic vision and then details the number of difficulties they have encountered which, for all intents and purposes, could clearly be recognized as a failure vis-a-vis the jihad against US troops and the freely elected Iraqi government. This is must-read material for every American concerned about our effort in Iraq and the War on Terror.

The following are selected comments from Sauron, er… Zawahiri which I found particularly interesting (with comments by me):

TO: Abu Musab al- Zarqawi
FROM: Al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri

“The summer started hot with operations escalating in Afghanistan. The enemy struck a blow against us with the arrest of Abu al-Faraj, may God break his bonds… However, the real danger comes from the agent Pakistani army that is carrying out operations in the tribal areas looking for mujahedeen.”

Hmm, things don’t sound so good for the jihadists, despite DNC clamoring to the contrary. Despite all the nay-saying, military might is having a negative effect upon the terrorists. This has got to disappoint the “make love, not war” crowd of the Left.

“It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt…As for the battles that are going on in the far-flung regions of the Islamic world, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia, they are just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world.”

This is a fascinating peek at the strategic vision of the Islamic fascists. Did you notice how there is no mention of defeating US imperialism, capitalist-corporate exploitation, or President Bush stealing the 2000 election? I guess Howard Dean and Noam Chomsky got the wrong set of talking points. Also, the next time someone tries to tell you that Iraq has no connection to the oft quoted “broader war on terror,” the last sentence from above dispels that myth. Commit it to memory.

“So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority… in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the American… The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.”

What does this mean for Nancy Pelosi’s repeated demands for the withdrawal of American troops according to a timetable that’s set in stone? Gasp! Could she be…wrong??? And what does this mean for those who constantly repeat that the only reason terrorists are in Iraq is because we are there? Is the all-knowing “peace-at-any-price” Left in error? Could US troops actually be serving to stabilize Iraq, and hence, the region? The answer to all these questions, of course, is a resounding YES!

“The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

But what about Israel’s painful concession of territory to quiet West Bank and Gaza jihadists? Aren’t they in good stead with their Islamic neighbors now? I guess not….

“What drives me to broach these matters while we are in the din of war and the challenges of killing and combat? My answer is, firstly: Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy.”

Attention all you Vietnam-era hippes! All you defeatists! All you politicians and journalists that love to shout ?quagmire!? whenever the US goes to war! This passage is for you! Notice the contempt and scorn heaped upon America because of our shameful withdrawal from Vietnam. We have YOU to thank for that. Claim your despicable prize and join the ranks of the world's fifth columnist enemy-appeasers who will ultimately be discarded upon the ash heap of history. NO MORE VIETNAMS!!!

“For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue.”

This passage is an excellent example of the importance of winning the hearts and minds of the people. Clearly, Zawahiri believes that all the homicide bombings, even against their Shiite opponents, are not proving popular among the people of Iraq. Jeez, you think??? Looks like some of these jihadists can be as dense in the head as the Democrats. Who would have thought blowing women and children to bits would prove unpopular?

“And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take counter measures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?”

Normally, you try to divide and conquer your enemy. In this case, Zawahiri is alleging that Zarqawi, the Jordanian military genius, has accomplished this goal for us! How funny is that?!? This is a clear case of dissension in the ranks. That’s good news for us and the Iraqi people, but very bad news for Sauron and Saruman.

“Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages... And we can kill the captives by bullet.”

As I read this, I thought of all the continuing fuss and bother over the Abu Graib scandal and Demorat Dick Durbin comparing our Gitmo Marines to Nazis. While we do this, our enemies calmly debate the negative public relations impact of slaughtering innocent people being held captive as political fodder. How does Zawahiri?s resolve this dilemma between needing to spill blood and winning flattering spots on the nightly news? Why, kill the captives with a bullet instead---it is much more palatable that way(!). We agonize if the murderous thugs sitting in Cuban detainment cells are receiving their fair share of glazed chicken while these Islamic fascists are proving themselves worthy to be called true heirs to Hitler?s genocidal vision. How ironic is that?

“The author of these lines has tasted the bitterness of American brutality, and that my favorite wife's chest was crushed by a concrete ceiling and she went on calling for aid to lift the stone block off her chest until she breathed her last…As for my young daughter, she was afflicted by a cerebral hemorrhage, and she continued for a whole day suffering in pain until she expired. And to this day I do not know the location of the graves of my wife, my son, my daughter, and the rest of the three other families who were martyred in the incident and who were pulverized by the concrete ceiling….”

I wonder how many New Yorkers suffered a similar fate on 9-11 when the Twin Towers came down? I guess you can chalk this up to reaping what you sow. I hope many more terrorists meet similar fates at the hands of American military might. In fact, this passage should be sent to every would-be attacker of this great nation. Consider it fair warning….

“Please take every caution in the meetings, especially when someone claims to carry an important letter or contributions. It was in this way that they arrested Khalid Sheikh. Likewise, please, if you want to meet one of your assistants, I hope that you don't meet him in a public place or in a place that is not known to you. I hope that you would meet him in a secure place, not the place of your residence. Because Abu al-Faraj - may God set him free and release him from his torment - was lured by one of his brothers, who had been taken into custody, to meet him at a public location where a trap had been set.”

Always look over your shoulder…justice is just a step away. I hope you enjoy moving from one rat hole to another for the rest of your life, because that is the only existence you can now anticipate for the rest of your days.

“So, if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately one hundred thousand, we'll be very grateful to you.”

Al Qaeda begging money from its minions? Not a good sign for the ork army….

The letter then concludes with a list of publications authored by Zawahiri and recommended for Zarqawi’s study (I wonder how many made the official MoveOn.org reading list?).

This was an altogether fascinating letter, in many ways, very similar in presentation to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Best of all, it was all bad news for the enemy from the East. No wonder why Al Qaeda was quick to denounce the letter as a fraud---it could really hurt them in the field.

But the bad news for Mordor doesn’t stop there. Just this past Saturday, the Iraqi people ratified their first constitution, despite the feeble efforts of the jihadists. Let’s see: a working and open political process, quickly diminishing support among the Iraqi people, and increasing military and financial pressure upon the whole rotten structure. No, these are not good days for our enemy.

The sun is beginning to shine in the West once again.

Kingdom of Political Correctness
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Laura Ingram Show
Topic: Kingdom of Heaven
I don’t go to see too many movies in the theater because they are just not worth the $10. As a result, I am much more inclined to patiently await the release of the film on DVD and rent it at my convenience. It is for this reason that I have just gotten around to seeing Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven. Normally, I am a big fan of Mr. Scott, especially of his Gladiator movie, but I must say that his crusading epic has thoroughly missed the mark by proving to be little more that anti-Christian political correctness run amok.

The good news is that KoH is not as bad as the awful King Arthur, a film that literally drips with anti-Catholic venom. That movie made me want to run screaming from the television and begin fervently praying for a good old fashioned Roman Catholic inquisition within the confines of Hollywood. KoH isn’t nearly that bad, but it does offer a more watered down version of the "organized religion is bad, amorphous spirituality is good" type of arithmetic.

The movie’s religious phobia becomes apparent quite early. Within the first five minutes, we are immediately confronted with a Catholic priest that steals a crucifix from a dead woman in the process of being buried (we later learn that this is the body of the wife of Orlando Bloom’s protagonist, Balian)! This initial shocking scene proves to be the rule, and not the exception, for KoH’s non-stop sermonizing against the evils of organized religion. From there, we are deluged with continuous imagery of Catholic noblemen and Crusaders, most notably the Templars and the Hospitallers, indulging in the worst aspects of human conduct, including avarice, war mongering, and senseless brutality. But what about simple ‘stupidity’, the favorite aspersion cast upon religious folk by the politically correct crowd? Well, not to leave any stone unturned, Mr. Scott provides us with the Bishop of Jerusalem, a man that neatly portrays every dim-witted Christian stereotype ever invented by anti-religious bigots. Not only is he stupid, but he is also a yellow coward. In one particularly interesting scene, the bishop declares that he would willingly abandon his faith, convert to Islam, and abandon his flock to sure death just to save his own skin!

And this is just a superficial sampling of the anti-Christian tone set by the film!

Needless to say, the real heroes of the film, from Bloom’s Balian, to Jeremy Iron’s Godfrey, are all characters who declare that organized religion is for fools, that the real kingdom of heaven is found in the non-denominational hearts of mankind. It is here that another flaw of the film becomes apparent---the ceaseless humanist sermonizing of the characters. Every line uttered by Bloom, Irons, et alia, is simply dripping with overwrought emotion, as if the dialogue was handed down by God to William Monahan, the scriptwriter. Of course, to anyone with a discerning ear, you quickly realize that all this pontificating amounts to zilch; it is nothing more than political correctness proffered as wisdom. At times it is so silly that it is almost laughable! Only in Hollywood could such drivel be taken seriously.

The film’s protagonist, Balian, is also a curious character to uphold as a virtuous hero. Shortly into the film, we watch as Balian, in a fit of anger, murders the village priest by running him through with a sword! Not content with that act of violence, he then throws the dying priest into his furnace where he watches him burn alive! Balian then flees the authorities and ultimately finds his way to the Holy Land where, shortly after being knighted by his dying father and charged with upholding a virtuous code of knightly conduct, promptly has an affair with the wife of a rival knight! If this is Mr. Scott’s idea of a hero, I shudder to think what his idea of a villain is---oh wait, a Christian…that’s right.

Surely, in an earnest effort to be fair, Mr. Scott portrays Islam with a similarly cynical brush, right? Silly…of course not. In fact, Muslims, as principally portrayed by Ghassan Massoud as Saladin (the only actor to give an excellent performance), are shown as everything that Christians are not….wise, tolerant, and merciful. In perhaps one of the more infamous scenes of KoH, we witness Saladin lovingly pick up a crucifix and place it carefully upon an altar in the supreme act of religious tolerance. Now, to be fair, Saladin truly was a chivalrous historical figure, but even this scene strains credulity. Mr. Scott seems to have forgotten that the Crusades were a defensive reaction to the slashing, burning, and enslaving of Christians by Islamic armies---but such a admittance would run counter to KoH's endless demonizing of Christian Europe. Therefore, the film’s indictment of religion is strictly one-sided. Of course, I do sort of understand this decision as, if Mr. Scott portrayed Islamic clerics with all the hurtful stereotyping he lavished upon Christians, no doubt a fatwa with his name on it would be promulgated throughout the Islamic world. He couldn’t have that, could he? Better to play it safe and bash his Western-Christian heritage in the spirit of religious tolerance.

Not that the film is completely awful. It is a beautiful film to behold, the cinematography very reminiscent of Laurence of Arabia. Also, the battle scenes are well done, if a bit chaotic at times. I did find the climatic siege of Jerusalem to be less than thrilling---the siege of Minas Tirith in Return of the King was far more intense. Finally, the eye for historical detail is to be praised---everything serves to convey the viewer to an authentic-looking medieval world. But that’s about all I can say about the better aspects of this film.

Unlike King Arthur, which I truly believe was made to deliberately besmirch the Roman Catholic Church, I do accept that Mr. Scott’s intentions were pure. I watched him promoting KoH as a film that urges religious tolerance in a post-9/11 world. I do believe that was his intention---and that is what is so sad about this film. Mr. Scott & Co. truly believes that this is a fair and balanced look at religion and the Crusades. In short, it is another example, in a long line of recent examples, of how Hollywood is out of touch with "red state" America. Who, but a Hollywood director, could consider a film that attacks the West and Christianity, while whitewashing Islamic aggression, as a balanced attempt at religious dialogue? Who, but Hollywood insiders, would even contemplate making such a film and releasing it in a nation that had suffered over 3000 deaths on a single day due to Islamic extremism? And who, but those steeped in the trendy spiritual movements of Hollywood would argue that the West’s great heritage of time-tested Christianity is the source of all the world’s problems?

Kingdom of Heaven could have filled an important void in our shared cinematic library. The Crusades truly were a significant episode in world history, one that continues to influence the modern world. If Ridley Scott was less interested in ramming a politically correct message down the throats of his audience, and more interested in a serious history flick, in the line of Gettysburg or The Longest Day, Kingdom of Heaven could have been a classic. Alas, as it stands, it might as well have been an Al Jezeera co-production.

More Thoughts on Katrina
Mood:  sharp
Now Playing: Bach's Mass in B Minor
Topic: More Thoughts on Katrina
More Thoughts on Katrina

Just some more musings on the aftermath of the worst natural disaster in American history….

First, the partisan attacks continue by the American Left, led, as usual, by the Democrat party. The amount of political profiteering by the DNC is simply shameless, evocative of the Northern carpetbaggers that flooded the South after the conclusion of the Civil War. From the shrill cries of Nancy Pelosi, to the irrational rants of Howard Dean, the charges being spewed out of the mouths of these despicable individuals is proving little different than the sewer backwash now flooding the streets of New Orleans. At a time of mass suffering, the best these so-called civic leaders can come up with is endless finger pointing. Maybe Dean and Pelosi should consider replacing Louisiana Governor Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Nagin? After all, they seem to have Louisianan blame-game politics down pat.

In general, I think the recent behavior of the Democrat Party has been very illustrative of just how bankrupt that party has become. In a vein similar to the 9-11 and the Iraq War, the Democrats have sought to use the misery and suffering of the Katrina disaster to score political points with the voters. Not by offering constructive efforts, mind you, but by trying to create new conspiracy theories in their on-going effort to demonize the Bush administration. So now we are routinely subjected to comments that Bush acted slowly because of the high number of poor blacks in the region (President Bush declared Louisiana a disaster area 48 hours before Katrina hit, but Blanco refused all federal assistance until 48 hours after the hurricane hit), or was unable to act because all the troops were deployed in Iraq (two-thirds of the Louisiana National Guard remained in-state), or the environmental policies of Bush are responsible for the hurricane (such a silly idea, no refutation is needed). Like the Kerry campaign of last year, Democrats would seem to still have nothing to offer the voters other than wild, wacky, and bitter GOP conspiracy theories---a state of affairs that will lead to even more Republican victories in years to come.

Of course, the media, the erstwhile allies of the Left, have jumped into the game in various ways. The most recent example is Time magazine’s expose of Michael Brown, the FEMA director. According to the ever-so reliable investigators at that magazine, Mr. Brown is guilty of padding his resume with unsubstantiated experience in crisis management. Of course, these allegations have not been supported by other sources, but that will not stop the Democrats from alleging all sorts of incompetence on the part of Brown and Bush (carefully avoiding any possible reminders that Brown had successfully handled other hurricane disasters prior to Katrina). I, for one, would like to ask about any possible resume’ padding on the Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu, and the hapless duo Blanco and Nagin. After all, these elected state officials have known for years about the potential flooding disaster that could occur after a major hurricane and yet were woefully unprepared when the bell finally tolled. What crisis management experience did they claim on their resume when they sought to shepherd the good people of that high risk state?

In general, the media did a poor job covering this event. Even Fox News, who usually seeks its own path when reporting on a major event, fell right in line with the doom-mongers of CNN and MSNBC. In many cases, journalists became part of the panicked population, adding to the hysteria instead of serving as a calming, reassuring voice. Again, unlike September 11, the media cracked and embraced sensationalism instead of professionalism.

In many ways, this disaster has highlighted how confused some Americans are concerning the organization of this great nation. I am shocked that so many people completely bypass the state and local governments and expect the federal government to be their primary caretaker. People need to be reminded that we are a federal republic, that Washington D.C. is not responsible for the day to day “health, welfare, and morals” of the people of the several states (that is the doctrine of State Rights). The state governments, along with the numerous levels of local government, shoulder that immense responsibility. The federal government acts only in a supplemental role to that charge, and then only when invited in by the state governors. The citizens of Louisiana should be asking what took the governor and mayor so long to act, and not addressing that question to FEMA. In fact, they should be demanding to know, from all levels of state government, why, after years of scientific studies concerning the danger posed to New Orleans, so little proactive preparation was made to ensure the city could survive a hit by a strong hurricane. Louisiana had received more federal aid than any other state in the Union (just under two billion during the last five years of the Bush administration), yet much of that money was diverted to pork-barrel projects (recently, the FBI in New Orleans described the state's public corruption as “epidemic, endemic, and entrenched”). Instead of vetting resumes, Time would be performing a real civic duty by looking for the answers to these questions. That will never happen, of course, because it would prove fatally embarrassing to one of the strongest liberal Democrat bastions in the nation.

All in all, Louisiana is an example of what happens when the people of a state succumb to the big government mentality. Instead of seeking self reliance, they depended on the promises of big government demagogues and have been catastrophically harmed as a result.

Another annoyance: celebrity activism. Why is it that celebrities, who normally contribute nothing to society, descend upon disaster areas with all the alacrity of a vulture to a carcass? It wouldn’t be so bad if these professional imposters would help out and keep quiet, but we are forever subjected to the prognostications of these individuals who…um, to be polite, I would not allow to balance my checkbook on one of their good days? Like the party they often support, a mindless rant of racism, class warfare, and liberal delusions are spouted with all the hypocrisy of Nero discoursing about the importance of fire prevention. To quote Laura Ingram, just “shut up and sing!”

Now the good news: despite these darker aspects of the Katrina disaster, America is still America. Not all the divisiveness of liberal politics, race-baiters, or air-head celebrities has stopped Americans from what they do best: helping the afflicted with unimaginable generosity of all sorts, including record amount of money and elbow grease. Our deep religious convictions continue to trump the bitter politics of the age and motivate all to pitch-in and help out. Indeed, many churches and Roman Catholic religious orders have been first on the scene, alleviating as much suffering as they possible can, even without the help of Hillary Clinton’s investigative committees or Nancy Pelosi’s demand for FEMA firings. Likewise, ordinary Americans of every type and color have joined hands to make right what has gone so terribly wrong. The Gulf Coast, like a phoenix from the ashes, will emerge better and stronger for the trials now testing it. Why? Because that is the flame of the American Spirit at work, and nothing will ever dim that light.

"This is one of these disasters that will test our soul and test our spirit. But we're going to show the world, once again, that not only will we survive, but that we will be stronger and better for it when it's all said and done, that amidst this darkness, there is light. And I want to thank you all for providing light, immediate light to people who needed help. You make your state and your local governments and your country proud... Americans can be certain our nation has the character, the resources and the resolve to overcome this disaster. We will comfort and care for the victims. We will restore the towns and neighborhoods that have been lost in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama [and] rebuild the great city of New Orleans. And we'll once again show the world that the worst adversities bring out the best in America." —President George W. Bush in Louisiana

The City Dies
Mood:  sad
Now Playing: Preservation Hall Jazz Band
Topic: The City Dies
Pompeii in 79AD
Atlanta in 1864
Galveston in 1900
Hiroshima & Nagasaki in 1945
New Orleans in 2005

Such now reads a grim list of cities that have suffered utter destruction from either manmade or natural disasters.

Hurricane Katrina has become the most destructive natural disaster in the history of this great nation. The proud Southern people of the Gulf Coast have been blasted by a category 4 storm that has unleashed the equivalent energy of several thousand nuclear warheads.

And it shows.

The entire coastal region, especially, but not limited to, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, seem scrubbed clear as if by a giant belt sander. I have never seen anything like it, at least not at this enormous scale. I’ve heard of a region of a state being devastated by a storm, but never an entire region of a country!

The dimensions of the humanitarian crisis are just starting to become clear with hundreds of thousands of people now homeless, no electricity in many areas of the South, and only sporadic phone service. Things cannot be expected to improve for some time---possibly months to more than a year….

Therefore, our fellow citizens of the Sunny South need our help. Please contribute what you can to these, and other, charities:

Catholic Charities

Red Cross USA

The Salvation Army

Visit Charity Navigator for a list of other reputable charities. Be sure all donations are specified for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts!

While the entire Gulf Coast has been hit hard, the city of New Orleans has proven to be a particularly grim situation. With two or more levees burst, the city, which lies below sea level, has suffered a flood comparable to the tsunami that struck Asia and India last December. Entire neighborhoods are underwater, making escape difficult or impossible. Like the rest of the Gulf Coast, Katrina knocked out all electricity and telephone service. However, because of the flooding, water service has failed as well and no infrastructure repairs are possible until the water can be pumped out of this fishbowl of a city.

And that could take over a month!

Worse, New Orleans has fallen victim to a spate of violence. In scenes reminiscent of The Road Warrior, civil authority has given way to gang authority. Rape, murder, arson, and lots of looting are sweeping the partially abandoned city as law enforcement officials appear unable or unwilling to intervene in many cases. Again, I have never seen anything like this! Firefighters come under attack as they attempt to put out fires and police are forced to engage gangs in battle to ensure that emergency supplies reach the needy.

It’s apocalyptic.

All civil authority seems to have collapsed in the city. Unlike New York after 9-11, Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin seem incapable of reasserting any sort of control. The governor’s actions, practically since Katrina had first appeared to be on a collision with the state, have been haphazard and a textbook definition of ‘too little, too late’. Mayor Nagin doesn’t even deserve that meager credit. In fact, the good mayor has refused any more press conferences because he is unhappy with the lack of progress in the rescuing of his city. Of course, he fails to recall that he was elected mayor and, therefore, he is responsible for getting things done. Instead, Mayor Nagin finds it easier to rant and rave, and place the blame for the entire situation at the feet of the federal government (as if President Bush and/or FEMA is solely responsible for welfare of his constituents) instead of getting out there and leading the people of his city during this time of crisis. It is shameful display of a mayor abrogating his responsibilities.

Clearly, he is no Rudy Giuliani!

The entire situation smacks of incompetence---doubly so since this disaster has been studied in detail for decades. Despite countless warnings, the civil authority of Louisiana seems to have given little more than lip service and a wink and a nod to emergency planning. The wretched spectacle at the Super Dome, where 30,000 citizens have been virtually abandoned by city and state leaders for the last four days, is proof of the fact.
The whole sorry mess is a disgrace, from the lack of state and city leadership, to the criminals who now prowl the flooded streets. New Orleans has moved from a wound to a festering sore on the body politic. Huey Long must be turning over in his grave….

And things are only going to get worse. It is no exaggeration to say that we are all watching the death of an American city as it is simply not habitable in its current state. Disease will soon become rampant as sewage and perhaps thousands of bodies begin to fester. Before the month is out, New Orleans will be a ghost town and removed from the American map indefinitely. Incredible.

Fortunately, the response of the federal government, with President Bush at the helm, has been swift and massive. In less than four days, an armada of federal aid has been unleashed throughout the South, filling the Louisiana power vacuum (it is interesting to note how the strong civic leadership in Mississippi and Alabama has not encountered any of the problems now plaguing Louisiana). This FEMA assistance has proven critical, along with the aid offered by The Red Cross, The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and numerous other organizations. As is always the case, when people are in need, the American people, either directly or through the national government, have stepped up to the plate.

Unfortunately, some are seeking to use this unprecedented disaster as a platform for racial politics. Confronted with thousands of poor black folks wandering New Orleans and televised scenes of wholesale looting by portions of the city’s 65% black population, professional race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have begun an attempt to divide America in a time when unity is needed. Truthfully, no one should be surprised. After all, Sharpton was the guy who explained that white America had it coming after Colin Ferguson, a paranoid black racist, shot up white men and women on the LIRR, and Jackson is the professional racial blackmailer of American corporations. Nonetheless, these disgusting purveyors of racist schemes need to be held accountable for their despicable accusations during this time of crisis. “White America” is not to blame for the plight of the black population of New Orleans. If Sharpton, et alia are dissatisfied with what they see, they should look to the racial politics of the Democrat party---after all, New Orleans specifically and Louisiana in general have been bastions of liberal democrats for countless generations. Is it any surprise that Louisianan minorities have proven to be so vulnerable during this crisis? America is witnessing nothing more than the logical result of decades of liberal policies that cared more about racial demagoguery than about helping people of all color to improve their lives, become self-sufficient, and depart the helpless projects.

Believe me, there is a special place in hell for the people who are pouring gasoline on this human catastrophe, and it won’t matter a darn whether or not they have “Reverend” before their name.

And that is where we stand for the moment. Like a scene from The Day After, the Gulf Coast has been devastated as if by a nuclear war. But the Southern people are strong and will persevere with the grace of Christ. They will rebuild soon enough. But until then,

Look away, look away, Dixie Land….

I have a confession to make....
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Cartoons rule!

201906AUG05

I Have A Confession To Make….

…I am a toonhead! Yes, yes, it’s true, oh so true! I cannot help myself! When channel surfing, I am inevitably drawn to either Nickelodeon or the Cartoon Network. Can you blame me? Have you seen the slop that passes for entertainment these days on the other networks? Cartoons offer a welcome respite from the filthy, nihilistic shows that pass for quality programming on the other TV stations.

I guess my “problem” started as a youngster. I loved such ‘toons as Tom & Jerry and the entire Warner Brothers lineup, from Bugs Bunny to Foghorn Leghorn (no Walt Disney, please---that’s strictly kid’s stuff). Even at a young age, I recognized that these shows were works of pure comedy genius. Decades later, these ‘toons still hold their own and remain untarnished by the passage of time, the true test of a bona fide classic, and continue to hold a fond place in my heart.

Unlike others, I never did grow out of my delight in ‘toons. Maybe it was because, as a cultural conservative, I never became mesmerized by sophomoric dramas, like The OC, those silly and ghoulish crime programs that critics love to describe as “gritty” (I prefer the term “vulgar”) such as CSI Miami, or the current fad of so-called “reality TV”. Even popular sitcoms, like Seinfeld and Raymond, seem replete with tired jokes and punch lines that can be seen coming a mile away. And don’t even get me started on Saturday Night Live or Mad TV---sardonic shows that are the perfect examples of everything wrong with modern comedy.

No, for me, ‘toons are “where it’s at”, as they say, when it comes to clever humor.

In particular, I have three favorites:

First, there is The Simpsons. Little explication is required here. The Simpsons did for animation what Rush Limbaugh did for talk radio---it revitalized a whole genre. Disproving the old maxim that America does not want a prime-time cartoon (unlike Japan where cartoons are in high demand by adults), the show quickly became a huge hit (now entering its seventeenth season!) with everyone from the ages of ten to eighty---and rightly so. The Simpsons restored something almost lost to this nation: true satire. Politics, cable theft, family disputes and even NASA’s space program, amongst many, many other topics, have all proven to be fertile ground for the comedic genius of Matt Groening, the show’s creator. While, at times, the show will dip slightly into humor not suitable for anyone under 13, by and large this program delivers entertainment that brings the family together. Watch The Simpsons on FOX.

Second, we have Spongebob Squarepants. I love this show. Similar to Bugs Bunny before him, Spongebob is a well-meaning, fry cook sponge that can discern the humor in even the worst situations and the best in even the curmudgeonliest of individuals (such as Plankton, the “college educated” nemesis of Spongebob’s employer, Mr. Krabs). This attitude makes the show very uplifting (buoyant?) in an entertainment culture that seems obsessed with the worst aspects of human existence. Similar to The Simpsons, the underwater antics of Spongebob are ostensibly aimed at youngsters, but the show is filled with humor that any adult can appreciate (workplace politics is a common theme). Along with Patrick Star, his starfish friend, and Squidward Tentacles, his octopus neighbor (who could best be described as the underwater-equivalent of a Greenwich Village elitist), this trio will provide countless nights filled with true mirth that the whole family can enjoy. Catch Spongebob Squarepants, a Steven Hillenburg production, on Nickelodeon. Don’t forget to rent (I recommend you buy) the terrific Spongebob Squarepants Movie on DVD too!

By the way: for the record---SPONGEBOB IS NOT GAY! Sheesh! Leave it to some people to try to corrupt one of the few innocent shows left on television….

Finally, there is a relatively new show that I have been finding most amusing. It is called Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends and, after Spongebob, is probably one of the most imaginative shows on TV. Have you ever wondered what happened to your childhood imaginary friend after you outgrew him? Well, this show posits the idea that such discarded friends ultimately find their way to Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends, a halfway house / adoption agency that specializes in finding new homes for these creatures. The protagonists of this show are a young boy, Mac, and his imaginary friend, Bloo, who often find themselves involved in various comedic adventures that result from the day-to-day activities that surround the home and its inhabitants. Craig McCraken, the creator who also fashioned the popular Power Puff Girls, has brought his eccentric brand of humor to this ‘toon as well. Let me assure you: Foster’s has proven to be laugh-out-loud funny. The animation is similar to PPG, colorful but a bit flat, something which, nonetheless, adds a moody charm to Foster’s. Another charming aspect of Foster’s is the many movies McCraken lampoons with his clever use of dialogue (for example, McCraken once constructed an entire episode of PPG in which the dialogue was taken completely from the lyrics of the Beatles!) and his mocking cinematic techniques (part of the episodic fun is in identifying which movie is being teased ---and I’m not just talking about kid movies, either!). And like Spongebob, the show proves to be a well of virtue as the human and human-invented inhabitants of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends all work together for the common good of its friendly community. Find Foster's on the Cartoon Network.

These are the three best reasons why I am a ‘toon head. Each one of these cartoons is fresh, funny, and moral, without being bitter, vulgar, or depraved. In today’s world, many non-animated shows could learn a lesson or two from such fare. As broadcast television continues its inexorable slide into muck and despair, at least FOX, Nickelodeon, and the Cartoon Network have offered something that families can enjoy together. Better, even adults, with an appetite for innocent fun, can enjoy these as well. In a wasteland of sex and violence, The Simpsons, Spongebob Squarepants, and Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends offers the oasis of peace that comes with good, clean fun.