Two Boxers in a China Shop
Mood:  blue
Now Playing: The Laura Ingram Show
Topic: Two Boxers in a China Sho
The recent firing of seven ballistics missiles by North Korea represents a grave threat to not just the United States of America, but to the entire Asian region. This must be clearly understood. For even though the much-feared Taepodong-2 failed shortly after launch, the second failure for this class of missile, the mere fact that North Korea proceeded with the launch of it and six shorter-range Scud siblings proves that they have every intention of pursuing an openly hostile foreign policy. This is not about “getting attention,” as some pundits have remarked. Heck, if Kim Jong Il just wanted attention, he could simply announce that he intends to STOP all future missile tests. Not only would such a message guarantee loads of attention, it would also open the spigot of international aid! No, this is not about a child acting-up in class, this is about a despotic government hell-bent on achieving its own nefarious goals of becoming the regional bully.

The greatest indicator of North Korea’s truly malevolent motivation is not the launch of the missiles per se, but the manner in which they were launched. North Korea, with what could be termed ‘malice of forethought,’ deliberately chose to conduct their provocative swarm-launch during an American holiday, namely Independence Day. The real significance of this date has nothing to do with any sort of deliberate attempt to disrupt American fireworks and grilling, but a calculated decision to conduct their inflammatory test during a period of time when American reactions could be expected to be at their slowest. In a fashion similar to Imperial Japan’s decision to attack Pearl Harbor on a lazy Sunday morning, North Korea decided to launch its missiles when a sizable portion of America’s civil government, and military establishment, was out of location for patriotic celebrations. This realization should clearly demonstrate just how much sinister intent Pyongyang possesses…and this should send a chill down the spine of every American.

I suspect a large reason for such North Korean adventurism is a classic miscalculation of American resolve. Look at the board from the communist perspective: First, they know we are fighting in Iraq, a war that is putting something of a strain on our armed forces (largely minor, but still noticeable). This would seem to work in their favor as a major Korean War would be a huge drain in resources for the Iraqi campaign, and “run interference” for any concurrent Iranian adventurism (recall that Iran is in the same Axis of Evil as North Korea). Second, the Iraq War, a low-intensity war if ever there was one, has proved to be politically divisive. I would argue that the incessant nay-saying from the Murtha/Kerry Left has fostered what they would perceive as a continuation of the Vietnam-era "cut-and-run" mentality, a belief which we now know had deluded both Hussein and Bin Laden into their warmongering ways. Furthermore, they understand that Bush has used much his political capital in Iraq---how likely would it be that President Bush could, yet again, rally other nations behind another war, a conflict that will be far more brutal than anything the world has seen since the LAST Korean War? These factors would all be perceived as definite pluses in their column; individual items that would seem to inhibit decisive military action on the part of the United States. But there is even a bigger plus in their column….

Any war with North Korea would have a decided outcome---America would win. This is not bombast but fact for, while America’s military might continues to implement the latest in cutting-edge technology and technique, North Korea’s armed forces have been virtually frozen in time since 1989. This is not to say North Korea would prove to be a paper tiger in the fashion of Middle Eastern armies, they would not, but despite greater zeal and training, they would not be able to hold their own against American might for long. The problem, rather, is with the fact that North Korea occupies one of the worst geo-political locations on the plant for a brawl. Unlike the numerous wacky Middle Eastern regimes that have occupied our attentions during the on-going War on Terror, North Korea is ideally positioned to do real long-term damage to Western interests even during a limited conflict. Both South Korea and Japan are indispensable economic regional powerhouses…and both are within easy striking distance of North Korean missiles and, in the case of South Korea, artillery. The potential economic collateral damage alone would be enough to disrupt the world economy and usher in a global recession. After all, what do you think would happen when video of Seoul (or Tokyo) in flames hits the airwaves? I think we all know how the Dow Jones, and just about every other major financial exchange, would react. And what about the humanitarian disaster a renewed Korean War would prove to be in such a highly populated region? The resulting refugee crisis alone would far outstrip Asia’s capability to deal with such an event, making New Orleans experience with Katrina look like a mere dress rehearsal. In short, like two boxers in a china shop (no pun intended), a war between America and North Korea would shatter more than a few items of great value (and I am not even considering what would happen if WMDs were used). North Korea is gambling that no sane nation would ever take the risk. It is a good gamble too, hence the reason why South Korea has been so reluctant to take even the wimpiest of retaliatory sanctions to punish recent North Korean transgressions. This geo-political reality dominates the issue to the great benefit of North Korea.

So what is to be done? There are only two real choices: prepare for war or prepare for appeasement. There is no middle ground. Anyone who believes that, despite over a decade of failed uni- and multi-lateral negotiations, diplomacy will yet succeed is living in a world of fantasy. You cannot negotiate with people who wish you harm. Since North Korea has already violated numerous diplomatic agreements in the past, why would they honor any new agreement? And, no, China is not the answer to this question. Indeed, in light of the recent defiant launches, it would seem that China has either limited pull with North Korea (as they ignored Chinese warnings against launching) or China simply does not care to apply any seriously coercive force upon their ally (which has been amply demonstrated in the past and in very recent post-launch diplomatic shenanigans). China is no ace in the hole, it is just a hole of despair because, truth be told, China enjoys being able to tie-up American, South Korean, and Japanese assets while China itself prepares to reassert itself on the global stage. Working with China on this issue is no different than when the Allies were forced to work with Stalin’s Soviet Union during World War Two. They will provide limited help…and then only with an eye towards their own benefit.

That leaves war. I am not, however, arguing for an immediate pre-emptive strike because that would be a de jure violation of the cease-fire agreement. But I am arguing for a drastic change in diplomatic posture. How? First we need to put together one last, generous diplomatic peace offering that will help the North Korean people while ensuring regional security against North Korean WMD aggression. But unlike the on-going talks, these will have a decided, if generous, time limit. This will make it abundantly clear that our patience is not inexhaustible. If North Korea does not take this proffered package of peace in a timely fashion (an acceptance that must be carefully verified by American inspectors), then we need to make it abundantly clear that all military and covert options are on the table, that our policy of isolation has been superceded by a policy of active engagement. In a fashion that mimics Ronald Reagan’s approach to the Evil Empire, America and her allies need to start actively working to bring down this dictatorial regime via whatever means necessary---including the aggressive utilization of yet another Reagan idea, an anti-missile shield. An effective missile defense is the sin quo non of any future plan for regime change on that peninsula. With an effective shield in place, America and her allies can fearlessly take off the gloves because North Korea will have been denuded of a big portion of her offensive claws. With those claws blunted, the manhandling of the “Hermit Kingdom” can begin.

It is imperative that this change in our policy position toward North Korea be perceived not as a mere bluff, but as a real plan to end Kim Jong Il regime if he fails to change his ways. By making this harsh fate abundantly clear to Pyongyang, even though it means abandoning all this nonsensical talk about ongoing six-party negotiations and replacing it with some riskier saber-rattling of our own, America will eventually regain the initiative. Simply put, we will be calling North Korea’s bluff after which they will be forced to “put-up or shut-up.” Knowing the inevitable doom the rejection of such a peace offering holds for them (or further aggressive action on their part), a doom unleashed at a time and place OF OUR CHOOSING (as opposed to THEIR choosing), I think it is likely that they will shut-up and begin cooperating. And if they don’t, at least we will begin taking some positive steps towards finally ending this regional menace.

In short, it is time to stop playing the part of Mr. Nice Guy and start reminding two-bit tyrants, such as Jong Il, why America is referred to as being a SUPERpower. It is time to stop playing defense. Do we need to repeat our history with Hitler? Do we need to be reminded that appeasement does not work? That it only guarantees greater and greater aggression until, as thunder surely follows a bolt of lightning, a miscalculation ignites a massive war? In light of post-September 11 events, it is sadly clear that much of the world has forgotten such hard-won wisdom. Fortunately, it is equally clear that America has not. The rest of the world seems quite content to continue playing games with yet another very dangerous nation bent upon belligerence. It is time that America, with customary foresight and courage, remind the globe of our obligations to ensure world peace and stability. We need to take a page from Roman history and offer North Korea one last opportunity to grasp the olive branch of peace. If they refuse, then we bring the sword and heal this festering wound of the Cold War.

The Death of Saruman
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: Bach's Mass in B
Topic: The Death of Saruman

We got’em! We got Abu Musab al- Zarqawi…the Saruman of the jihadist world (please seem my entry, “Trouble in Mordor”). The old military maxim warns that ‘if you try to run, you will only die tired,’ and so it was with this mass-murdering, evil SOB. He tried disguises, he tried hiding, and, of course, he ran, ran, and ran some more like the coward he was in life. But in the end it proved to be nothing more than a futile effort to avoid inescapable American justice---this time delivered by an F-16 with two 500lb bombs.

Fortunately, Saru…er, Zarqawi did not die before he could see WHO was responsible for his come-uppance. Recently released military reports indicate that Zarqawi was conscious when American and Iraqi forces found him in the rubble of his (not so) safe-house and placed him upon a stretcher. Zarqawi, seeing American and Iraqi uniforms, ATTEMPTED TO FLEE yet again, but was unable to do so because of his injuries. He died shortly thereafter and has probably since discovered that he won’t be getting his virgins after all….

President Bush remarked:

“Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again. Iraqis can be justly proud of their new government and its early steps to improve their security. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our armed forces, who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and put him out of business.

The operation against Zarqawi was conducted with courage and professionalism by the finest military in the world. Coalition and Iraqi forces persevered through years of near misses and false leads, and they never gave up. Last night their persistence and determination were rewarded. On behalf of all Americans, I congratulate our troops on this remarkable achievement.”

Amen!
One down, one to go….

Coincidentally, that same day the Iraqi government had finished constituting itself by naming a new Minister of Defense, a new Minister of the Interior, and a new Minister of State for National Security---yet another blow to the jihadists. And on top of that good news, word was released that a massive, simultaneous raid throughout Iraq netted “a treasure trove” of intelligence material about the terrorist network.
What refuge could a terrorist have from such bitter news?

Well…there is always the American Democrat party. While America and Iraq celebrated, Dems wasted no opportunity to do what they have done best---council a cut-and-run strategy of defeat. In an amazingly tone-deaf reaction to all this good news, John Kerry, Nancy Pilosi, Harry Reid, et alia, tried to make the case that the best way to capitalize on this smashing series of victories was to pack-up and return home. Indeed, shortly after this feckless display, Frenchie Kerry and Carl Levin both tried to legislate a mandatory retreat in Iraq, a proposition that went down in flaming defeat.

You know, once upon a time I used to believe that the whole, sorry Vietnam War mess was the result of politics peculiar to that moment in time. Now I know differently. Now I know that the Democrat Party was the architect of a deliberate policy of self-defeat and would gladly be the architect of such a policy yet again. How…treasonous.

Meet my friend, Mr. Bigot
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: Radio Margaritaville
Topic: The Bigotry of Da Vinci

“Bigot”---it’s not a pleasant word, but Roman Catholics better learn to get acquainted with it. Why? Because the forthcoming release of The Da Vinci Code reveals that a great many anti-Catholic bigots are bankrolling, producing, and starring in films that are as bigoted against Roman Catholicism as D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation was bigoted towards black Americans. You don’t have to take my word for it either, as John Calley, co-producer of The Da Vinci Code, has himself referred to the movie as "conservatively anti-Catholic."

Just think about that for a second….

Could you imagine a major studio producer ever stating that movie X is “conservatively anti-black?” Or “conservatively anti-Semitic?” Even “conservatively anti-Islamic?” For that matter, could you imagine any film that was so openly bigoted ever even making it into production?

What a great hypocrisy we have here! The Hollywood Left, who never waste an opportunity to tell us how “tolerant,” “sensitive,” and “compassionate” they are, feel absolutely no tolerance, sensitivity, or compassion when it comes to their industry’s habitually hateful treatment of Christians in general, or Roman Catholics specifically.

All things considered, this should be no surprise, as Leftists, be they Hollywood Leftists or the Leftists of worldly communism, have always displayed a tremendous antipathy towards Roman Catholics. Why? Because Roman Catholicism has forever presented an incredible stumbling block to socialist schemes that treat the individual as little more than a plaything for big, secular government. The Church, with its firm, 2000 year old belief in the “God-given” (i.e., not “government-given”) rights of mankind, the dignity of the individual, and the repudiation of moral relativism, is diametrically opposed to every idea ever generated by the Left and their “counter-cultural” allies. It is for this reason that wherever thugs and tyrants rise to power, their first target is always the Church. For example, Hitler, Lenin, Ho Chi Min, and Mao, to name but a few, all attempted to neuter and/or eliminate, the Church shortly after coming to power.

Hollywood has become the new torchbearer for this mentality in recent times. Who can forgot the despicable portrayals of Catholicism in recently bigoted films such as King Arthur and Kingdom of Heaven (please see my review entitled “Kingdom of Political Correctness”)? Who has forgotten the vicious attacks upon Mel Gibson because he had the audacity to make a film faithful to the Gospels? Or the countless instances of anti-Catholic AND anti-Christian bigotry slipped into television programming (such as NBC’s The Book of Daniel, a show so horribly bigoted that it was debuted and cancelled all in the same month! Makes you wonder how production was approved in the first place….).

Now, here we are again, with another bigoted broadside on the Roman Catholic Church. The Da Vinci Code pulls no punches in its open bigotry---as originally crafted by novelist Dan Brown. Nothing is sacred for this film: not the divinity of Christ, not the Papacy, not even the heretofore unassuming Catholic lay-organization Opus Dei. No, it’s all fair game for this film.

Needless to say, Sony Pictures, along with director Ron Howard, have been buried under an avalanche of letters and emails protesting this blatant attack upon Catholicism. Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, added his voice to the fray by demanding that, at a minimum, the picture contain a disclaimer testifying to the fact that The Da Vinci Code is simply a work of fiction. Bill Donohue notes that such a disclaimer is not unheard of as:

“When Sony released ‘The Merchant of Venice,’ the movie opened with a disclaimer noting that ‘Intolerance of the Jews was a fact of 16th Century life even in Venice, the most powerful and liberal city state in Europe.’ And in ‘A Beautiful Mind,’ a Ron Howard film, the movie ended with a disclaimer noting that it differs from the book (of the same name) that inspired the film: Howard, and screen writer Akiva Goldman, admitted that they ‘fictionalized a number of the incidents.”

So this request is actually quite reasonable and keeping with the past practices of Sony. However, the reaction of Ron Howard and Sony has been anything but conciliatory. In fact, according to Mr. Donohue, “that request has since been denounced as an ‘arrogant’ demand, suggesting it is an infringement on the artistic rights of Sony, the company that is releasing the film, and Ron Howard, the director.” Clearly, in the mind of Sony and Howard, Roman Catholics do not deserve the same respect as other aggrieved groups….

And what do you call this? Bigotry.

That is why Roman Catholics need to start incorporating the term “bigotry” and “bigot” in their everyday speech. So, for example, henceforth when you refer to the film, you don’t say “The Da Vinci Code,” but you DO say “that bigoted film, The Da Vinci Code.” Or, when referring to Ron Howard, you don’t say “director Ron Howard,” but you DO say “that bigot, Ron Howard.” Get it? It’s not “John Calley,” but “that bigot, John Calley.” See how easy it is?

I know, I know: this rubs some of you the wrong way. After all, Catholics are forgiving, tolerant people (although, you wouldn’t know that from the movie). But this is something that needs to be done and is a perfectly legitimate form of expressing you displeasure. Indeed, Hollywood, as champions of free speech, would probably encourage your courageous self-expression (yeah, right)! We are dealing with bigots, plain and simple. And, as they say, ‘if the shoe fits, wear it.’

But this exercise isn’t just about name-calling. No, not at all. This exercise is all about holding Hollywood accountable for its actions. We can no longer “be big about it” and move on. No. If real change is to take place, action must be taken. And believe me, nothing will make Hollywood more uncomfortable than when people begin to openly refer to studios, producers, directors, and actors as bigots. That is when the displeasure of Christian / Catholic America will really hit home. Sure, you can bet that there will be denials from all concerned; Howard and Co. will swear up and down that The Da Vinci Code is just innocent film-making---but that is when we retort that even Griffith claimed not to be a racist when he made Birth of a Nation. The trick is just to constantly associate “bigot” with those involved, and not just with this film, but with all anti-Catholic material that is constantly jammed down our throats in books, the cinema, and on television.

So get comfortable with calling many (but not all!) of the entertainment elite anti-Catholic bigots. For, unless we speak up, we will forever be subject to a religious apartheid, right here in the good ol’ US of A. It is time people of faith---all faith---lecture Hollywood on their faults. It is time we speak up.

For more information, please visit:

Opus Dei for actual facts (not Dan Brown "facts") concerning this Roman Catholic lay organization.

The American Society for Tradition, Family, and Property for an excellent site devoted to dispelling the many falsehoods of the Da Vinci Code.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights for the lastest news concerning all manners of anti-Catholic bigotry.

The Finest of all Wargames
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: Mostly Autumn
Topic: Finest of all Wargames

"The essence of the game is constant struggle against an adversary who, by whatever means of deception and disguise, is entirely, relentlessly, unfailingly dedicated to your destruction. It is only a board, but it is a field of dreams for paranoia." ---Charles Krauthammer

 

I have been noticing a disturbing trend amongst wargamers. Many of my brethren warriors seem to have completely forgotten their wargaming roots! How can one call himself a wargamer, a master of kriegsspiel, when you do not play the oldest of all wargames? A game of war that is as sublime as it is economical?

Of course I am referring to the royal game of chess.

Don’t you know that chess is the first of all wargames? It was developed in India sometime around 600 AD (perhaps earlier as it was mentioned, without  explanation, in writings by that date). The name “chess” is derived from the Sanskrit “Chaturanga,” which can be translated as “Four Arms,"  referring to the four arms (or divisions, if you prefer) of the Indian army - elephants, cavalry, chariots, and infantry. In this regard, Chess is very much a wargame that simulates what we would now call the “combined arms operations” of the ancient world. It is because of this combined arms approach that both strategy and tactics can be taught by the game (unlike Checkers, which is entirely tactics, or Go, which is entirely strategy). In this regard, Chess is unique. As a result, it is a most remarkably balanced wargame.

Now, I know some of you are already complaining that it doesn’t look like a wargame. After all, where are the military units? Where is the terrain? They are there, albeit some of it is disguised by the artistic accumulation of over 1300 years. Let’s take a closer look.

First we have the Rook. Funny name---Rook. It actually is derived from the Persian rokh which can be translated as “chariot.” This unit displays the proper mobility of what can be seen as the tank of the ancient world. However, when chess reached medieval Europe, it came to resemble the castle, perhaps as a result of the Persian word’s similarity to the Italian rocca---meaning fortress. Regardless of its Eastern or Western interpretation, the Rook is most definitely a military unit properly placed on the battlefield.

Next we have the Knight. This is an easy one. In the ancient world, prior to the era of “knights in shinning armor,” the piece was actually representative of…cavalry. Slight change. Instead of a single, armored warrior, the piece actually represented a horse-mounted formation that was ubiquitous in warfare until the 20th Century. Like its nimble and swift-footed namesake, the Knight is the only piece in chess that can side-step and jump over obstacles in its path---perfect for dealing deadly rear area and flanking attacks.

We now come to the Bishop. This appellation is a medieval nod to the all-powerful Roman Catholic Church of bygone eras. Originally, the Bishop was a…war elephant. In fact, if you have a good quality Staunton chess set, the Bishop will sport a curved flourish upon its miter. This bit of detail is a clever way of representing an elephant’s tusk---a testament to the fact that the military origins of the piece have not been forgotten. And let me assure you---in the hands of a talented chess player, it is not an easy thing to “see the elephant and be not afraid”!

Then we come to the Queen. Again, this is a medieval term. Originally, the Queen was the…general (or vizier), a personage more aptly suited to the battlefield. Initially, the Queen was not as all-powerful as she is today, but due to the desire to better “balance” the game (to use a modern term), her powers of movement have been expanded to make her a fitting representative of the highest rank of warrior.

Of course, there is the King. The King was always the King. He is your representative, your avatar, on the black and white battlefield of chess. If he falls, all is lost (as an aside, the term checkmate is derived from the Farsi SHAH-K-MATE meaning “The King is dead!”)

Last, we come to the lowly Pawn. This is an easy one as well. Outnumbering all other pieces, the Pawn is the common foot soldier. Like most soldiers of the ancient era, he is ordered simply forward to confront his foe. However, since he carries a large shield to protect his front (think Roman or Spartan infantry), his attack is limited to swift strikes at the sides That is why a Pawn can only capture another piece diagonally opposite his front (makes sense now, no?). Also, like the lowly soldier ever seeking to better his condition, if the Pawn survives the trek across the brutal battlefield he will be promoted to a higher rank (any other chess piece).

So, you see, the pieces of chess all are derived and based upon actual military units. Even when chess was changed by the cultural conditions of medieval Europe, the alterations involved little more than a cosmetic change in focus---a shift from the tactical to the strategic elements of battle. James Dunnigan, noted military historian and wargame designer, has done the best job of summing-up the wargaming roots of chess:

"Chess is one of the oldest surviving ancient wargames. Games similar to chess go back thousands of years. Chess is also one of the more accurate wargames for the period it covers (the pre-gunpowder period). Chess is a highly stylized game. It is always set up the same way, the playing pieces and the playing board are always the same. The board is quite simple. Each of the pieces has clearly defined capabilities and starting positions, much like soldiers in ancient warfare. Given that ancient armies were so unwieldy and communication so poor, it is easy to see why each player in chess is allowed to move only one piece per turn. Because the armies were so hard to control, the battles were generally fought on relatively flat, featureless ground. Then, as now, the organization of the army represented the contemporary social classes. Thus the similarity between chess pieces and the composition of ancient armies."

 

“That’s all interesting, Wargamer Scott, but what is this nonsense about chess terrain that you mentioned?”

Good question. Believe it or not, but the seemingly flat chess board does contain terrain. In particular, I am referring to the squares d4, e4, d5, e5. Take a look:

Like a ridge occupying the center of a battlefield, it is the dominating high ground of the chess board. From these four squares, pieces can project a tremendous amount of power in all directions. It is for this reason that the initial strategy of the participants often focuses on their desire to control this precious piece of real estate.

There is also a road network of sorts. Every player has two Bishops, a white Bishop and a black Bishop. Like the name suggests, these Bishops are only capable of moving on squares of one color. And since each player has one of each kind, conflict over “Bishop highways” often result. Just as the highly contested Highway 69 (“Hell’s Highway”) doomed the chances of XXX Corps relieving the besieged British paras at Arnhem, lack of control over these vital lanes of movement can doom even the best laid plans of the average chess player!

Why else should wargamers be enthralled with this game of kings and queens? The mere fact that chess allows the players to plan and execute just about every classic military operation should be reason enough! Feints, flank attacks, frontal assaults, deep penetration raids, sieges, pincer attacks, blockades, and fighting withdrawals just to name a few! Talk about your options! It’s all here! In fact, there are so many possible plans of offense and defense, that chess players have organized them in a large number of openings. Openings are best thought of as pre-made and carefully evaluated battle plans that a chess player can commit to memory so as to be prepared for any eventuality. For example, if you like solid defensive play, you might consider the Stonewall System, a battle plan that organizes White’s pawns (foot soldiers) in a rigid defensive formation---similar to the ancient shield wall:

 

Now, I am not the first to point out these similarities to real warfare. For many generations, professional and amateur soldiers of all stripes have been fascinated with the military implications of chess as a rudimentary wargame and have sought to improve upon it. For example, in 1664, Christopher Weikhmann developed what he called Koenigspiel (King’s Game). It was similar to chess, but added a larger board and created new pieces to mimic the military formations of the day. This version enjoyed mild success and was later modified by another German, of the name C. L. Helwig, in a bid to make the game even more realistic with visible terrain (albeit, still in the form of color-coded squares) and more complex rules of movement. This slow process of chess modification reached its pinnacle in 1797 when Georg Venturini developed an ultra-complex version (including a sixty page rules set!) of war chess that utilized a 3,600 square board(!) that closely replicated the terrain of the Franco-Belgium border, as well as incorporating logistics and a piece for every conceivable military formation and fortification. It can be stated without hesitation that Venturini developed war chess to an unparalleled level of complexity and realism. Indeed, it would never be eclipsed as all future wargames would abandon the chess board in favor of more realistic terrain tables and maps.

But that hasn’t stopped the close relationship between chess and the military. In 2004, Swedish and Australian teams studied the game anew for any lessons it may be able to impart to our current understanding of warfare. While both research efforts differed in their approach, both also found that chess offers a unique insight into warfare. Jan Kuylenstierna, one of the Swedish researchers, remarked that Chess “resembles real war in many respects. Chess involves a struggle of will, and it contains what has been termed the essentials of fighting---to strike, to move and to protect.” Indeed, Jason Scholz of the Australian group even found the initial stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom to confirm the results they were receiving from their chess wargaming:

“We watched with great interest the dialogue between General [Tommy} Franks, who wanted to use more materiel, and Donald Rumsfeld who wanted a fast tempo and lighter units," Scholz says. Based on the chess results, which favoured a fast, decisive attack strategy, Scholz says his advice would have been to go along with the US defence secretary's ideas. "In the end, there was a compromise," he says. "But a relatively fast tempo did really gain a very decisive, rapid advantage in Iraq."

What more can I say to get my fellow wargamers to try some chess? It is simply the ultimate wargame! This shouldn’t be surprising as it has been “in development” for over 1600 years---even C & C cannot say that! And with such a long lineage comes a wealth of recorded games that provide endless AARs (in chess, they are called “game scores”) to study for the wisdom of past practitioners (such as the games of Ruy Lopez, a 16th Century Spanish priest and chess aficionado). Also, unlike Medieval: Total War, chess is a game that can actually claim to have been played by the very people (kings, queens, and peasants alike) of that age! Indeed, even the Vikings seem to have been fans of the Royal Game!

The Isle of Lewis chess set---circa 1170

It is this aspect of chess that truly makes it quite special. And let’s not forget the fact that it is optimized for PBEM gaming and competition! So, won’t you give it a try today? Or perhaps this is the better question for wargamers: do you dare to wade out amongst us fanatical chess players and challenge us to battle on the merciless, checkered field? Be forewarned: we are so hardcore a community that many of us sport our chess ratings on our vehicle license plates! This is the game that sets the men apart from the boys, a wargame so insidious that it has been known to drive men mad…literally. Or, as Paolo Maurensig remarked:

“What occurs on (the chessboard), in the form of a creative act sometimes resembling a true work of art, is in reality a struggle of exceptional violence, a form of bloodless homicide whose outcome is shared by the contenders alone. Nothing binds two people like a serious challenge on chessboard, making them counterposed poles of a jointly produced mental creation in which one is annihilated to the other's advantage. There is no harsher or more implacable defeat. The players bear lifelong scars, neither body nor soul ever recovering fully.“

And that is the truth! Do YOU have the courage to bear such scars? If you do, grab your sword and shield and meet me on the battlefield of chess where glory and ignominy are the wages of this wargame....

Give Us a 40K film worthy of the Emperor!
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: Bach's Passion
Topic: WH40K Film

The 2006 Academy Awards Ceremony is now just a memory…thank God! What a dismal year. Over all, Hollywood has suffered one of its worst financial years since the ‘70s. Yet, despite revenues being down by over 6%, last night we were treated to a self-congratulatory festival of egocentric actors and actresses giving themselves awards for making films completely out of touch with the American people. How appropriately liberal….

Well, as I am a strong believer in the old maxim that is it better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, I am going to try and help Tinsel Town out with a suggestion for a movie. The envelope please….

I suggest that the time is right for a Warhammer 40K film.

What’s that? You never heard of Warhammer? Well, I guess that is why you work in Hollywood; I mean, who has the time to make popular films when there are all those gay cowboy flicks waiting to be made? So let me enlighten you.

Warhammer 40K is a wonderfully dark and complex game universe created by Games Workshop. The best way to briefly describe 40K is thusly: imagine the might and brutality of ancient Rome, mixed with the religious passion and pageantry of the Middle Ages, all set against the gothic science fiction setting of the year 40,000. That is Warhammer 40K. This game setting, which initially began as a collectible miniatures wargame and has now evolved into the format of a wildly popular computerized RTS franchise (relic’s Dawn of War and Winter Assault), has proven to be a worldwide phenomenon. Due to the popularity of the game, GW now operates franchise stores around the globe and sells millions of dollars worth of merchandise (including White Dwarf, the official hobby magazine which garners a circulation of over 150,000). When it comes to uber-popular games which transcend all barriers, even nationality, 40K is the king---making Halo seem like a flash in the pan by comparison.

A 40K film would be a natural, big-screen translation for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, the 40K universe would look great on the big screen. With its gothic settings, armor-clad space marines (think medieval knights on steroids), peaked-capped and caped Imperial Guard commissars, lots and lots of alien enemies, and, most importantly, huge battle-scapes (both on and above planets), 40K would provide enough visual fodder to keep people pinned in their seats for hours. Nobody will ever have seen a sci-fi setting with as much visual punch as 40K---guaranteed.

Space Marines, with some help from the Imperial Guard, storm the enemy!

A second reason that 40K would provide an excellent cinematic experience is the novelty of the 40K world. For decades, sci-fi fans have been subjected to countless reiterations of bright and shiny futures as presented by both Star Wars and Star Trek. You know what I mean: a galaxy comprised of humans and aliens who often work together to obtain justice (usually via some sort of galactic United Nations), a future where high science and technology reigns supreme, and, of course, a cadre of intelligent and moral heroes that always know how to set everything right.

Not so in the world of 40K!

The year 40,000 is a dark, apocalyptic time. As the game’s official motto declares: “In the future, there is only war.” Mankind is at war with every alien species in the galaxy, fighting against its own extermination. In fact, inter-species relations are so hostile, that to even be tainted by an alien presence is to guarantee a death sentence by one of the Imperium’s roving Inquisitors---who enforce the pure will of the undying Emperor (whose story alone is worth a movie). Furthermore, due to the incessant warfare, the empire of man, which now spans millions of worlds, has regressed into a medieval mindset where faith trumps science. Mankind has been so brutalized that the art of technology has all but been lost, requiring mankind to simply make due with what it already has on hand (a job relegated to the tech priests of Mars). Faith also serves another important purpose: to combat the Warp evil that is leaking into the galaxy via a tear in the space/time fabric of the universe (known as the Eye of Terror). That’s right---unlike countless movies where warping is portrayed as little more than putting the "pedal to the metal", in the world of 40K, the Warp is a realm, plied by spaceships to be sure, populated by daemons from another dimension. These monsters are flooding into our dimension, corrupting all with the force of Chaos. Faith in the cult of the Emperor, along with lots of bolters and lasrifles, is the cornerstone of mankind’s defense against them. To side with the forces of Chaos, as do the apostate Chaos Marines, is to be branded a heretic and sentenced to death…preferably with the blade of a chainsword.

How’s that for some gothic originality?

Finally, I believe a 40K film would be timely for another reason, one that will actually please the left-wing bastion known as Hollywood. Sci-fi is best when it is an allegory for our present. Star Wars and Star Trek reflected the “peace and love” mentality of the ‘60s. Needless to say, since 9-11, the world has taken a decidedly more violent course. America is at war (though you wouldn’t know it from the movies being released) and religious faith is at the heart of the issue. Furthermore, many leftists are decrying President Bush’s “imperial presidency”, which is seemingly run by a cadre of “warmongers”. Wouldn’t a 40K film reflect all these themes? Hollywood could have a ball toying with these ideas within such a sci-fi setting as Warhammer 40K! And, if done right (not as a soapbox speech, but as clever dialogue), could actually serve to make the movie more interesting. That’s a win-win even for the topsy-turvy, out of touch world of Hollywood!

Now, for a 40K film to work, certain criteria need to be met. One, like Jackson’s excellent Lord of the Rings, the universe of Warhammer needs to be approached with determined realism, not light whimsy as is the style of Star Wars or Star Trek. This is a war story---lots of people and soldiers are dying in combat (in the 40K universe, it is said that over a million people die every day and no one notices), and the forces of Chaos are out to exterminate us in a galactic holocaust. As a result, this movie will need to be deadly serious (Lucas and Verhoeven need not apply). There must be no Keystone Kop robots, no cuddly aliens, no slapstick humor and certainly no unisex showers---just a gritty and grim tale about the eternally joined offspring of war: heroic glory and cowardly terror.

Second, as is the case with most good films, a big budget is required. 40K is all about huge battles---and that takes a big FX budget. Likewise, 40K is about gothic trappings, both in architecture as well as in armor and equipment. So, if you are planning the old standby of attempting to disguise cheap M-16s as futuristic weapons---think again. The 40K fandom will never accept such a flawed presentation just as the “Ringers” would never have accepted an inaccurate presentation of Middle Earth. Invest the money or don’t even try as this is a crowd that knows a heavy Bolter from a Multi-melta, a Sentinel from a Predator tank.

In a similar vein, you need to capitalize on the complexity of the 40K world. Just as Peter Jackson did not shy away from introducing the mythology of Middle Earth, any 40K film must also incorporate a representative sampling of the vast amount of lore that has developed over past decades via fan and GW contributions alike. Even a cursory glance at the gothic future reveals wonderful details that will enhance any movie and add to its inherent attraction. Be it the back-story of the Horus Heresy, the Golden Thrown of the God-Emperor, or the guiding light of the Astronomican, such fluff as this will add great depth to a film already loaded with wonderful originality.

Such are the reasons why I believe a 40K film would be a big hit. It is a complex and refreshingly original science fiction setting that will easily captivate anyone, be they a 40K diehard or not. The dark future of the Warhammer world will prove to be a refreshing, if startling, splash of ice water on an audience long since lulled to sleep by the insipid and dim-witted sci-fi that has characterized the genre for far too long. Add to this a world-wide group of diehard fans and a line of merchandise that is ready for some major cross-marketing, and clearly any major studio has a winning formula for a film (series?) that could go a long way in making us forget the disappoint of recent cinematic efforts. Now is the time for originality! Now is the time for Hollywood to display some faith in the power of good science fiction. Is Hollywood up to the task? The Immortal Emperor declares: “Fear denies faith!” and it is about time for Tinsel Town to display one or the other.


For more information, please visit:

Games Workshop: The home of all things Warhammer!

Dawn of War: The home of relic's excellent WH40K RTS

What a Mess!
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: What a Mess!

What do we make of this hullabaloo over who manages our ports? It really is a fascinating issue! After all, how many affairs of state manage to split the most partisan of political factions? With each passing day, we see such divisiveness as Hannity versus Limbaugh, and the New York Times versus the L.A. Times. Could this be the apocalypse?

Let’s be clear on one thing: the acquisition of the contract for running six major American ports by Dubai Ports World will not pose a significantly greater security risk. After all, DPW is simply a holding company; it will not impact current port security operations which will remain in the good hands of the Coast Guard, the Border Police, et alia. So, if security is the main objection to DPW, it is completely unfounded objection (albeit, certain Democrat demagogues are trying to convince the American people otherwise).

However, I believe that the main objection is not, in fact, security. It is something much subtler. Quite simply, the American people are sick and tired of the economic pillaging of our shores, be it by the Gulf States, Asia, or Europe. We are fed up of being berated by the rest of the world, doubly so when it comes to the hotbed of anti-Americanism that is the Persian Gulf, and yet find these self-same righteous nations buying up every American asset they can get their hands on. Furthermore, the people of this great nation are also tired of the “cash and carry” mentality, the pernicious idea that it is okay to sell everything that is not nailed down in the name of globalization and capitalism, an idea that infects so many in American government and business. The furor over DPW is simply a reflection of these concerns.

And rightly so.

Recall how this whole issue started. DPW, a business owned and operated by the government of the United Arab Emirates, a nation which has had more than a few dealings with the Taliban and terrorism, legally acquired the British-based Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a firm that had been handling American port operations for a number of years. With the acquisition of P&O, the responsibility for honoring the remaining term of P&O’s contract fell to DPW. However, since such an acquisition could impact American security, it was automatically reviewed by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which found no security concerns and approved the deal.

Now, herein lays one of the first problems with this whole situation.

While defenders of DPW point to the security review of CFIUS as sufficient to assuage the fears of the American people, most correctly dismiss this notion. After all, those of us with political memories recall that CFIUS, just a few short months ago, approved the acquisition of one of America’s last domestically-owned energy companies (Unocal) by the Communist Chinese! That’s not particularly reassuring, is it? The ChiComs, the very people who at this moment are custom-tailoring their armed forces to confront this nation, who are vocally identifying the United States as their primary rival, WERE NOT DEEMED A SECURITY RISK by CFIUS! And we are supposed to feel confident with a CFIUS stamp of approval??? CFIUS is clearly an example of one of those governmental bureaucracies that embraces the “cash and carry” mentality.

“And what is wrong with that?” some of you ask. Everything. I am a strong proponent of capitalism---it is the only just economic system available to mankind. However, being a capitalist does not entail acting like a ruthless mercenary who places a price on everything…even patriotism. Such an idea is axiomatic, yet I am truly shocked by the number business talking-heads that have denied this simple, ethical principal over the last two weeks. Indeed, “denied” is too understated---they have viciously attacked such a notion. To listen to them, one is inclined to believe that the current breed of what I like to call “know-nothing business majors” are composed of individuals hostile to capitalism restrained by any sense ethics or morality. Is it any wonder that recent years have seen one corporate scandal after another (Enron, World Com, Tyco to name just a few)? Back during the presidential election of ‘04, John Kerry referred to “Benedict Arnold companies”, that is, companies that felt no deep ties to their home, who would abandon their own countrymen in order to grasp that last dollar on foreign shores. While it was ironic that Mr. Kerry’s wife, Theresa Heinz, was heiress to a fortune created by one of America’s largest “Benedict Arnold companies”, Mr. Kerry (attempting to steal a point long-since made by Pat Buchanan) had a point. Capitalism does offer economic liberty. But, as with all things, just because you are at liberty to do a thing, does not mean you should do that thing. CFIUS, first by allowing the ChiComs to purchase Unocal, and now by granting approval of DPW’s acquisition of American port operations, would seem indicative of a “cash and carry” mentality.

Next, the White House intervened…and made it worse. Now, as many of you know, I have been very supportive of this administration. Indeed, many of the past criticisms that have been fired at President Bush are both unfair and, in many cases, unsubstantiated. However, in this particular case, the White House truly did botch a situation that required careful public relations. Instead of a thoughtful policy position, we got a ham-handed “like it or lump it” approach. Now, I understand why President Bush supports DPW as he has made it abundantly clear that, since 9-11, the UAE has been a close ally in the War on Terror. Fine. But if you truly believe that to be the case, take the time to explain your position to the American people and your colleagues in Congress. Instead, we witnessed the White House have a virtual tantrum over the mere questioning of the propriety of this deal. Worse, President Bush then had the audacity to 1) impugn racism to those who question this deal, and 2) threaten a veto of any inhibiting legislation.

To begin with, to label his opponents as possible racists is something I would expect from the cheap playbook of Jesse Jackson, not a Republican president. Racism has nothing to do with it---common sense does. After all, it was not Christians, Jews, Puerto Ricans, or even the Communist Chinese that killed 3000 Americans on 9-11, it was Islamo-fascist Arabs who did so! Excuse me if, as a result, I find the UAE operating American ports a little alarming (doubly so considering their pre-9/11 terrorist ties, as well as their continuing economic boycott of Israel). Quite frankly, since 9-11, I could care less whether or not Arab / Muslim sensibilities are hurt by American suspicions---alas, that is just the Middle East learning a necessarily uncomfortable lesson in reaping what you sow. After 9-11, the UAE, as well as all the other “moderate” Muslim nations, should have, at a minimum, been apologizing profusely for the state-sponsored Islamic hatred that has caused so much harm to this nation. But instead, some five years later, we’re still treated to non-stop hostility and acts of terrorism. In light of this fact, it truly amazes me that anyone would seriously propose that we need to worry about Persian Gulf sensibilities! Radical Muslims chant death to America, burn Paris, issue death warrants against political cartoonists, and we need to keep from offending the UAE by fretting too much over port security?!? Give me a break! For shame, Mr. President.

Secondly, to threaten to veto any future legislation is outrageous as well. To begin with, foreign trade is the proper purview of Congress. As the Constitution states, Congress is empowered:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
----Article I, Section 8

A presidential veto would be flatly unconstitutional as, like it or not, Congress is just exercising its federal prerogatives. Again, this political bluster would seem more appropriate from the mouth of Chuck Schumer than George W. Bush. And, to add insult to injury, I find myself incredulous that the administration would threaten a veto when President Bush has never vetoed a single bill since he first took office over five years ago!!! In effect, the president is saying “sure, feel free to blow the budget out of the water with all sorts of unconstitutional spending, but don’t dare mess with our Arab allies!” Nice order of priorities there. Quite frankly, this is the type of political ineptitude that the DNC has been excelling at since 1994, not what we’ve come to expect from a supposedly seasoned White House. What is going on here?

Lastly, I find the argument that to deny the port takeover would be an insult to the UAE and consequently jeopardize all our Middle Eastern alliances to be specious at best. Tell you what: if our Middle Eastern alliances are so fragile as to be threatened by a single Arab company not getting its way, well, such an alliance isn’t really worth much, is it? In effect, such a sensitive coalition would seem to be predicated upon little more than economic blackmail. And, by the way, didn’t President Bush just warn about the dangers of economic extortion in his State of the Union address? Isn’t that what his “addiction to oil” rhetoric was all about? Well, why must we distance ourselves from Gulf oil, but be forced to maintain other economic relationships in the region? Which is it? Are Gulf ties good or bad for this nation? Please, Mr. President, stick with a position! You are starting to sound like Mr. Kerry!

So, yes, a strange situation we have here. Liberals sounding like conservatives, capitalists proving John Kerry correct (if hypocritical), and a Republican president behaving like a bumbling Democrat wanna-be. What a dustup! Hopefully, when all is said and done, this nation will be wiser for the experience. Perhaps the wholesale auctioning off our nation will garner a hard examination, slowing the process down. Hopefully, Arab states will start to learn that the American people are now fully awake from their slumber and are paying close attention to whom our real allies are, and, lastly, perhaps the Bush Administration will finally get back on its feet and reclaim some of the glory from its first term by a return to clear-eyed leadership. I can hope, can’t I?

Illuminating Words
Mood:  happy
Topic: Illuminating Words
Very powerful and moving words which are worth sharing:

"Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered...the courageous soldiers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of al-Zarqawi's followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3rd ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them. To the courageous men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life, to the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months, to those who spread smiles on the faces of our children and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city... God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget... Let America, their families and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life."

—Najim Abdullah Abid Al-Jubouri, mayor of Tall Afar in the Iraqi province of Nineveh (Tall Afar was the main base of operations for the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)"

The Rosetta Stone of Journalism
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: Rosetta Stone of Journal

If you ever needed a Rosetta Stone to understand the mentality of the Big Media, the recent flap over Vice President Richard Cheney, who accidentally peppered his friend with birdshot, is for you. Even a cursory examination of the media’s reaction to this story demonstrates that, far from being the professional journalists that they constantly portray themselves to be, they are actually a bunch of chattering knuckleheads without an iota of perspective or common sense.

Check out some of these questions by the White House press corps (supposedly the elite of journalists---God help us!):

“Was it the Vice President's gun?”

“The Vice President did not call the President to tell him he was the shooter?”

“So when did the President definitively know that the Vice President had shot somebody?”

“Do you know whether he's taken a hunting safety course?”

“Is it proper for the Vice President to offer his resignation or has he offered his resignation –“

“Scott, under Texas law, is this kind of accidental shooting a possible criminal offense?”

“Scott, would this be much more serious if the man had died?” [!!!]

“Is it appropriate for the Vice President to have waited 14 hours after the incident before he spoke with local law enforcement officials? And do you think that an average citizen would have been accorded that same amount of time before having to answer questions about a shooting incident?”

“Is the President satisfied that he learned of the details about the shooting through Karl Rove and Andy Card, and not directly from the Vice President?”

“And could you provide cost estimates when the President [sic] takes these hunting trips -- like what it costs the taxpayers…”

These questions are amazing not just for the profound foolishness they exhibit, but for their conspiratorial tone as well! If one knew nothing else about the incident, he would be forced to conclude that the vice president, while illegally hunting quail, attempted to kill his friend while the White House did its best to conceal the resulting malfeasance. Give me a break!

But the mentality behind these questions betrays an even greater deficiency. While the press is going bananas over a non-story, an incident that does not impact the body politic in the least, real issues of newsworthiness are all but being ignored. We have Al Gore uttering treasonous remarks at a Saudi conference (where, apparently, he was awarded a Slinky for some strange reason); revelations of a FEMA financial boondoggle; Iran, in the grips dark fascism, aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction; and, of course, the minor story of the continuing War on Terror. But no, in the mind of the MSM, the big story is the vice president’s misfire….

Of course, what is really going on here is that the ego-driven Washingtonian media is hopping mad at being scooped by a local paper in Texas which was accorded the privilege of breaking this story. How dare the vice president not rush, in Clintonian fashion, to a microphone and assist the Big Media in making a mountain out of a molehill. How dare he focus on the well-being of his friend, and not take into consideration his ability to further the careers of braying jackasses such as David Gregory of NBC news? How dare he?!?

This whole incident is yet more proof of why the mainstream media is losing more and more of its credibility with every passing day. They’re no longer about the news, they’re all about image, ratings, and apparently… idiocy. Or, as the besieged Scott McClellan told the hostile Gregory: “David, now you want to make this about you, and it's not about you, it's about what happened.”

Amen to that!

The Glory of Shoveling Snow
Mood:  mischievious
Now Playing: Laura Ingram Show
Topic: The Glory of Shoveling
The Blizzard of ’06 is now a mere memory, leaving in its wake a record amount of snowfall. It is during such climatological calamities that one can take stock of the quality of manhood in his neighborhood. Specifically, how many men are hopelessly addicted to mechanization over muscle, snowblower over snow shovel.

Now, certain people are not to be criticized for mechanical dependency---the aged and the infirm, for example. These individuals are to be excused if they require the aid of a snowblower to clear their property. However, men who are physically fit have no such excuse; they are manifestly guilty of what I call “gadgetism”, the irrational and unhealthy need to have a machine perform all manner of physical activity. This illness has been spreading faster than Asian bird flu, infecting men (yes, some women too) and crippling their manhood. Next thing you know, your brother / father / son has become a couch potato who uses his car to retrieve the mail. It is an altogether lamentable state of affairs.

Needless to say, gadgetism is often on display after a major snowstorm. I often find myself shaking my head in disbelief as neighbors, with driveways so small that they would barely qualify as walkways, bring out massive snowblowers to do the “hard work” of removing snow (I could understand if volcanic pumice was involved, but snow???). Give me a break! While these men of soft muscles gleefully enslave themselves to machines, I wield an old-fashioned shovel (and not one of those wimpy back-saver models either) and apply American sweat and muscle to clear a driveway so big that is has often been mistaken for a private runway. Sure, it takes real effort, and the resulting achy muscles come morning, but it is worth it as I get to retain my dignity and my freedom from gadgetism.

My attitude may smack of being a Luddite, but so what? Is being a Luddite so bad? Mind you, I am not a true Luddite as he would eschew an internet-connected PC, an attitude that would quickly cause me to assume the fetal position. However, I do admire the Luddite apprehension at creeping mechanization. When we are no longer capable of shoveling driveways, when the idea of using our muscles causes real fear, then something is dangerously amiss with American manhood. There is no honor is hiding behind machines. Would Achilles have used a mechanized sword to dispatch Hector? For that matter, would Hector have hid behind a machine, even if it may have saved his life from the wrath of Achilles? I think not. I think both would have been ashamed to allow a machine to share in their glory. So it is with me. A snow shovel takes longer, and requires greater effort, but when the snow is cleared, the glory is all mine.

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....