The Return of Copperheads
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Accuradio.com
Topic: The Return of Copperheads

The recent actions of the Democrat-led congress to undermine the troops with their spineless non-binding resolution has brought to mind what I wrote way-back in 2003:

The country regrettably finds itself at war.  Anti-war pundits abound.  Which dilettante said the following:  “Defeat, debt, taxation, sepulchers, these are your trophies.  The war…is a most bloody and costly failure.” 

1)      Al Franken

2)      Michael Moore

3)      Howard Dean

4)      Democrat Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham  

Answer:  Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham. 

Never heard of him?  That’s not surprising as he was an Ohio “Peace Democrat” who served during the Civil War.  In fact, he uttered the above quotation on January 14, 1863 and, soon thereafter, was labeled as a sympathizer of the Confederacy and found himself being deported to the C.S.A. (he later returned north to haunt the Lincoln administration during the 1864 elections)!  

Now why do I mention this? 

My point is simply this:  just as there were Peace Democrats then, we also have them today as well (perhaps ‘Peace Liberals’ would be a better appellation?).  While Franken, Moore, and Dean did not utter the above quote, they have expressed similar "peace at any price" sympathies.  And just like it would have been ill-advised for Lincoln to take politically motivated criticisms of the war effort seriously, it would likewise be a grave mistake for President Bush, or the American people, to heed the remarks of contemporary Vallandighams.  These latter-day Copperheads are nothing more than fifth columnists seeking to derail the war effort for all sorts of reasons, some springing from well-intentioned motivations, others from not so noble origins.  Regardless of the motive, the advice is poison for the well-being of the American and Iraqi people.  As Lincoln himself remarked, “The enemy behind us is more dangerous to the country than the enemy before us.”  

And so it is today. 

 

Looks like I was right on the money with that one. 

Others have become interested in Copperhead Democrats too.  Once such person is Jennifer L. Webber who has written a book entitled, Copperheads: The Rise and Fall of Lincoln's Opponents in the North.  Civil War historian Gary W. Gallagher describes the book as an:

"Excellent study of the most conservative element of the Democratic Party during the Civil War offers a powerful reminder that the North, even as it sought to put down the Confederate rebellion, suffered from deep political divisions. It fruitfully argues that Copperheads more than once threatened the Union war effort before ending the conflict as a group despised only slightly less in the North than the vanquished rebels."

Sound's awfully familiar, doesn't it?  I only hope the last part of the sentence repeats as well....

These Things I Believe
Mood:  bright
Now Playing: Classical Music
Topic: These Things I Believe

 

Everyone must have their own set of core beliefs.  Why?  To lack a set of principles to guide oneself in today's chaotic world is to flirt with disaster.  You see, there are many harmful ideas and beliefs that are promulgated in contemporary culture - many of which will surely lead to corruption if one is not forever on guard against them.  As the best defense is often a good offense, the most successful course of action is to draft your own set of guiding values as a handy compass in times of stormy cultural weather. 

Now, this does not mean you need to reinvent the wheel; indeed, to engage in some ‘creatio ex nihilo' is to invite disaster.  Why?  The average human only enjoys a meager few years of life - not nearly enough time to develop the deep wisdom necessary to craft a set of values that can faithfully serve as moral bedrock.  As such, when formulating your own set of values, I highly recommend taping in the "wisdom of the ages." 

With that in mind, here is my (ever expanding) list of core values/beliefs (as they occur to me):

1)  Tremendous wisdom can be found in antiquity:  I am often shocked at how many historians are scornful of those who lived during the ancient and medieval eras!  To listen to these ignorant pundits of higher learning, denizens of antiquity were mere superstitious savages who wiled away their time waging war and warding off evil spirits (this is a particularly popular view of the medieval era).  Nothing is farther from the truth!  Some of the greatest minds that ever lived existed long before the so-called "modern" era.  Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas to name just an obvious few.  Government, science, theology, sociology, even the study of history were all tremendously influenced by these individuals.  Indeed, you could easily argue that the world as we know it would not exist if it were not for the intellectual bedrock established by these great minds!  To ignore the distant past is to ignore a treasure-trove of learning - learning of a superior nature to that found in the modern era.

2)  The Ancients were correct - actors are fools:  One specific bit of ancient wisdom is the idea that the profession of acting is a mere step above that of prostitution.  Indeed, Aristotle considered it quite likely that successful actors were insane individuals.  This inferior position of the thespian class continued well into the medieval ages where actors were routinely labeled as unreliable vagabonds or social outcasts.  It is only a relatively recent phenomenon (by the 17^th Century) whereby actors and actresses were accorded a respected position within society. 

Why do I bring this up?  Because of modern Holly-weird.  I am often amused by the exasperation of right-thinking Americans at the antics of the contemporary acting class.  Adultery, drugs, murder, intellectual idiocy and general moral degeneracy...none of this surprises me.  Indeed, if one places any value in the wisdom of the ancients, it is to be expected.  The historical record is clear: don't look to thespians for wisdom and morality. 

3)  It is "gender" not "sex" and there are two of them:  "Gender" denotes the characteristics of the male or female member of the species, while "sex" specifies the act of reproduction.  Get it straight, the terms are not interchangeable.   Likewise, there are only two genders and it is not a crime to recognize that distinction (despite MS Word constantly nudging me to replace "mankind" with "humankind" and "actress" with "actor").  Quite simple, if you are not prepared to address every woman you meet as "Mister," then don't try to neuter the English language! 

4)  The United States of America is a "Republic" and not a "Democracy":  If I hear one more political pundit describe America as a democracy, I will smash my television!  We are NOT a democracy, we are a republic!  Indeed, the Founding Fathers had nothing but contempt for the mob-politics of democracies (an idea stretching all the way back to the ancient world).   If people would take the time to read the US constitution, they would see that the term "democracy" is never once mentioned, but "republic" is mentioned numerous times. 

Why not democracy?   As Plato demonstrated in The Republic, democracy is one step above anarchy.  When you give the masses the reigns of government, it is only a matter of time before the people start treating the government as little more than Santa Claus, an institution primarily charged with providing people with "bread and circuses."  A republic, on the other hand, established a firebreak of sorts between the appetites of the people and the legitimate duties of a government via an elected body of representatives (that is the theory anyway; Plato was skeptical about the long-term viability of republics due to corruption via popular pandering).  It was with this in mind that the Founding Fathers established our American republic, one based heavily upon the structure of the Roman republic. 

So the next time you hear someone refer to America as a "democracy," feel free to slap them for their ignorance!

5)  It is about Liberty and not Freedom:  Similar to the confusion between democracies and republics is the confusion concerning liberty and freedom.  If man existed in a "state of nature" (as Hobbs' termed it), where life was "nasty, brutal and short," then we would be enjoying a state of freedom.  However, since ours is a society based upon a written code of laws that govern our behavior (positive law), we enjoy a state of liberty.  As you can see, there is an important distinction.  Freedom is action without responsibility, while liberty is action governed by responsibility.  That is why the Declaration of Independence states that men are “endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (which is borrowed from John Locke).

Animals are fit for freedom, man is fit for liberty!

6)  Natural Law governs all:  Did you notice that Jefferson mentioned that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights (see above)?  That is a declaration of Natural Law or "God-given law," a code that is eternal, immutable, and "written on the hearts of all men" (St. Thomas Aquinas).  In short, Natural Law puts the lie to moral relativism, the idea that there is no absolute code of moral conduct.  For the vast majority of history, some form of Natural Law has governed human society (particularly Western society).  It is only in the foolish "modern era" that such a basic and obvious fact of existence has been called into question...with disastrous results.  Some wonder why the 20^th Century was so epically bloody.  The answer is clear.  It was during the last century that political movements divorced from Natural Law (i.e., Marxism, National Socialism, Maoism, and etcetera) rose to powerful prominence.  After all, what restraint is there on human action when Natural Law (and, by extension, God) is removed from the equation?  The results were predictable:  human life became devalued and mass-murder and human subjugation became the order of the day. 

You reject Natural Law at your own peril. 

7)  The West is superior to the East:  I have become increasingly concerned about the infiltration of Eastern cultural motifs into Western life.  The television is filled with samurai flicks, and Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are making inroads into the Judeo-Christian spiritual life of the West.  Some of this can be dismissed as a passing fancy with Eastern exoticism.  Nonetheless, I am concerned that the grand culture and history of the West will soon be hopelessly lost in an Oriental flood.   

Again, I turn to the Ancients.  Throughout antiquity, the East represented an inscrutable realm of unceasing menace.  Such a bias is quite understandable when one examines the numerous Eastern barbarian invasions that have threatened to overwhelm the West:  Persians, Goths, Huns, Mongols and the rampaging armies of Islam, to name but a few.   The East, with its penchant for tyrannical regimes fueled by esoteric and arbitrary religiosity, will forever be associated with looming doom and destruction...and rightly so.

Can we honestly say things are different today?  It is startling to observe that the East still represents a grave danger to the West.  Plundering Islamic armies march on, China is as unpredictable and inscrutable as ever, Iran (Persia) seeks nuclear weapons and sponsors terrorism, and North Korea is the ultimate "Hermit State."  And was it not Japan that so recently ran amok and slaughtered millions during World War II? 

But there are other reasons that the West is manifestly superior to the East.  Have you ever noticed how the great centers of learning are always located in the West?  How the most remarkable advances in science and medicine spring from Western universities and research centers?  Likewise, when was the last time you heard of widely accepted cultural phenomenon that originated in the East?  For example, can you name any world-class Middle Eastern artists on par with Monet?  Any Asian composers on the same level as a Bach or Beethoven? 

Of course not.

The reason why the West has produced such intellectual excellence is largely due to a heritage that places a premium upon the application of Reason.  From Aristotle to Aquinas, the West has always believed that the universe is inherently rationale, and, as such, understandable.  Not so for the East as, in those far off lands, the world is often viewed as inscrutable and, therefore, not worthy of investigation (at least not beyond the purposes of idle amusement).  This is why the West has always had such a tremendous advantage when it came to the disciplines of learning and their practical applications.

Likewise, it is the Judeo-Christianity of the West that motivated the culture of Western man to tremendous heights.  For much of the West's culture has been driven by the Christian concepts of a God manifested as absolute Beauty and Truth.  No such tradition existed in the East, largely due to that realm's contempt for the material world and its embrace of philosophical relativism.  As such, the West has always thrived while the East has intellectually and culturally lurched with distressing randomness, a record that continues unabated to this day. 

8) War is not an absolute evil:   I defer to the wisdom of John Stuart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Some where along the line, the great warriors of antiquity, from Achilles to Richard the Lionhearted, have been reduced to senseless warmongers.  Are we to assume that these men were mad butchers?  That they were indifferent to the horrors of war?  Or that these men of were driven to war because they were incapable of assuming some other occupation?  Of course not!  War was just as horrible in ages past as it is now (in fact, I would argue that modern warfare is far more humane).   The reason why many of these men (but not all, to be certain!) led men in battle and risked life and limb was due to an adherence of a principle greater than themselves, be it nationalism or religious doctrine.  This is not a sin!  As Mill himself pointed out, sometimes you need to defend what you hold dear, be it your home or your honor.  To shrink from such a duty, to retreat from such a fight, is the greater crime.  That is why those brave warriors of times past are so honored to this very day.  Despite the requisite denunciation of armed conflict, somewhere deep within our souls we recognize the necessity and, dare I say it, glory of those men who fought and died for a principle greater than themselves.  Don't believe me?  Take a tour of Gettysburg and try to tell me that those many marvelous monuments are mere testaments to human bloodlust and not to the tremendous self-sacrifice of those who died to set other men free.  Men fight because they want to affirm sacred truths, not denounce their humanity.

Evil is on the prowl in this fallen world, and to not confront it, to not risk life and limb to make the world a better place, would be to surrender, and not champion, our morality.  War, while not pleasant, is a necessary tool. 

 

This is just a partial list of what I believe.  How would yours compare?  It can be both instructive and amusing to discover just what beliefs matter to you when you try to set them to paper.  Try it today (and feel free to post them here).

Throw the Bums Out!
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Accuradio's 80s Channel
Topic: Throw the Bums Out!

 

 

I know, I know, I promised to continue updating my blog despite the increased responsibilities of life.  Unfortunately, this has not happened.  I have been crafting some blog entries, but many of these, being of a gaming nature, have found a home at my gaming blog and not here.  However, as I currently find myself severed from the internet due to a cable outage, I thought now would be a very good time to rectify this paucity of FEBA entries.

    The issue at the top of my list is politics.  A lot has happened since my last few entries and I think now is a good time to catch up.  

    Despite Democrat posturing, the recent election results were not a mandate for left-wing politics, but a protest vote against Republican spinelessness.  Mid-term elections historically work against the party in power and this election was typical in its outcome.  Democrat gains were pretty average and long overdue (Republicans dodged the bullet with their counter-historic gains during the 2002 midterm election) – which is remarkable considering how the GOP dropped the ball in almost every category.   In fact, I will go so far as to say that if…

A) President Bush hadn’t been hiding under his desk for the last three years and had actually provided some leadership to congress

and

B) Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist were competent leaders less interested in getting along with their Democrat counterparts and more interested in opposing their left-wing agenda

…then I believe it was quite probable that the GOP would have dodged the midterm bullet yet again.  Alas, that did not happen.  

    Dick Morris, the used car salesman of the political world, said something clever not too long ago (and don’t underestimate how difficult that is for him).  He remarked that President Bush is “a one term president well into his second term.”  Exactly right.  At the close of his first term, I believed, as did many other conservatives, that President Bush would finish his second term on a level with the great Ronald Reagan.  After all, his first term was not just marked by a long-overdue steel-spined foreign policy, but was also characterized by innovative domestic ideas (reforming Social Security, doing away with the current tax code, and implementing healthcare savings accounts).  Regrettable, shortly after being sworn into office for the second term, President Bush & Co. seemed to have promptly gone to sleep.  Social Security reform was surrendered without a fight.  Doing away with the IRS in favor of a flat tax or national sales tax was quietly killed when a special committee (of questionable pedigree) concluded that the IRS was doing a fine job (!).  Even the all-important issue of Supreme Court nominees was nearly botched when, in a fit of remarkable stupidity, President Bush nominates Harriet Miers, his own attorney, to the highest court in the land (!!).  I sometimes think that the real President Bush, the courageous Bush of 2000-2004, is being held captive somewhere….

    To this sorry presidential record, we can add the outright incompetence of congress.  Due to the lack of leadership in the Senate (Bill Frist, at best, was a hapless majority leader), the “gang of 14,” those feckless renegade Republicans lead by John McCain, wielded the true power in the Senate.  Countless important legislative items, from border security to domestic spending reform, were sidelined, mangled, or outright killed by this unholy alliance of RINOs and DemoRats.  And while the House displayed more conservative gusto, Dennis Hastert (the great stealth Speaker of the House) was often more interested in linking arms with Nancy Pelosi than he was in actually passing conservative legislation (it still boggles my mind when I think of him rallying to the defense of William Jefferson, a corrupt Democrat congressman found with marked FBI money in his freezer!).  What a disgrace.

    Add to this a number of ridiculous spectacles.  For example, who can forget Tom Delay’s epic stand when, after being indicted on trumped-up charges and vowing to fight to the bitter end to prove his innocence, promptly resigned with nary a whimper (I still snicker when I think of GOP sycophant Fred Barns claiming that Delay’s resignation was a victory for the Republican party!)? It really is no wonder why the GOP lost control of both chambers.  Heck, even a stalwart conservative Republican such as me felt a tinge of satisfaction with the electoral results (I don’t tolerate treachery well).  After all, I voted for conservativism, not a bunch of political clowns in business attire selling out their principles at every opportunity.  What a shame and sham….

So now the Dems are in charge...but don’t worry, these are “conservative democrats” (as Fred Barnes constantly assures us).   Really now.  I guess that is why a San Francisco liberal is running the House, Harry Reid is running the Senate, and Rangle, Kennedy, Murtha et alia are chairing committees, eh?  Give me a break.  While there are some DINOs (Democrats in Name Only), the “bi-partisan” spirit is usually limited to weak-kneed Republicans.  A Dem is a Dem is a Dem.  In short order, the House has passed an increase in the minimum wage, reinstated funding for embryonic research, and called into question (yet again) the entire War on Terror.  Where are all these “conservative Democrats”?  

    Sorry to break the news, but America is back on the left-wing express for the next two years, perhaps for even longer.  Why?  Because the GOP has not figured out why it lost the trust of the American people.  Since the elections, all I have heard from the new Republican minority leadership is insipid rhetoric to the effect that a) it was overly conservative (i.e., “divisive”) legislation that cost them congress, or b) the way back to power is with conservatively fiscal legislation (i.e., tax cuts), but not conservative social and domestic legislation (pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, etcetera).  In short, the new GOP congressional leadership (led by the unreliable House minority leader John Boehner and assistant senatorial retread Trent “I apologize” Lott in the Senate) has not gotten the real message of the American people.  What cost Republicans Congress was a failure to deliver on the conservative promises of the last twelve years, a problem extending all the way up to the president himself.  If the GOP wants to have any chance at winning in 2008, the party needs to grow a spine (a tough proposition for most Republicans) and exhibit the conservative leadership of a Reagan or a Gingrich.

What Needs to be Said
Mood:  loud
Now Playing: Accuradio's Flock of '80s
Topic: Islamic Intolerance

 

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
 ---Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus

Pope Benedict XVI has said something that, thus far, has gone unsaid for too long.   What is this, you might ask?  Simply a truism: that Islam is the underlying cause for the world’s recent spat of international bloodletting.  Now, to be accurate, his address at the University of Regensburg (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=70993) only tangentially tackled the issue of violence as a component of organized religion; the lecture was primarily concerned with Reason (with a capital “R”) as something that transcends simple, modern empiricism and quantification.    However, in those few sentences that are not devoted to the larger issue of reason as a component of theology, the pope’s message is clear:  God is inherently rational and logical.  Therefore, any religion that embraces a God that is portrayed as being either irrational or capricious is inherently flawed.   With this precept in mind, Pope Benedict is clearly implying that Islam’s history of violent, forced conversion of non-Muslims clearly fails this fundamental test of belief in a rational God.  

What amazes me is that, despite the deaths of countless thousands of people due to Islamic violence, Pope Benedict is the first official willing to attempt to expose the oft-repeated absurdity that “Islam is a religion of peace.”  Conservative or liberal; Muslim or non-Muslim; pundit or politician---all bend over backwards to assure the world that Islam is not the problem but just another victim of “fascists” that have “hijacked a great religion.” 

I have often found that the easiest way to disprove a fallacy is with simple research.  With that in mind, I set out to find out whether or not Islam has ever demonstrated a propensity towards peace.  I was not startled to discover that this idea is demonstrably false, but I was startled at how it took me less than five minutes to do so!    All I had to do was enter the search term “crusades” into my 2002 edition of MS Encarta to get the following entry:

"But the greatest threat came from the forces of Islam, militant and victorious in the centuries following the death of their leader, Muhammad, in 632. By the 8th century, Islamic forces had conquered North Africa, the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and most of Spain. Islamic armies established bases in Italy, greatly reduced the size and power of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire) and besieged its capital, Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire, which had preserved much of the classical civilization of the Greeks and had defended the eastern Mediterranean from assaults from all sides, was barely able to hold off the enemy. Islam posed the threat of a rival culture and religion, which neither the Vikings nor the Magyars had done." 

Now, mind you, this did not come from some “Christian extremist” site (you know, one of those apparently numerous sites Rosie O’Donnell so fears is undermining the American way of life), but from a completely impartial encyclopedia produced by a liberal, Seattle-based corporation. 

 So what are we to conclude from this selection of text?  If, as many claim, Islam had been hijacked by “extremists,” then this process of usurpation must have begun mere moments after its inception.  After all, as early as the 8th Century, Islam had already been slashing and burning its way across the non-Muslim world, establishing dominion over lands long under the sway of rival religions.  I find this very strange as, if you listen to the apologists for Islam, America and Israel are the cause for the recent phenomenon of Islamic violence. Of course, neither America nor Israel yet existed when the Saracens started their conquest of non-Muslim peoples (nor, for that matter, had the Crusades yet occurred---another popular excuse for the Muslim propensity towards violence). 

 Speaking of the Crusades, in the light of the above passage, it can easily be seen why Pope Urban II felt the necessity to call the first Crusade---it was not because of a sudden lust for land on the part of the pontiff, but rather a reaction to Islamic conquests. As Pope Urban remarked:

“For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them.”

It is also interesting to note that some decades after the last Crusade was called, the bloody march of Islam resumed, terminating (fortunately) with the 1526 defeat of Sultan Suleiman I at the gates of Vienna.   Historically speaking, Islam is all about conquest, and not at all about peaceful coexistence with its non-Muslim neighbors---such a record simply does not exist. 

 With this in mind, I quickly concluded that the problem must reside within the credo of Islam itself.  But how could this be?  After all, I have seen many Muslim clerics assure the world that the Koran prohibits violence toward non-believers.  Hmm…better look into this one, I thought.

 The Koran does state "There is no compulsion in religion..." (Surah 2:256) However, that was written at a time when Muhammad was the one being prosecuted by non-believers.  Once the tide had turned in his favor, the tone of the Koran became much more intolerant:

“Those who deny Allah and His Messengers, ... strike at their necks; at length, when you have thoroughly subdued them….( Surah 4:150-152)

And

"Tell the unbelievers that if they abandon their ways He will forgive them what is past, but, if they return, that was indeed the way of their forefathers who have passed away. Fight them until persecution is no more and the Religion of Allah reigns supreme." (Surah 8:39-40)

And

"...O Prophet, urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty patient men among you, you shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred, they shall overcome a thousand, for they are a nation who do not understand."  (Surah 8:65)

And

"Fight those who neither believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not embrace the religion of the truth, being among those who have been given the Book (Bible and the Torah), until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated." (Surah 9:29)

That does not sound very tolerant and peaceful, does it?  Now, now, I know some of you are probably protesting that while the Koran does include such inflammatory declarations, no Muslim of the modern age actually adheres to such a strict interpretation.  Really?  Why do you think we are currently engaged in a War on Terror (a term which belies this nation’s continued reluctance to name the enemy)?  Why do you think 9-11 occurred?  The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center?  The bombing of USS Cole?  The Marine barracks in Beirut?  The Middle East obsession with the destruction of Israel (the Arab press often refers to Israel as a “crusader state”)?  You have better believe that Islam is still at war with the non-Muslim world. But don’t take my word for it, take the world of Syrian-born Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed:

"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity. We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy."

 I could go on and on with this topic---indeed there are many fine websites out there that do just that (see Jihadwatch.org).  But I think my point is manifestly clear:  Islam and intolerance goes hand and hand; it is this very nature that has caused so much bloodshed.  And, instead of learning from its unfortunate past, such intolerance continues---sometimes expressed in bizarre ways.  For example, shortly after Pope Benedict’s recent address (see above), Muslim leaders denounced his comments as creating an unfair depiction of Islam as a violent and intolerant religion.  To prove their point, Muslims around the world rioted and firebombed Christian churches throughout the Middle East, with one Somali cleric demanding the death of the pope(!).  You can’t make this stuff up….

In response to ever more Muslim outrage, Father Raymond J. de Souza wrote the following:

"In response to this historical excursus in an academic lecture by one of the world's most erudite theologians, we are witnessing a wave of madness and malice, no doubt an embarrassment to millions of Muslims....

It is not only the obscenity of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist terrorist band suppressed in several Muslim states, demanding an apology from anyone, let alone the Holy Father.

It is not only the grandstanding Pakistani politicians passing resolutions condemning a papal speech few read, and even fewer understood. It is not only the extraneous charges about the Holocaust and Hitler by the agitated and excited.

It is that we have seen this before.

When Pope John Paul II made his epic pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Palestinian Muslim representatives jostled him on the Temple Mount, shouted at him, and, in one episode of maximum rudeness, abandoned him on stage during an interfaith meeting. Bashir Assad, the Syrian President, treated him to an anti-Semitic rant when the late pope visited Syria.

And it is well past time that the maltreatment of history ceased too.

Catholics have for quite some time now confessed the sinful and wicked shadows that marked the Crusades, but any suggestion the whole affair was about rapacious Christians setting upon irenic Muslims must be rejected.
After all, the formerly Christian lands of North Africa, the Middle East and Asia Minor were not converted to Islam by Muslim missionary martyrs. Those lands were conquered by the sword.

In most countries with Muslim majorities, Christians do not have the full freedom to practise their faith without fear.
Whether private harassment or state-sanctioned torture, Christians the world over know all too well that the sword of Islam has not been sheathed. No doubt the extreme reaction to Benedict's address will serve the purpose of keeping local Christians in their place throughout the Islamic world."

Let us hope that this is the straw which broke the camel’s back.  Let us hope that the world is, at long last, prepared to honestly face the Islamic menace that has, yet again, reared its ugly, intolerant, and violent head from the pages of history.  I’ll leave you with the words of G. K. Chesterton summing up the difference between Christian West and Islamic East:

"Now a man preaching what he thinks is a platitude is far more intolerant than a man preaching what he admits is a paradox. It was exactly because it seemed self-evident, to Moslems as to Bolshevists, that their simple creed was suited to everybody, that they wished in that particular sweeping fashion to impose it on everybody. It was because Islam was broad that Moslems were narrow. And because it was not a hard religion it was a heavy rule. Because it was without a self-correcting complexity, it allowed of those simple and masculine but mostly rather dangerous appetites that show themselves in a chieftain or a lord. As it had the simplest sort of religion, monotheism, so it had the simplest sort of government, monarchy. There was exactly the same direct spirit in its despotism as in its deism. The Code, the Common Law, the give and take of charters and chivalric vows, did not grow in that golden desert. The great sun was in the sky and the great Saladin was in his tent, and he must be obeyed unless he were assassinated. Those who complain of our creeds as elaborate often forget that the elaborate Western creeds have produced the elaborate Western constitutions; and that they are elaborate because they are emancipated."

Two Views of Chess
Mood:  chatty
Now Playing: Beethoven.com
Topic: Two Views of Chess

 

The following are two interesting and opposing views of chess.  The first is taken from Dykstra’s War by Jeffrey D. Kooistra, an entertaining look at mankind’s first war with spider-like space aliens known as the Phinons.  The following quote is from a character by the name of Colonel Knoedler, the man who is responsible for planning our first engagement with the beasties from beyond….

“Whenever Colonel Knoedler needed to think real hard, he found it necessary to put himself in the proper mood, and this was most easily accomplished by reading the right book.  Since most of the things his position demanded he think about involved strategy and tactics, the two books he most often turned to were Herman Kahn’s On Thermonuclear War, a classic from the middle of the last century, and Potapov’s Kasparov vs. the Computers: The Complete Games….
 
Knoedler put down the Kahn book and picked up the chess one.

The colonel’s rooms at the High Command were efficiently furnished….The only genuine decorations he had were his chess sets.  Three out of his collection of more than a hundred were on display: one of gold and silver on a shelf; one of precious stones on a side table; one of pewter spaceship pieces on a gaming table, the only one that he’d actually play games with.  Dykstra had had a collection of chess sets, until the Belt blew up his house.

The Phinons had him in one hell of a chess match right now.  The raids happening on the trans-Hague Limit assets were little pawn thrusts.  The ships congregating out in deep space, leaving hyperspace but not reentering---that had to be where the real strategy was shaping up….

What kind of chess game is this?  They can see my pieces, but theirs are invisible.  They can see my possible moves, but theirs I can’t consider until after they made them.
 
Colonel Knoedler was a marvelous chess player.  Against weaker opponents, he’d readily exchange pieces, simplifying things until he could put together an elegant checkmate.  The few times he played someone of equal caliber…he’d play for complications, trusting that his wit and skill would ultimately carry him through if he just had time enough to pick away at his competiton.

In this situation, I most definitely need to play for complications….

Knoedler put down the chess book finally and went to his bookshelf.  He took an old Bible out....And then, several times, he read the story of David and Goliath.”

Chess has often been, and continues to be, used as a metaphor for war.  It is always an entertaining experience to read how authors weave the Royal Game into their tales of warfare.
 
The next passage is from a non-fiction piece by The National Review’s John Derbyshire.  His essay, entitled War Games, is, at first, a tribute to the classic game of Stratego.  However, as is often the case with articles that deal with a specific board game, chess is inevitably drawn into the discussion.  

“Most of these strategy games (I am not sure about Go) were originally spin-offs from the military arts.  You can, in fact, graduate from them to full-scale war games.  I have an acquaintance whose hobby is the re-fighting of great naval engagements on a large table in his basement.  However, he has a great deal more spare time than I have.  Stratego will do for me.
   
The essence of Stratego is, of course, strategy.  As an introduction to those aspects of life that involve the weighing of strategies, the game is excellent.  I have always thought chess unsatisfactory in this regard, being devoid of the element of chance.  Meritocracy is a very fine thing, but not much of the world is meritocratic, and a child may as well get acquainted with the Fickle Finger of Fate early on in life.  In any case, I am a duffer at chess, being too lazy-minded and insufficiently competitive.  For a while, in my teens, I gave the game some serious attention, working through championship contests that I found in books or newspapers.  Time and again, though, I would have the very disconcerting experience of following the logic of the moves quite happily until, right in the middle of what seemed to me like a promising development — “White resigns.”  Why had he resigned?  I had no clue.  White had been looking just fine to me.
 
I left chess for other people to play.  I had grasped, in any case, that skill at playing chess correlates with nothing else at all — certainly not with geniality, as is illustrated by the personalities of numerous great chess champions.  (Nor even with the ability to design chess-playing computers.  Taiwanese genius Feng-hsiung Hsu, co-designer of the ‘Deep Blue’ machine that defeated Gary Kasparov in 1997, confesses wryly in his book Behind Deep Blue that he is himself a mediocre chess player, and that Kasparov gave up trying to talk chess with him after a few minutes ‘sensing that I was not seeing the game on the same level as he and Deep Blue...’)”

Quite unlike our sage colonel, Mr. Derbyshire has a far lower opinion of the Royal Game, even going so far as to suggest that to be skilled at chess is to be skilled at nothing; chess is so removed from the real world that mastery of the game has no practical real-world benefits.  Rising to dear Caissa’s defense, I would argue that much of Mr. Derbyshire’s complaints are little more than the venting of a frustrated patzer who has since sought easier pastures.  After all, did not the great Benjamin Franklin himself argue that:

“The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or the want of it.”

Alas, I suppose we will have to leave this dispute for another time and another essay because I want to make a more important point.  What might that be, you ask?  This: that despite the fact that chess is some 1300 years old, it still continues to captivate both supporters and detractors alike.  Needless to say, any game which can do that after so many centuries is truly a special game, a game well worth a reserved spot on even the most crowded game shelf.  If you play chess, keep on playing.  And if you do not, start today.  I do not promise you will love it, or even like it, but I do promise that you will not soon forget it.   As Donald McLean once remarked, “Take these pieces, set them in their rank and file upon an 8 x 8 magic square and you have the recipe for endless centuries of romance and intrigue.”


Recommended Reading:

Dykstra's War by  Jeffery D. Kooistra
ISBN: 0671319582
 
Thinking about the Unthinkable by Herman Kahn
ISBN: 067160449X

Kasparov Versus Deep Blue: Computer Chess Comes of Age
by Monroe Newborn
ISBN: 0387948201

I Shot Down a Mig...Again!
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: Pink Floyd's Dogs of War
Topic: I Shot Down a Mig Again!

I shot down a Mig…again!  No, not that type of MiG.  I mean that I have defeated my old chess nemesis, The Mig, for a second time over the brutal battlefield that is the 64-square chessboard.  In my mind this puts to rest any lingering notions that my first kill was a fluke.  “Mig” Alley no longer holds any fear for me!

I guess I get to paint two red stars on my airframe now!
 
Here are the games (gun camera footage), this time annotated by Fritz 9:

Game #1

Crusader Scott (1639) - The Mig
www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net , 18.09.2005
[Fritz 9 (10s)]

A06: Reti Opening:1 Nf3 d5 1.Nf3 d5 2.Nc3 last book move 2...d4 3.Nxd4? [>=3.Nb1= would keep White in the game] 3...Qxd4-+ 4.e3 Qd8 5.d4 Nf6 6.e4 [6.Bc4 e6-+] 6...e6 [6...e5!? 7.Be3 Ng4 8.dxe5 Nxe3 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.fxe3-+] 7.e5 Nbd7?? a transit from better to worse [7...Nd5 8.Ne4-+] 8.Bc4?? letting the wind out of his own sails [8.exf6 Nxf6 (8...gxf6 9.Qf3+/-) 9.Bc4 c6=] 8...Be7?? Loses material. forfeits the advantage [>=8...Nb6!? 9.Bb5+ c6-/+] 9.0-0 [9.exf6 Nxf6 10.0-0 0-0+/=] 9...c6 Prevents intrusion on b5 [>=9...Nd5!? and Black can hope to live 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Bxd5 c6=/+] 10.exf6+/= Bxf6 11.Ne4 Black has a cramped position. Black's piece can't move: c8 11...Qc7 [11...Nb6!? 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6+/-] 12.Be3 Ke7 [12...0-0+/-] 13.Nc5 White has a strong king attack [13.Qf3 Kf8+-] 13...Nb6? [13...Nxc5!? is noteworthy 14.dxc5 Bxb2+/=] 14.b3 [14.Bd3 Kf8+-] 14...Bd7 [14...Kf8 15.Ne4 Be7 16.Bd3+/-] 15.Qd2 [>=15.Ne4+-] 15...Rad8?? a blunder in a bad position [>=15...Kf8+-] 16.Bf4 Qc8 17.Ne4 Nxc4 [17...Rdg8 a fruitless try to alter the course of the game 18.Qb4+ Kd8 19.Nd6+-] 18.bxc4 c5 [18...Kf8 the last chance for counterplay 19.Bd6+ Be7 20.Bxe7+ Kxe7 21.Qb4+ c5 22.Nxc5 Kf6 23.Nxb7 Rdf8+-] 19.Bd6+ Ke8 20.Bxc5 [20.Qh6! might be the shorter path 20...Ba4 (20...gxh6?? 21.Nxf6#) 21.Qxf6 Rxd6 (21...gxf6?? 22.Nxf6#) 22.Nxd6+ Kd7+-] 20...Be7 [20...Ba4 doesn't change the outcome of the game 21.Nxf6+ gxf6 22.Qh6+- (22.Bxa7?! Qxc4 23.Bb6 Rc8+-) ] 21.Qb4 [>=21.Bxe7 finishes off the opponent 21...Bc6 22.Nd6+ Rxd6 23.Bxd6+-] 21...Bxc5 22.Nxc5 [22.Qxc5?! Qxc5 23.Nxc5 Bc6+/-] 22...Bc6 [22...Qb8 doesn't get the cat off the tree 23.Rad1+- (23.Nxb7?! Bc6 24.Rfb1 Qxb7 25.Qxb7 Bxb7 26.Rxb7 Rxd4+-) ] 23.d5! Decoy: e6 23...b6 [23...exd5 24.Rae1 Double attack (24.Rae1 Decoy) ] 24.dxc6 [>=24.Ne4 makes it even easier for White 24...f6 25.Rad1 Ba8 26.Nd6+ Rxd6 27.Qxd6 Kf7+-] 24...bxc5 [24...Qxc6 hoping against hope 25.Nb3 f6+-] 25.Qxc5 Qc7 26.Rfd1 [>=26.Rab1 seems even better 26...Qe7 27.Qa5+-] 26...Rc8 [26...f6 hardly improves anything 27.Rxd8+ Kxd8+-] 27.Qd6 [27.Rd7 Qxd7 28.cxd7+ Kxd7 29.Rd1+ Ke8 30.Qxc8+ Ke7 31.Qxh8 Kf6 32.h4 Kg6 33.g4 a5 34.h5+ Kh6 35.f4 a4 36.a3 e5 37.Rd6+ f6 38.Rxf6+ gxf6 39.Qxf6#] 27...Qxc6 28.Qxc6+?? releasing the pressure on the opponent [>=28.Qd4 a shame that White overlooked this excellent chance 28...Kf8 29.Qxa7+-] 28...Rxc6+/= A double rook endgame occured 29.Rd4 [29.Rab1 Rf8+/=] 29...Ke7= 30.c3 [30.Rb1 Rc7=] 30...Rhc8=/+ 31.Rad1 R8c7 32.Rb1 Ra6 33.Rb2 Ra3 34.Rc2 a5 35.Kf1 Ra4 Attacking the isolated pawn on c4 36.Ke2 e5 Black threatens to win material: e5xd4 37.Re4 White pins: Re4xe5 37...Rc5 [Weaker is 37...Raxc4 38.Rxe5+ Kf6 39.Rxa5 Rxc3 40.Rxc3 Rxc3 41.Kd2+/-] 38.f4 f6 [38...Raxc4!? is worth consideration 39.Rxc4 Rxc4 40.fxe5 Re4+ 41.Kd3 Rxe5=] 39.Kd3+/= Ke6 40.g4 g5 41.f5+ White gains space [41.fxe5 fxe5 42.Rb2 h6+/=] 41...Kf7 42.Rb2 Kg7 43.h3 Kh6 [43...Kf7 44.Rc2+/=] 44.Rc2 [44.Kc2 Rcxc4 45.Rxc4 Rxc4+/-] 44...Kg7+/= 45.Rb2 [45.Rce2 Kf7+/=] 45...Kh6+/- 46.Rc2 Twofold repetition [46.Kc2 Rcxc4 47.Rxc4 Rxc4+/-] 46...Rc6 [46...Kg7 47.Rd2+/=] 47.Rb2 [47.c5 Rxe4 48.Kxe4 Rxc5+/=] 47...Kg7 [47...Rc5 48.Kc2 Raxc4 49.Rxc4 Rxc4 50.Rb7+/-] 48.Rc2 [48.Kc2 Rcxc4 49.Rxc4 Rxc4 50.Rb7+ Kg8 51.Rb8+ Kg7=] 48...h5 The thematic attack 49.c5 Rxe4 50.Kxe4 Rxc5 51.c4 Rc8 [>=51...hxg4!? should be examined more closely 52.hxg4 Kf7=] 52.c5+/- [Less advisable is 52.gxh5 Rc5+/=] 52...hxg4 53.hxg4 Kf7 54.Kd5 White prepares the advance c6 54...Ke7 55.Rc4 [>=55.c6 Rd8+ 56.Kc5+/-] 55...Kd7?? there were better ways to keep up the pressure [>=55...Rd8+ is a viable option 56.Kc6 Rd4 57.Rxd4 exd4=] 56.Ra4 [56.c6+ and White can already relax 56...Kc7 57.Ke6 Rf8+-] 56...Ra8? [56...Rd8 57.Rxa5 Ke7+ 58.Kc6+-] 57.c6+ Kc7 58.Kc5?? hands over the advantage to the opponent [>=58.Ke6 White missed this excellent chance 58...Kxc6 59.Kxf6+-] 58...Ra6= Black threatens to win material: Ra6xc6 59.Kd5 Rxc6 60.Rxa5 White has a new passed pawn: a2 60...Rd6+ 61.Ke4 Rd4+ 62.Kf3 Rf4+ 63.Kg3 e4 64.Ra6 Rf3+ 65.Kg2 Rc3 [65...Rf4!?=] 66.Kf2 Rc2+ 67.Kg3 [67.Ke3 Rg2+/=] 67...e3 [67...Rc3+ 68.Kg2=] 68.Kf3 White threatens to win material: Kf3xe3 [68.Rxf6 Rxa2 69.Re6 Kd7+/-] 68...Rc4 [>=68...e2!? has some apparent merit 69.Kf2 Rc4=] 69.Rxf6+/- Rf4+ 70.Kxe3 [70.Kg3 Kd7+/-] 70...Rxg4+/= Black has a new passed pawn: g5 71.Rg6 [71.Ra6!?+/=] 71...Ra4= 72.f6 He broke from his leash 72...Kd7 73.Rxg5 Rxa2 74.Re5 Ra8?? not a good decision, because now the opponent is right back in the game [>=74...Ra6= had to be tried to avoid defeat] 75.Kf4+- Rf8? [75...Ra2+-] 76.Kf5 Rf7 [76...Rh8 desperation 77.f7 Rh5+ 78.Kf6 Rxe5+-] 77.Kg6 Rf8 78.f7 Black resigned. 1-0

Game #2

Crusader Scott - The Mig
www.ChessWorld.net server game www.ChessWorld.net , 06.01.2006
[Fritz 9 (10s)]

C20: 1 e4 e5: Unusual White second moves 1.e4 e5 2.c3 c5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 a6 5.Bxc6 dxc6 last book move 6.Nxe5 Bd6 Black threatens to win material: Bd6xe5 [6...Qe7 7.d4 cxd4 8.f4= (8.Qxd4? c5 9.Qd5 Nf6 10.Qxf7+ Qxf7 11.Nxf7 Kxf7-+; 8.cxd4?! f6 9.Nf3 Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Qg4=) ] 7.Nc4+/= Be6 8.Nxd6+ Qxd6 9.d4 0-0-0 10.0-0 [10.Be3+/-] 10...Bc4? [>=10...cxd4 and Black can hope to live 11.Qf3 d3+/=] 11.Re1+- h5 [11...Be6 12.Be3+-] 12.Na3 [>=12.b3 Be6 13.Ba3+-] 12...Bb5? [>=12...Be6 13.Nc2 cxd4 14.cxd4 Ne7+-] 13.e5 [13.c4 might be the shorter path 13...Qxd4 14.Qc2 Qd3 15.cxb5 Qxc2 16.Nxc2 axb5+-] 13...Qg6 14.Nxb5 axb5 [14...cxb5 15.d5 Ne7 16.d6+-] 15.Be3 [15.a4 makes it even easier for White 15...b4 16.a5 Ne7+-] 15...c4 [15...h4 16.a4 b4 17.a5+-] 16.a4 h4 [16...b4 doesn't change anything anymore 17.a5 Ne7 18.cxb4+-] 17.axb5 cxb5 [17...h3 does not win a prize 18.g3 Ne7 19.e6 cxb5 20.exf7+-] 18.Ra8+ [>=18.d5 and White can already relax 18...h3 19.g3+-] 18...Kd7 [18...Kc7 is not the saving move 19.Rxd8 h3 20.g3 Kxd8 21.d5+-] 19.Rxd8+ [>=19.Qf3 and White wins 19...Kc7 20.Rxd8 Kxd8 21.Qxb7+-] 19...Kxd8 20.h3 Nh6 [20...Ne7 is no salvation 21.d5 Qf5 22.Qd4+-] 21.Qa1 [21.Bf4 seems even better 21...Ke8+-] 21...Kd7 22.Qa3 [22.d5!? might be the shorter path 22...Qa6 23.Qb1 Kd8+-] 22...Nf5 [22...Qe6 is not much help 23.Bg5 Re8 24.b3 cxb3 25.Rb1+-] 23.Bf4 [23.d5 keeps an even firmer grip 23...Rc8 24.b3 Qa6+-] 23...Qe6 [23...Qa6 does not solve anything 24.Qc5 Qc6 25.Qa7+-] 24.Qc5 [24.Qa5 makes it even easier for White 24...g5 25.Bxg5 Qa6+-] 24...b6 [24...Qc6 cannot undo what has already been done 25.Qa7+-] 25.Qxb5+ [>=25.Qa3 makes it even easier for White 25...Ne7 26.b3+-] 25...Kd8 [25...Qc6 there is nothing better in the position 26.e6+! Decoy: e6 26...fxe6 27.Qxc6+ Kxc6 28.Rxe6+ Kb7+-] 26.d5 [26.Ra1 Ne7 27.Ra8+ Nc8+-] 26...Qd7 27.Qxb6+ Qc7 28.Qxc7+ [>=28.Qa6 and the rest is a matter of technique 28...Qb8 29.Re4+-] 28...Kxc7 29.e6+ [>=29.Re4 and White can already relax 29...Kd7 30.Rxc4 Ra8+-] 29...Kd8 [29...Kb6 doesn't get the cat off the tree 30.e7 (30.exf7 Rf8+-) 30...Re8 31.d6+-] 30.Re4 [>=30.Ra1 secures the point 30...Ne7 31.d6 Nc8+-] 30...fxe6 31.dxe6 Re8 [31...Rh5 hardly improves anything 32.Rxc4 Ke7 33.Rc6+-] 32.Rxc4 [>=32.Bg5+ and White can celebrate victory 32...Kc7 33.Rxc4+ Kd6+-] 32...Rxe6 33.Bg5+ Ke8 34.Bxh4 Re1+ 35.Kh2 Nd6 36.Rc7 Nf5 [36...Rb1 doesn't get the bull off the ice 37.b4 Nb5 38.Rc8+ Kf7 39.Bg3+-] 37.Bg3 g6 38.h4 Rb1 39.b4 Nd6 [39...Rb3+- desperation] 40.Bxd6 Kd8 41.c4 [>=41.Rg7+- keeps an even firmer grip] 41...Rd1 42.c5 Ra1 43.Rb7 [>=43.Rh7 might be the shorter path 43...Rd1 44.b5+-] 43...Ra8 44.c6 Rc8 45.b5 g5 [45...Ke8 a fruitless try to alter the course of the game 46.Re7+ Kf8 47.Rc7+ Kg8 48.Rxc8+ Kg7 49.b6 Kf6 50.b7 g5 51.b8Q Ke6 52.Re8+ Kf5 53.Qb5+ Kg6 54.Qxg5+ Kh7 55.Re7+ Kh8 56.Be5#] 46.hxg5 Ra8 [46...Rc7 does not save the day 47.Rb8+ Rc8 48.g6 Rxb8 49.g7 Rxb5 50.g8Q#] 47.Rb8+ [47.Rf7 Ra6 48.Rf8#] 47...Rxb8 48.Bxb8 Kc8 [48...Ke7 cannot change destiny 49.b6 Kf7 50.c7 Ke6 51.c8Q+ Kd5 52.g6 Kd4 53.g7 Kd3 54.g8Q Ke2 55.Qc1 Kxf2 56.Qa2#] 49.g6 Kxb8 50.g7 Ka7 [50...Kc7 doesn't change the outcome of the game 51.g8Q Kd6 52.Qb8+ Ke6 53.c7 Kf7 54.c8Q Kg6 55.Qe6+ Kg5 56.Qg3+ Kh5 57.Qgg4#] 51.g8Q Kb6 52.Qb8+ Kc5 53.c7 Kd4 54.c8Q Kd3 [54...Ke4 does not improve anything 55.Qc2+ Kd5 56.Qc6+ Kd4 57.Qbd6#] 55.Qe8 [55.Qd6+ Ke2 56.Qc2+ Kf1 57.Qdd1#] 55...Kc3 [55...Kc2 doesn't improve anything 56.Qc7+ Kb3 57.Qe3+ Ka4 58.Qc4+ Ka5 59.Qa7#] 56.Qf4 Kd3 [56...Kb2 cannot change what is in store for ? 57.Qb4+ Kc2 58.Qe2+ Kc1 59.Qed2#] 57.Qee3+ Kc2 58.Qd2+ [58.Qc4+ Kd1 59.Qee2#] 58...Kb1 59.Qfb4+ Ka1 60.Qdb2# Black king mated [60.Qbb2#] 1-0

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.