Mending Fences

Clifford D. May has an article up that wonders about the good things that might happen if the fence that Israel is erecting between itself and the West Bank is successful in stopping the murder/suicide attacks in the Holy Land. This is quite a rosy scenario. It is a measure of just how crazy our world has become, how easy hatred of Jews is in today's world, that to advocate the end of the murder of Jews is considered an almost impossible dream. But that is indeed the way things are today on Planet Earth. The piece also goes into a capsule history of the region that is perfectly brief and complete; pithy, as O'Reilly would say. It is quite worth the read. After May describes the upcoming case in The Hague in which the palestinians are seeking to have the fence declared a criminal act, he says:

But what if all that is ignored, the fence is erected -- and it works? The benefits to Israelis are clear. Less obvious is that under such conditions it also would be possible to relieve Palestinian communities of the stress of Israeli military occupation. Tanks and troops could pull back. Curfews could be lifted. Checkpoints could be removed.

And that's not all. Currently, life on the West Bank is dreadful – poverty is rampant, unemployment is epidemic, freedom is non-existent. It doesn't need to be that way. It wasn't always that way.

In 1967, Israel took the West Bank from Jordan. That was the price Jordan paid for launching an attack against Israel from the West Bank – joining Egypt and Syria in what was intended to be a war to drive Israel into the sea once and for all.

Ironically, under Israeli rule from 1967 to 1993, the West Bank's economy was among the fastest growing in the world thanks to burgeoning commerce between Israelis and Palestinians. Health care improved and the mortality rate dropped. Where there had been not a single institution of higher learning, by the early 1990s there were seven universities in the West Bank.

What stopped this momentum? The “Oslo peace process.” In 1993, the Israelis brought Yasser Arafat back from exile in Tunisia and put him in charge – angering many local Palestinian leaders. Arafat made the territories under his control a safe haven for all manner of terrorists. Then, in 2000, at Camp David, he turned down an Israeli offer for full statehood in 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and launched a wave of terror beyond anything Israel had ever experienced. In response, in 2002, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered his soldiers to re-occupy the West Bank.

For the average Palestinian, Arafat's rein has been all guns, no butter. He has done nothing to spur development, and he has nurtured corruption. Schools have taught not skills and vocations, but hatred of Jews and the glories of dying as a suicide bomber. While billions of dollars in foreign aid have poured into the Palestinian Authority's coffers, employment and income have fallen. But Arafat has become one of the richest men in the world.

[snip]

And were average Palestinians to enjoy some peace, quiet and economic opportunity, perhaps they would be less inclined to continue to passively accept Arafat's failed leadership. Perhaps they would be bold enough to demand leaders willing to fight terrorism and corruption, initiate democratic reforms and negotiate in earnest with Israel.

Such a scenario frightens Arafat as no helicopter gunship ever could. That is why he has orchestrated next week's hearings at The Hague. The purpose is not really to argue about the route the fence will take. Israel has been negotiating with American diplomats on that, and Israel is willing to talk with others – though not with terrorists. You don't negotiate with burglars where you may put your burglar alarms.

No, the real point of the hearings in The Hague is to challenge Israel's right to self-defense, to put on trial Israel's right to exist, to ask a respected international body to issue a license to kill Israelis.

But what if this effort fails? What if people see the hearings for the propaganda exercise they are? What if the UN's court is dismissed as having compromised its integrity, having become no more serious a body than the UN's Commission on Human Rights – which is headed by Libya and includes such chronic human rights violators as Saudi Arabia and Syria?

And what if the barriers, fences, walls – call them what you will -- succeed in separating two societies now locked in mortal combat, giving both a chance to calm down, cool off and look squarely toward the future? Is there a chance that, at the end of the day, the fence could become a bridge to a new era? Is it not worth a try?

Beautifully put.

One Step Closer?

The Hydrogen economy is, an article in the journal Science says (as reported in The Monitor), one step closer to practicality. It seems that some scientists have found a way to create Hydrogen on the vehicle, from Vodka. (Well, actually a solution of 40% ethanol. But that is as good a definition of Vodka as any.) The ability to make the Hydrogen on board from a tank of relatively benign liquid, rather than having to store on board this almost impossible to store volatile gas, would be a great advance. It further is reported that all of our gasoline can be replaced by this fuel, with the only downside to this being, well, let the man speak:

One such hurdle:It would require at least 40 percent of the cropland in the US to produce enough ethanol to power the nation, according to the new NRC report

Tiny little problem like that. Nothing we can't handle. We would merely have to give up all of that useless wheat, soybean, and cattle grazing land and turn it to corn production.

I hate to always be the guy who points out the flaws in arguments, but the entire raison d'etre of Zero Base Thinking is to examine the facts without the influence of too much in the way of hopes, dreams, and expectations. Hydrogen is a good thing, and this idea is surely a great advance in the eventual realization of a sustainable energy source for humanity, but the entire debate will always redound to the cost of producing energy. Make no mistake - that cost is the only thing between where we are today and almost unlimited wealth for everyone on the planet. And Hydrogen is still only a means to store energy. That energy must be produced, or harnessed, first. What this new process accomplishes is merely to make the storage of hydrogen cheaper and easier.

There are a few other problems with using Ethanol as a fuel. First, the government must approve a new poison that can be added to the fuel that will not spoil the efficiency of the process. (Yes, believe it or not the government insists that all ethanol be poisoned before it can be sold for a non beverage - and non-taxed - use. I know that denatured alcohol, the presently available form of such ethanol, can not be used in many chemical processes that require Ethanol. So a new poison must be found. We can't expect scientists to pick up on a silly little detail like that, it's more of an economist's question.)

The left always complains that we don't do enough, or invest enough in alternative energy sources. Wrong on both accounts. We, both the government and the corporate world, are constantly working, spending, and looking for alternatives. Hydrogen is a promising technology that is being pursued. But there is no easy magic wand that will make our energy problems go away. As in:

The NRC said that while hydrogen could "fundamentally transform the US energy system ... the impacts on oil imports and carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be minor during the next 25 years," even with huge investments.

The truth of the matter is that we are definitely moving into the future, a future that will be there whether we have democrats or republicans in charge. Both sides want the same things: clean air and water, less crime and poverty, better education. The mindless charge that the republicans do not want any of these things is hysterical. We are moving toward a better world. It just takes a little more time than any of us would like. What I am reporting today is definitely good news. Have a great weekend.

Another Issue Off the Table

Democrats and Lefties must be very unhappy this morning. The former CEO of the notorious Enron Corporation, Jeffery Skilling, was arrested, and an indictment is expected to be issued presently. While the picture of Skilling in handcuffs is gratifying to one who has been telling the lefties for over two years that this would happen, there is no joy in Mudville today. The left is not happy. In their little world, when justice prevails, and a Republican administration looks good, the news is all bad.

The issue of, well, it goes by many names. But the idea that the Bush administration is a corporatist shill, that lawlessness is the name of the corporate game, that there is no justice for wealthy malfeasors under the republicans... in a normal or fair world it would just go away. There is nothing new about businessmen going to jail. At and near the top in American business, the place where I live, fear of the law is pervasive. Jail, and other sequelae of government interference, oops! regulation of business are common occurrences any time publicly traded stock is a factor. The leftist whining about two Americas, two sets of laws, it is all so much hooey.

As I have said many times, if this guy, or any one of dozens of others who have been in the news for the last few years for similar behavior, did what "they" said he did, i.e. steal shareholder money, lie to increase the price of Enron stock, or otherwise violate our very strict rules of corporate behavior, he will go to jail. In fact, as I write this, he is in jail in the basement of the Federal Courthouse in Houston. In the fullness of time the government will have their chance to present the evidence to a jury of people with good jobs or pensions. And, if the government doesn't piss the jury off, and if he is indeed guilty, he will go to prison. In any event he will lose most of his fortune, and will surely spend a long, a truly lousy period of time being hated by those he formerly thought were his friends.

Of course, the left will not agree with a word I have said. They will argue that this is just a drop in the bucket, and Skilling will get off, and all the rest of their lies and denial, since they do not believe that the system works, and they refuse to allow their argument to be sullied by the facts. But the truth is that, today, the system worked, and this long anticipated arrest has taken place. One more piece of the puzzle fits into place. And, in a fair world, this issue for the left would be off the table. But it's not, not entirely. They will continue to carp and whine about the unfairness of it all. But to those in the great middle, even in the rhetorical world where we live, this action by the feds has deflated the force of the issue against Bush in this election cycle. And that's a good thing.

Bold New Plan, or Brazen Pandering?

John Dunshee over at his fine blog "Just Some Poor Schmuck" has a post detailing some of the latest utterances by the candidate-apparent, including some of his latest grand give-away plans. As I say, this give away plan is the same old crap. And now that most taxpayers no longer have any income taxes to pay, other than the payroll tax, voters have no reason not to vote for every entitlement they see in the democrap candy store. It is a shameful situation that, a little bit down the line, threatens our very nation.

Back during the founding of our nation, doubters wrote that democracy could not work past the point that the voters realize they can vote themselves largesse from the federal treasury. We may be about to reach that point. After it happens, historians will realize that it was this idea of a progressive income tax, which insulates most of the people from the need to pay for any of these goodies, that sealed our fate.

Meanwhile, over at Brothers Judd, there is another post about some of the concerns that democrats are having over a likely Kerry candidacy, that should attract a lively discussion. Clearly John Forbes Kerry is a flawed candidate, but Bush has his own problems as well. Anyone who thinks that this election will be a cakewalk for the Republicans is in for a surprise. As long as about half of the voters believe that the war is over, we are in danger of another Clinton style hollow presidency. It could happen. Believe it. This is no time to relax.

Sleeping With the GOP

Recently the Village Voice ran a column detailing their investigation of how the campaign of Al Sharpton is being financed by noted conservative gadfly, Robert Stone. As the Voice puts it:

Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.

Now, that is one sweeping statement. There must be some truth to it, though. These guys do seem to deserve each other. Yet, even though Stone and Sharpton come from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, they seem to have a lot in common. As Stone has said, he and Sharpton share "a mutual obsession: We both hate the Democratic Party." And, as The Voice points out:

Sharpton and Stone are, in a sense, brothers under the skin, outlandish personalities too large to be bound by the constraints that govern the rest of us. Stone was the registered agent in America for Argentina's intelligence agency, sucking up spy novels; Sharpton was a confidential informant for the FBI, wiring up on black leaders for the feds. Stone is a fashion impersonator, dressing like a hip-hop dandy; Sharpton, having shed his gold medallion and jogger suits, now looks like a smooth banker. Stone was involved in Watergate at the age of 19; Sharpton was a boy-wonder preacher. Stone's mentor from the days of his youth was Roy Cohn; Sharpton's was James Brown. Sharpton is a minister without a church; Stone is almost as rootless, having left the powerhouse Washington firm he helped form years ago. Each reinvents himself daily, if not hourly, as if nothing in their past matters.

But one must remember that this is a hit piece by The Voice. They will do anything to undermine any opposition to the democrat nominee. The Tampa Tribune has a more reasonable take on the Sharpton campaign, and Stone's involvement with it.

Looking past the obvious take, that Sharpton has sold out to Stone for the cash, there is something laudable about what Sharpton is doing. The democrats have been running roughshod over the blacks for a long time. African-American vote totals over 90% garner them no respect, or substantial appointments, from the democrats who win their contests. At least Sharpton will make them promise him something before he will go away. But, what if they won't bow down to the Reverend Al, the way they assuaged Jesse Jackson's ego?

There is a rumor that Stone will back Sharpton in an independent run in 2008, against Hillary. Now, isn't that a deal breaker? I'll bet it's almost enough to get Hillary rooting for Kerry in 2004. Almost.

Time To Pay Attention

With the political season already upon us, way too early, and the war to end all wars simmering away, it is easy to lose track of the other myriad issues that should concern us. One of the most important of these issues is the debate over global warming. This administration has shown no interest is what they consider the small stuff, and evidently global warming is one of those issues. I fear that they will allow this junk science to affect policy, with disturbing results possible. Since many on the side that is against the fruition of the Kyoto protocols believe the issue to be won, those in favor of Kyoto will continue to chip away at the public perception of the state of scientific understanding of global climate.

The people who push the Kyoto protocol are indefatigable in their quest, as they have pursued this issue for at least one hundred years. No, not global climate: that is only a handy tool for them. Their quest is the redistribution of wealth, from the wealthy nations to the "developing," or "third" world. They believe that wealth is a zero-sum game, and that, if only America and Western Europe could be made poorer, the less fortunate will become richer. When their theme was "socialism" or "communism," they picked up enough support to form a few empires, as well as sundry lesser nations that followed this now-disproved theory. Now that the utopian movement has been shown to be a complete failure, they believe that they can get enough support by the chicken little approach: e.g. convince enough mothers that their children are in danger, and thus garner enough support to get the planet to cross this rubicon of "Carbon reduction."

If they were sincere in their quest, Kyoto would not expressly exclude nuclear power as a way (the only practical way-ED) to mitigate CO₂ emissions under the protocol. They can not even agree that trees, which absorb CO₂, should be allowed a role in mitigation. What this means is that, under the Kyoto protocol, the only way for a country to achieve compliance is to burn less fuel. While some gains are possible with new technologies and efficiencies, the massive CO₂ decreases required can only be accomplished by the impoverishment of the developed countries. Of course, since this is no way to sell the deal, any accolyte of "global warming" would deny that this is their goal, and instead try to misdirect your attention to the plight of the children, and back those scientists who are willing to buck their academic establishment into a corner of needing to prove a negative, which is, as we all know, impossible by definition.

Today in my hometown paper there is a letter to the editor by one of the true believers, and for once, this writer is willing to concede a little bit to reality. While soft-pedaling the import of the information, he does concede that the current climate changes as seen in ice cores are a mirror of past conditions (who was burning fossil fuel ten thousand years ago? -ED). Instead of pursuing the scientific case, which is a loser for his side, he launches into fear-mongering, predicting that, given the choice between starving and raiding, humans will raid. To avoid such total lawlessness, he implores us "to give this critically important issue the attention it rightly deserves."

I agree. If we fail to pay attention to this issue, the other side will creep back into relevance. Since the editors of newspapers will print this hysterical side to the argument, we must make sure that those in positions of political power know for an absolute fact that, those of us who are paying attention still think that this is an important issue for the future economic health of our world. And, if indeed we shall undertake to cause changes in our climate, it must be science, not politics, that determine the course of action to take. If it is decided that we should cool the climate, there are many possible technologies that are prohibited from consideration under Kyoto. The Bush administration should, by all means, finance research into alternatives.

For one thing, Hydrogen, which has been touted as a solution to the Carbon emissions problem, is of absolutely of no use unless we develop another source of cheap, clean power. If nuclear is off the table, what other power source can be made available? Hydrogen is, after all, only a means to store energy, since we can't mine it, and it doesn't grow on trees. For another approach, we could look into ways to decrease insolation on the planet's surface, which is more likely to reduce atmospheric temperatures that reductions in carbon dioxide within a lifespan, or less.

But most important of all is the research, which at present is driven by an academic establishment that buys the political case behind Kyoto, so that it is unlikely to fund additional research that will actually increase our understanding of global climate. It has been said that basic research takes too long, but that is all part and parcel of the chicken-little approach. To the true believers, if we wait, their issue will die. So they persist in their prediction that the sky is falling, and we must act, NOW. I, for one, do not believe that it is falling. I am not at all sure that the Earth is even getting warmer. I don't believe that global sea level is rising, and I wonder what to make of the fact that Antarctic ice is increasing. But I have no fear of the truth. More research is definitely indicated in the area of climate and climate change. I say: "Bring it on!!"

All Hail the Royal He

We Americans are so lucky. Now that John Forbes Kerry is about to contend for the highest office in the land, we find out that he has royal blood in his veins, and was a cousin to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And he is not only royal by blood, but he was a friend of the previous American royal, and former owner of the sobriquet JFK, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

According to an article published last week,

Senator Kerry's mother was a Forbes whose ancestor, Rev. John Forbes (died 1783), was a noted Anglican clergyman and magistrate in East Florida. Rev. Forbes' wife was Dorothy Murray, daughter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's matrilineal immigrant ancestors, James Murray of North Carolina and Massachusetts and Barbara Bennet of North Carolina. (Thus Kerry and FDR are fourth cousins twice removed.) The Forbeses, Murrays and Bennets were all of royal descent.

Senator Kerry's mother's mother was Margaret Pyndal Winthrop of the family that founded Massachusetts Bay, a granddaughter of Robert Charles Winthrop, Speaker of the US House of Representatives and a great-grandson himself of Revolutionary statesman James Bowdoin, for whom the college is named. The wife of R.C. Winthrop, Speaker of the House, was the daughter of a Cabot and great- granddaughter of a Higginson and a Pickering of the Boston Brahmin families of those surnames.

Now, isn't that special?

And lest we lose sight of the real John Forbes Kerry in all this talk of ancestors long dead, let us remember something of the current JFK. This is the man, when defending B.J.Clinton's (lack of) service record, said: "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet now John Forbes Kerry is viciously attacking President Bush's service record, who, after all, did serve in the Texas Air National Guard. This attack, it seems to me, opens the door to an examination of JFK's own record on military and national security issues.

John "Benedict" Kerry is an essay that reprises the Career of Benedict Arnold, noted American General in the Revolution, and noted traitor in that same conflict, and compares Arnold to J.F.Kerry, who also was an American officer in war who subsequently took political actions that undermined American policy, and contributed in some small way to the deaths of thousands of America's allies.

Kerry's record on national security issues is definitely an issue that bears some scrutiny.

The campaign has not truly begun, and we will have many months to explore this man, and it is proper that we examine his history, and attempt to discover his fitness to serve in the highest office in the land. Even though the democrats have not had their convention yet, it is becoming crystal clear that john Forbes Kerry will be the nominee. Therefore, let the games begin!


UPDATE: Blogger has added an RSS Site Feed. It's new, and not universally compatible. Let me know if you have any problems with it.

Shooting out of Both Sides of their Mouths

So now Strategy Page has an overview of European outlays for military strength, and the outlook is grim:

Since the Cold War ended in 1991, defense spending has been in decline throughout the world. In 1990, NATO countries average spending on defense was 4.7 percent of its GNP. By 2002, even after the terrorist attacks on America, it had reached a low of 1.9 percent.

On the one hand, they refuse to approbate any use of force by the United States in the political realm and, on the other hand, they unilaterally disarm themselves, leaving the American armed forces as the sole military organization with the strength to operate against any opponent stronger than Chad.

At least they appear to be modernising the forces that they are retaining:

The good news in all this is that Europe, agonizingly and slowly, is following the US lead in deploying transformational weapons and introducing new asymmetrical tactics for fighting terrorists. Lighter and more mobile brigades are being fielded by most Western countries, especially in Britain and Germany, equipped with light armored vehicles (LAVs), laser range finders, and GPS. Aircraft will be used with greater efficiency and in smaller numbers, armed with precision munitions and stand-off weapons. New amphibious vessels are also being built, along with aircraft carriers, and fast sealift vessels, all geared toward expeditionary warfare.

So they are showing the appearance of keeping pace qualitatively, yet they are quantitatively slimming down their forces to the point where they could be, at best, a minor player in any major action.

It really sucks to be taken advantage of like this. They would never dare to disarm themselves unless they were pretty damn sure that we would be available on a moment's notice when and if we are needed. They decry our role as the world's policeman, yet they refuse to arm any other cop on the beat. It is all so, well, Continental.

If You Just Can't Get Enough....

I continue to get requests for more stuff than I am able to post on this here web site. I guess I've got a few fans, believe it or not. Some of the reason why I don't post more is that I spend far more time reading than writing. A lot of the time, when I am reading another blog, I leave a comment or two. In fact, some of my best (and worst - Ed.) writing is in those comments, as well as some fine debate on issues that should interest anyone who would read this page. I have, in the past, on this page, tried to post here and include some of my comments left elsewhere, but that has always seemed weak, as well as unfair to the others involved. So, I am going to try a little experiment.

I am going to start posting links to some threads I am following on other blogs. Most will contain some comments of mine, but all will be items well worth reading, IMHO. Of course, I got this idea from someone else, but, predictably, I forget who. If I remember, I will give a hat tip at that time, but, so as to not hold up the proceedings, herewith I give you:

Some comment threads I am following:

On Brothers Judd:
You know it's the Times Editorial Board when....
Rather Switch Than Fight

On Daily Pundit:
Kerry says threat of terrorism is exaggerated
Are You Kidding Me? (Clinton as Middle East Envoy)

On Just Some Poor Schmuck
Some Iraqis The Democrats Can Get Behind.
He Ain't Called Weasly For Nothin'

On Horologium
More doublespeak from Kerry


And, the link to the video clip of the aftermath of the bombing in Israel from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

We shall see how this goes. And have a happy Sunday!

John Kerry, New Front Runner

After my last prediction, on the Iowa caucuses, I am out of the prediction business. But it requires no special oracle to state that John Kerry is the new front runner in the race to attain the democrat party's nomination. Watching him yesterday, and realizing that this man might actually win the White House, was more than a little depressing. How could the democrats, the party of the downtrodden, consider nominating another patrician, a man born to the manner, and to the manor, and who has married the wealthiest widow in the world. A man who disgraced the nation whose uniform he wore as soon as he took it off, a man who fraudulently discarded his medals, only to take them back the minute it suited his purpose to do so... FEH. Disgraceful. I could go on, but in today's Wall Street Journal, Stephen Sherman, a fellow Lieutenant in Viet Nam with Kerry, bemoans the fact that Kerry is using his service to grab the votes of men who would otherwise never even conceive of voting for such an empty suit. A sample:

He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he accepted at face value.

In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals--so now he can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam.

We will no doubt have many more opportunities to examine the life and qualifications of this guy in the weeks and months ahead. I wish that I could ignore the contest. All of these unqualified men contesting for the most powerful elected office on Earth, willing to tell any lie, kiss any baby, do any thing, in order to get himself elected. Once George Bush was himself one of these men. But he has emerged from the crucible, was tested on 9/11, and now we are at war. The truly frightening thing is that so many do not realize that we are at war. The same ones who elected B.J.Clinton on the premise that we were living in easy times, and thus allowed our enemies to grow as strong as they have become.

I wish that we were not living in such interesting times. I wish that we were not at war. But we are. And wartime is no time to elect another man who loathes the military. Hanoi Jane's partner in disgrace. Looking at John Kerry fills me with revulsion. I'll say it again. FEH.

The Next Stage of History

Ten Months ago, in what Orrin Judd called what "may have been the best thing written last year about the role of America in the present danger," Lee Harris set out a truly clearheaded delineation of the world that we have before us, and how 9/11 made it obvious to all who would see how our world has changed, forever. He points out how the Classical Liberal worldview that we have come to know and love is in danger of becoming a Hobbesian state of universal war. We have come to the edge of this precipice by allowing the status of sovereign nation to be applied to those who refuse to play the game of geopolitics by the same rules by which the rest of the world plays.

Harris posits the question: what would we do if Chicago disappears in a nuclear explosion and we do not know exactly who transported the bomb?

Could we really count on being able to find its "return address" if in fact it was the work of a "rogue" state? We know that, in fact, the answer is no; and we know that "they" know this as well; and they know we know - all of which only begins to suggest the surrealism that is characteristic of the crisis with which we are faced. For it means that if they chose to delegate such a horrendous act to an entity like Al Qaeda, they would force us into an impossible choice: Either we accept such an attack without retaliating, or else we are forced to lash out blindly - and in the same spirit of blood feud and vendetta with which the attack was made. And either choice transcends our present categories of comprehension. The first "rogue" nuclear strike - a strike from an unknown and even unknowable source - is a genie that once out of the bottle can never be put back in. It would cause an overnight catastrophic transformation of the world. In many ways we must be grateful that Al Qaeda's fingerprints were over all 9-11. For what if we had had no clue - even today - who had perpetrated such an act?

Would the world we have come to know still exist, or would it change, that moment, into something entirely different? And, more important, can we allow that to happen?

He points out some other uncomfortable situations, such as:

What Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have in common is that they became rich because the West paid them for natural resources that the West could simply have taken from them at will, and without so much as a Thank You, if the West had been inclined to do so. They were, by one of the bitter paradoxes of history, the pre-eminent beneficiaries of the Western liberalism that they have pledged themselves to destroy. Their power derives entirely from the fact that the West had committed itself, in the aftermath of World War II, to a policy of not robbing other societies of their natural resources simply because it possessed the military might to do so.

and therefore

This gives a sense of Greek tragedy, with its dialectic of hubris and nemesis, to what has been unfolding in the Islamic world. If they continue to use terror against the West, their very success will destroy them. If they succeed in terrorizing the West, they will discover that they have in fact only ended by brutalizing it. And if subjected to enough stress, the liberal system will be set aside and the Hobbesian world will return - and with its return, the Islamic world will be crushed. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. And the only way to avoid this horrendous end is to bring the Islamic world back to sanity sooner rather than latter.

Nothing but force can break them from their illusion. Not because there is something wrong with them as a race, but simply because they are acting like any other individual who has been permitted to live in a dream world - they continue to fantasize. And who can blame them? It is only brute fact that shakes any of us from the single most cherished of our illusions - the myth of our own grandeur and omnipotence. And this is as true of a culture as of an individual.

and further

An illuminating metaphor here is a game of chess between two equally skilled players: no matter how bitter the conflict between them, each can understand the rationale and motivation behind the other player's moves - and in fact, if the other player appears to make an irrational move, his opponent will be hesitant to conclude that the move was a mere mistake, and will be far more likely to suspect that it is a trap and act accordingly.

But what happens when you a playing chess with someone who refuses to accept the rules of the game? How do you respond if your opponent begins to jump his knight in all sorts of bizarre zigzag patterns, so that you cannot predict where he will land or what piece he will seize?

In a game of chess the answer is obvious: You stop playing with the madman and go your separate way. But this, unfortunately, is not an option in dealing with genuine conflicts arising in the real world.

and then

But that precisely is the nature of the crisis we are facing. The liberal world system has collapsed internally: there is no longer a set of rules that govern all the players. And here I do not mean ethical rules, for that cannot be expected, but what Kant called maxims of prudence, those regulatory principles that enforce a realistic code of conduct on all the participants in a well-ordered system, and which allows us to know for a near certainty what the other players will not even conceive of doing. Such rules, once again, are trans-cultural, and must be trans-cultural if they are to permit all the players to participate in them. They constitute the precondition of any politically stable system, for without them there is the danger of cognitive anarchy - a situation in which no one can any longer predict with confidence what the others will do. And that is the gateway to disaster. For when you do not know what to expect, it becomes prudent to expect the worst; but when all expect the worst, the worst is bound to happen.

Harris brings clarity to the Palestinian problem, with

There is, of course, nothing to keep one from applying the purely honorific title of "state" to the Palestinians, for example, just as the English are perfectly entitled to dub a popular singer a Knight, though it would be dangerous to rely on him to defend the realm. But merely to call the Palestinian community a "state" does not and cannot transform it into a viable subsistent entity if those who govern and decide its course are utterly lacking in a sense of what is realistically available to them. And nothing highlights this more than the official explanation, on the part of Palestinian spokesmen, for those acts of terrorism committed by the suicide-bombers, the assertion that these are acts of war. For the bitter truth is that if the Palestinian people were indeed a genuine state fighting a genuine war, they would have long since been annihilated root and branch - or else they would have been forced to make a realistic accommodation with the state of Israel, based on a just assessment of the latter's immense superiority of resources, both military and political. And the reason for this superiority, by a paradox typical of history, is not American aid or funding, but the fact that the state of Israel has been forced to struggle for every moment of its existence from the very day of its birth - and it is this struggle that has made them into what no assembly of nations can ever bestow - a viable state. And unless the Palestinians as a people can set aside their fantasies of pushing a vastly superior enemy into the sea, instead of seeking out a realistic modus vivendi with him, they may demand a state, and even be "recognized" as a state. But it will exist as a viable entity only by virtue of the liberal conscience - and seemingly inexhaustible forbearance - of the Israeli people.

But, not only does Harris show us the problem, he offers the solution. There is so much here. I agree with Orrin Judd, this is truly "the best thing written last year about the role of America in the present danger," and it was written before the USA attacked Iraq. Please read this clearheaded delineation of where we are, and where we have to go, if you value the world we live in, and want to participate in the debate as we move forward.

Spam Us. Because We Demand It!

Spam. The one thing that seems to define our times is the ubiquity of messages and data that confront us, the vast majority of which are unwanted and intrusive, to one degree or another. Commercials, at least, pay the freight for the television and radio programming that we watch. And, of course, we are able to utilize hefty amounts of denial in regard to commercials. We can fantasize that WE are too smart to be programmed by commercials. OUR buying decisions are NOT influenced by ADS! Spam, on the other hand, is not so easily susceptible to denial. Who can deny that spam is an intrusive drag on our time? We can, at least, lie to ourselves about the rate at which we enrich the spammers.

Now, don't get all crazy on me. I made my money in direct marketing, which is a wonderful business for many reasons, but one of the best things about direct marketing is that you know exactly what your competitors are doing. No guesswork involved. No doubt. The first rule of direct marketing is this: If he repeats the campaign, he made money from it. This simple rule is the reason we have so much spam in our inboxes every morning. It also offers the one foolproof way to eliminate spam. IF we wish to avail ourselves of it.

We merely need to follow Nancy Reagan's dictum, and JUST SAY NO!!! That's it. It really is that simple. All spam would disappear in under thirty days. Not most spam, but all spam. Now. All we need to do is stop giving the spammers money. Period.

I know that I should go on and on, making my case, adding links, and filling out this post. But why? There can be no debate. As surely as an apple will always fall down, due to gravity, any spam you get a second time, made money for the spammer the first time, due to the law of supply and demand. When I get one of those Nigerian letters, what always hits me is "This cheesy come-on STILL WORKS?!?!?!" And all of these Viagra and penis elongator missives make me sad for the condition of all the women who are clearly confronted by men who feel inadequate, since the sheer number and variety of these spams show that there is enough business from these to enrich entire colonies of spammers.

And then there is an entire industry that has sprung up to enrich those who promise to mitigate this problem of unsolicited commercial email, whose products probably work about as well as the penis cream does. Plus an unending amount of articles and books trying to tell us about the terrible problem of spam, and what we can or should do about it. Including this post. And I work for free!

And, since we can NOT say no, we can expect more of the same, plus an increasing amount of laws and regulations coming down the road, all because the public can't keep their plastic inside their pants. Please. Just say no. Stop this avalanche of crap that arrives avery day, every minute. I am getting a minimum of a thousand spam messages a week. My "delete" key is wearing out. Email newsletters are about to be legislated out of existence. Email itself may become unusable soon.

The next time you are tempted to respond to an offer you just can't refuse, JUST SAY NO!!

The Task at Hand

Guest Post by Scott Harris

When US embassies, US servicemen abroad, US civilians abroad, and US warships were attacked in the past, we acted like spurned guests. That is, if your host doesn't want you, you leave. When 9/11 happened, we were attacked in our own home. That forever changed the situation. Al Qaeda is not the problem. Neither is the Israel/Palestine situation. The problem is an entire region of people being brainwashed by their leaders into hating modernism, and hating America (and Israel) as a proxy for their own failures.

Once attacked at home, we are not going to politely leave. We are not going to obsess over any complicity our past submissiveness played in causing the problem. And we certainly are not going to continue in that submissiveness. We are coming into the home of the attacker and he is either going to be convinced attacking us was a bad idea, or he is going to be killed. We will not surrender to coercion.

Bush did not foist this war on the American people. The American people demanded it. And the quickest path to electoral failure would be for Bush to deviate from his current path. The American people demand that he stay the course until the task is accomplished.

The task is NOT revenge for 9/11. The task is NOT the liberation of Iraq. The task is NOT general liberation from tyrants. The task is NOT finding weapons of mass destruction. The task is NOT solving the internecine conflict of the Palestinians and Israelis. The task is NOT converting the world to democracy. The task is NOT foisting American ideology on the world. The task is NOT grabbing control of oil fields. The task is NOT playing the world's policeman. The task is NOT trying to please internationalists, or multiculturalists. The task is NOT paying attention to the concerns of Arabs. The task is NOT paying attention to the concerns of Europeans, or anyone else. The task is NOT trying to make the world like us.

The task may include any of the above, in part, or in whole. But any of the above things which are accomplished are merely necessary for accomplishing the real task, or side effects of accomplishing that task. The real Task at hand is the utter and complete destruction of the threat of terrorism to our way of life, our freedom, our people, and our nation.

We are set on a course to overcome the enemy. We will not be swayed. If Bush stops before this task is accomplished, he will be punished at the polls. If a Democratic candidate fails to convince us that he will stay the course, he will fail at the polls.

Because we value human rights, human liberty, and human life, we will attempt to minimize the damage caused in this endeavor. But if you are convinced of anything, you must be convinced of this one thing. You must get this through your mind. You must internalize it. You must believe it.

There is no price that we are unwilling to pay to protect our lives, our liberty, our nation, and our way of life. There is no weapon we will not be willing to employ to achieve that goal up to and including nuclear annihilation. We are angry. But our anger is tempered by our power and our responsibility. It is a quiet and determined rage. But it is a rage. Those who would dismiss it, or denigrate it do not understand us.

We have no desire for empire. We are not bloodthirsty. But we will eliminate the threat to our nation. We have stayed in Europe for 63 years to ensure that the conflicts that, combined, have cost almost one million American lives, will not be repeated.

And we will stay the course in the Middle East as well. It is now our problem. And it WILL be solved. It is up to Middle Easterners to determine how many lives that will require. We are willing to be best friends. But we are also willing to be executioners, if necessary. Never forget it. It is the people of the Middle East who must change to stop attacking us. We are a forgiving people. But our memory is long, and our determination is high. We have the means and the motive to ensure this task is completed. And we will see it succeed, one way or another.

Originally posted by Scott Harris at January 14, 2004 05:24 PM

A Small and Pitiful Man

Thus did James Taranto describe Al Gore, in his ever entertaining and illuminative Best of the Web column of Friday, January 26th. Taranto thoughtfully provides a link to the text of Gore's speech, and I fear that James has understated the case. Al Gore is a once proud man, the scion of a powerful family with seemingly no barriers between his position as second in command to a popular president and his destination, the Oval Office. Then, what happened?

I shall not reprise the 2000 campaign and what exactly he did wrong that lost him the election. I am sure that some part of his defeat had to do with items that were out of his control, but surely most of the blame rests squarely on his broad shoulders. But after losing the campaign, he lost any chance of ever claiming his spot in the White House. He unnecessarily dragged the nation through six weeks of needless torture, and, after baring his soul to all who would look, we saw a small and pitiful man, who could not even win his own state, and who, after those six weeks, could not now get himself nominated to run for dogcatcher.

Now comes the year 2004, and Al the Pitiful picks the coldest night in years to declaim his understanding of the threat of global warming! And of course, in the process, he blames the whole thing on George W. Bush. In an example of the sort of demagoguery that will convince only the already convinced he makes statements such as

I don’t think there is any longer a credible basis for doubting that the earth’s atmosphere is heating up because of global warming. So the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

a statement which presupposes that the listener hasn't been paying attention. There may be a debate, but denying that the other side has any argument at all says that there can be no debate. Since the last vote in the Senate was 97 to nothing against Kyoto, without debate, Gore insures that his side loses. Without debate, no one's opinion can be changed. Pitiful.

But that's nothing. Then he comes up with this one:

These and other activities make it abundantly clear that the Bush White House represents a new departure in the history of the Presidency. He is so eager to accommodate his supporters and contributors that there seems to be very little that he is not willing to do for them at the expense of the public interest. To mention only one example, we’ve seen him work tirelessly to allow his friends to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Indeed, it seems at times as if the Bush-Cheney Administration is wholly owned by the coal, oil, utility and mining companies.

Wow. The first half of that quote reflects the Clinton/Gore administration more than any other. The second half... if the president "works tirelessly" to accomplish something that could be accomplished with an executive order, and fails to accomplish it, why, that belies all the rest of the speech, which is about how effective the Bush administration has been at gutting environmental regulations.

This speech has many more outright lies than is normal for a political speech. The best, or at least most egregious example, is his tireless reference to the "consensus" of scientists. As I have pointed out before, there is no use for consensus in science. All scientific discovery or advance has contradicted the consensus. Only one Newton, Galileo, or Einstein is needed to blow away a scientific consensus. Consensus is not a word used in science. It is a word used in politics.

Which is all that "Global Warming" is about anyway. Politics. From a has-been. As I said, a small and pitiful man.

O'Neill: Nothing New

So, in a more-ridiculous-than-usual stampede to get into print, all media outlets have been publishing the story of Paul O'Neill and his new book. The most important item the book "reports"?

O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, is quoted in the book as saying the president was focused on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq from the start of his administration.

But, is this news? Demonstrably not.

A State Department report outlining the history of U.S. policy toward Iraq states that regime change was the policy since May of 1991:

About two months after the failure of the Shiite uprising, President George H.W. Bush forwarded to Congress an intelligence finding stating that the United States would undertake efforts to promote a military coup against Saddam Hussein

Regime change was the policy of B.J.Clinton as well, and regime change was enshrined in law since November 1998 in the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA, H.R. 4655, P.L. 105-338) signed into law by B.J. October 31, 1998.

How can it be news that O'Neill has written that Bush was following the law, and pursuing a decade old policy? Sour grapes from a disgruntled former employee is to be expected. The news media covering these ruminations of an incompetent as if they are news, when they are demonstrably NOT news, should not be expected.

As a supporter of Bush's reelection, I should be happy about this. After all, if these zealots can come up with nothing better than this, Bush is looking pretty good. But I am not happy, because this episode shows that the media are zealously using all of the power at their command to unseat the president, and that can not possibly be a good thing.

(By the way, if you would rather have that State Department report in a .pdf file, it is here. The link above is to an HTML version from Google, with the search terms highlighted.)

Paying the Bills

In this political year, we are seeing a plethora of hate-Bush books leading the best seller lists. Heading into Christmas, the first three books on the New York Times bestseller list were “Dude, Where's My Country?” by Michael Moore, the clown prince of Bushophobia, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”, a leftish rant by Al Franken, and then an angry conservative rejoinder, “Who's Looking Out For You?” by Bill O' Reilly of Fox News. Just below them sits another hefty seller—“Bushwhacked” by two Texan detractors, Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.

But to me, the most interesting offering is Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush," just out from Viking Press. It is accompanied by a media blitz in (the usual suspects) leftie rags like Mother Jones and Rolling Stone. It is, as far as I can see by reading reviews, the book is extremely thin on fact or footnotes, relying instead on unsupported innuendo and speculation. After reading the coverage of this book, my only thought was that I never realized just how badly Kevin needed the money. Plillips, a (formerly) conservative political commentator and the guy who literally wrote the book that became the blueprint for the party's dominance of presidential politics, served as the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon in 1968, and, in The Emerging Republican Majority, he formulated the "Southern Strategy" that helped hand the White House to the GOP for a generation.

Whatever happened to loyalty? Thank goodness not all writers are whores like Phillips and Dean (Dean chimes in with "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush," from Little, Brown in April). It sure looks like anti-Bush tomes are making a ton of money, but one would think that, before committing such a betrayal, one would need some facts to write about. I know that Michael Moore and Al Franken live in a world without fact, but until recently Kevin Phillips was a resident of a more real, and (dare I say it?) intellectual world.In fact, the only real criticism I have of all of these books is that their publishers have chosen to classify them as Non-Fiction.

I would have loved to have given this book a real fisking but, since I have not been able to lay my hands on it yet, I think I'll pass. After reading the coverage of this rag, I have no need or desire to delve into it further. To a certain sector of the public, G.W.Bush is the bogie-man, the absolute personification of all that is evil in the night. I now know that Kevin Phillips resides in that sector. That's how he is paying his bills. That's all I need to know about this book.

[Update] In the "Great Minds Think Alike" department, The American Thinker has a post on Kevin Phillips' demonology of the Bush family, which refers to a Los Angeles Times article based upon Phillips' book. In the "I wish I had Turned a Phrase Like That" department, I offer this bon mot:

Inquiring minds would question how a President so putatively in hock to Middle Eastern oil interests manages to be a firm supporter of Israel who also promises to transform the Middle East by firmly establishing democracy there. If Phillips’s argument had any heft to it, he owes us an explanation of why he doesn’t praise George W. Bush for transcending the limitations he inherited from his “dynasty.”

When the 41st President, George Herbert Walker Bush, stood for election and re-election, there was ample chance to excavate all of these historical roots of his family, and many conspiracy theorists spun their webs. Dredging up such stale charges a fourth time is not only a disservice to the character of public discourse, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American public.

Well put, as per usual, which is why I blogrolled American Thinker the first time I read their site. Check it out.

Bush Lied

In recent days, I have been noting more and more complaints that "Bush Lied." It seems to be the big argument against the presidency of G.W.Bush. His putative opponents in the presidential campaign to come all keep saying "Bush lied" like some kind of a mantra, or some magic words that will make Bush disappear. The rest of the left, and the trolls on so many web sites where debates on the upcoming election thrive, repeat the mantra ad nauseum.

The reason that these petty arguments against Bush seem so insubstantial is that those who espouse them have decided that Bush is "BAD" before searching for an argument against him. Like throwing the dart against the wall and then drawing the bullseye around the point of impact, they admire their handiwork, but the rest of us, those who view the scene with a critical eye, see an insubstantial pattern of half truths and innuendo.

OK, Bush lied. SO WHAT? The fact is that we are all safer for the fact that Saddam is out of power. We are all safer for the fact that Gaddafi is afraid of what Bush might do next, so he is turning over his WMD programs and info on Iran and North Korea. We are all safer for the fact that Assad of Syria is less likely to make trouble and support terrorists, because he is afraid of what Bush might do next. We are all safer for the fact that Iran is opening up their nuclear reactors for inspection, because 150,000 American troops are on their borders. We are all safer for the fact that America has become a factor in the Middle East equation that we never were until the arrival of those same 150,000 troops in Iraq, plus the takeover of Afghanistan by the Afghan patriots we supported. We are all safer for the fact that Bush presided over the two most masterful military campaigns in history, and the evil dictators all over the world were watching.

America is now the only significant world power, with less to fear than ever before, and all the carping martinets of the left can come up with is BUSH LIED??? Twenty five million Iraqis don't have to worry about being thrown into a shredder, but that can't be a good thing, because BUSH LIED?

This so-called liar will most likely be the first President in American history to win all fifty states. And we are all safer for it. God bless Bush, and thank God that the opposition to his presidency can come up with nothing better than BUSH LIED!!!

Not to mention that, I don't think he did, and if he did, it could never be proven. I am not happy with the status of personal freedom in this country, but then, I am not happy that we are at war with a few million crazies who have dreams of taking over the world. Like him or not, Bush was the man on watch on 9/11, we are at war, and with Bush's firm hand on the tiller, we will win this war. Nothing in my lifetime is so important as winning this war. And, if the president has to lie in order to get the Congress to support his war plan, so be it.

Whither Osama

Like a bad penny, stories of the whereabouts of our arch-enemy, Osama bin laden, keep circulating anew. Recently Monsoor Ijaz, a usually reliable observer of the scene, claimed to have information that OBL is a guest of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran. Now the Financial Times has run a story saying the same thing.

Personally, I believe that OBL has been dead for two years, but, there DOES seem to be some coherence to the sightings, i.e. in a small area on either side of the Afghanistan border, either in the Tribal trust Lands on the border with Pakistan, or along the border with Iran. I've been there, and there is no great structural edifice delineating this border. The Durrand line, between Afghanistan and Pakistan, was constructed by the British Empire, and in no way respects the reality of the people living on that ground. Colonel Durrand was concerned merely with the military defensiblity of the line, not cultural congruence. The border with Iran, on the other hand, has been firm for less than fifty years, and was decided by people living far from the border area. Much of the border is a trackless waste, with no landmarks for miles, or even a tree. On either border, the tribe or family which controls the land on one side of the line usually controls the land on the other.

You must understand the religious-historical background of the region as well: Muslims attacked and subjugated these areas over a millennium ago, and as a result the local population became Muslims, and pretty devout Muslims at that. In many ways, Osama bin Laden represents the bloodline of Mohammad to many of these people. Thus he enjoys the status of almost a demigod among some Muslims there, and he has exploited this history to make himself into something of a cult leader, especially among the Pashtuns, who could be expected to protect him - or to conspire to convince others that he is still alive. Those who don't know very much about it may make too much of the enmity between the Shia and the Sunni. The relationship is a lot more complicated than a mere feud.

We may never know what happened to Osama. If he is dead, his legend will go on forever. If he is alive, however, we can expect to see him, sooner rather than later. If he has made a deal with the Revolutionary Guards in Iran, he has bound up his future in Iranian politics. One thing is for sure, though: if he IS alive, he won't be for long. Living on the run in that part of the world, with a twenty five million dollar price on your head, is not congruent with long life.

"Unilateral": Newspeak for "Sovereign"

Unilateral - Newspeak for Sovereign

George Orwell had a way with words. His explorations of the use and abuse of power are necessary to the modern undestanding of politics. Newspeak, now more often referred to as "code words," is quite common in our political discourse, as pundits and candidates abuse the language to insert their ideas into the audience's mind. The latest abuse of the English language, used by the Left to brainwash the public, is the way that they, and I refer here especially to Howard Dean, are using the term "unilateral."

As any kid in grade school can tell you, "unilateral" means "one-sided," or "acting alone." This is somehow to be considered a terrible way for a nation to act, but how can he accuse us of being "unilateral" when we have 60 other nations at our side? Clearly we have to look further to see what is meant when he uses the term "unilateral." Clearly he is condemning us for acting as a sovereign nation. He gave the show away when he, in the question and answer period after his speech at the Pacific Council, said the he would have gone to war only if the United Nations had given us "permission" to act. Since they had already given us broad power to act, under Security Council resolutions starting with S.C.R. 678 in 1990, but made absolutely clear with S.C.R. 1441 in 2002, he was waiting for some really, really specific "permission."

To reveal his thinking this way was a major mistake by the presumptive Democrat nominee. Thus revealing his Transnational agenda, and his belief in a one world government, shows that he uses "unilateral" when he means that we acted as a "sovereign" nation, without "permission." Why the secrecy? Why obfuscate his real agenda? Because one world government is an antidemocratic concept. There can be no democracy when the scope is world-wide. Not if the citizens of America have their vote devalued into nothingness. This two hundred fifty million person nation will never allow itself to be submerged within the five billion (and rising) on the planet. India and China alone control the World under this form of government. So the only way for the Tranzis and Dean to ever gain their dream is by secrecy, and backing the nation into the deal with blinders on. Concepts like "international law" are used to inure the people to the idea that we must allow the rule of those who are far away, since the truth, that the twenty five million of Afghanistan should be able to outvote the twenty two million of California, will surely never fly if the people have their eyes open. Thus the strategy to slide these concepts past us, until they can present us with a fait acompli, an inevitable fact, the way they tried to slip the Kyoto protocol past us.

Now, you can call me a wild eyed lunatic for my ravings today, and I hope that you are correct. I would sleep better if I did not believe that the Utopian movement is still alive. You might point out that it is illogical for any American to favor a single government for the planet. And you would be right. But all Tarnzies are atheists, and Transnational Progressivism is their religion. It seems that we humans are hard-wired for Faith, and those who talk themselves out of a belief in God are left vulnerable to crackpot ideas, like TP, or Environmentalism, which they believe in with a zeal that any fundamentalist could recognize. No logic is required, where faith is involved.

So keep an eye on Dean and the rest of the crowd who use "Unilateral" to describe the actions of the U.S.A., and see for yourself if they are really accusing America as merely acting like a sovereign nation, or are they accusing us of acting ALONE. The COWBOYS! How unsophisticated those Americans are!

Uncommon Knowledge

It is no secret to my regular readers that I hold the common knowledge in disdain. The problem with common knowledge is that it is always wrong. This tendency for masses of people to get things wrong is compounded by our news media, who in their zeal to make every human event into a crisis, misinform us as a matter of course. And that which they can not make a crisis they make a mystery.

Like the mystery of the democrat nominee. As my regular readers know for over a month now, Howard Dean already has enough votes to get the nomination. Absent a horrendous misstep by his campaign, he's the loser-designee. Anything you hear about a "race" in the democrat party is being told by either someone with an agenda or someone who doesn't know. Yet everywhere you turn, the race is depicted as being in doubt, with Dean in the lead. Not so. It's already over.

Global Warming. While anyone who has been paying attention knows that global climate today is somewhere in the warmer range of historical climate, but nowhere near historic highs; this debate, and others driven by junk science, threatens to overwhelm us. Yet the hubris of the belief that we puny humans can, by altering our behavior, change planetary climate, is a juggernaut that seemingly can not be stopped.

And now we have Mad Cow Disease, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. A disease of a new type, caused by replicating proteins called Prions, that thrive in brain tissue. Now that a single case, in a single cow, has been found in America, the hysteria has begun. Every person and organization with an agenda is beating the bushes to create a crisis. The fact that the entire world-wide extent of Mad Cow disease in humans runs to just over a hundred cases, and you must eat cow brains to get it, will not stop the foretellers of doom. Nations will now embargo American beef, and dietary habits will change. All for what?

To bring down the cost of my T-Bone steaks, or course! Happy Holidays!!