Things I read on a Tuesday morning

There is so much wonderful stuff out there on the web, but I have to admit that I have a finite number of websites I routinely visit every morning.  Get up, brush teeth, read specific websites.  At those websites, the following piqued by interest:

John Pitney gives many painful examples of the Democrats’ overwhelming dominance in all areas of politics, putting the lie to their pathetic whine that the Republicans are bullying them.

In a most amazingly elegant and thoughtful column Fouad Ajami looks at Obama’s personality, both viewed on its merits and in comparison to other presidents, most notably Reagan’s wonderfully sunny personality.  This is more important than one might think, since Obama, unlike any president before him, was elected on personality alone.

A federal appellate court granted asylum to an Indonesian family to protect its younger daughter from genital mutilation, a procedure forced on their older daughter.  Given the Muslim war on women, I have to agree with this decision.  There’s no way, though, that we can protect every woman in the world who is on the receiving end of female genital mutilation, and we certainly can’t grant asylum to all of them, so this is just a drop in the bucket and one lucky girl.

Rebecca Hagelin warns us that we can no longer rely on the Disney brand as a way to protect our children’s innocence.  Disney has gone as skanky as everyone else.  This is hard for me, as a parent, because I was optimistic that there was at least one media brand on my side.

The CIA has made some big mistakes in the past, but it’s also done some very, very good things:  most notably, protecting America from another terrorist attack in the eight years since 9/11.  That the Holder/Obama justice department is now turning on those people in the CIA who are willing to protect the nation by doing its dirty work is a gross travesty — and this is especially true considering the fact that it was only in April 2009 that Obama promised to protect CIA operatives from any repercussions from their being forced by their own nation to live in an ethical gray area.  IBD agrees with me.  I’ll add something that IBD didn’t say:  Obama is a lying schmuck.

When it comes to the attack on the CIA, Jonah Goldberg recognizes a political witch hunt when he sees one, but believes the American people will be more sanguine.  After all, they’ve cheerfully watched their favorite Hollywood heroes torture bad guys for years.  Americans still like people who have to do bad things for good reasons.

And finally on the subject of the CIA, Bret Stephens explains that liberals once again have the shoe on the other foot when it comes to the CIA.  Covert operatives were the celebrities du jour when it involved the Plamegate scandal.  That is, back then, it was a mortal sin to reveal their identities.  Now, it’s a sure thing.

Elliott Abrams explains in straightforward, organized language precisely why the “oh so compassionate and wonderful” Obama administration is a human rights disaster.  I’m not surprised.  This is an authoritarian guy who loves other authoritarian guys, recognizing them as kindred spirits.

Cal Thomas spells out precisely how Obama’s economic policies which, in terms of spending amounts, are the same as but infinitely greater than previous administrations’, will destroy America.  The next president should run on an “I will spend nothing” platform.

Jay Nordlinger’s opening impromptu addresses the fact that the Left allows Bible-waving only when the Left’s members are pretty sure the Bible-waver doesn’t believe in the good book.

Dennis Prager has always understood the difference between compassion and justice, something seldom demonstrated more strongly than with Scotland’s decision to release the Lockerbie bomber:  “[U]nlike justice, compassion cannot be given to everyone. If you show compassion to person X or group X, you cannot show it to person Y or group Y. Justice, by definition, is universal. Compassion, by definition, is selective.  [Para.]  That is why, generally speaking, governments should be in the business of dispensing justice, not compassion. Individuals can, and often ought to, dispense compassion, not societies.”

One of the points I’ve hammered relentlessly since Obama announced his candidacy is the fact that he is an out-and-out liar.  Liberals ignored it, but they’re finally catching on to that irrefutable fact.  Lorie Byrd believes Obama’s tenuous relationship to truth is going to be the kryptonite to his “super” presidency.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. roylofquist says

    Book,

    I wasn’t CIA but I worked with them on occasion. The title of my security clearance is still classified 45 years later.

    The fact of matter, to which I can personally attest, is that the things they do right are never known. Never.

    Roy

  2. says

    There’s no way, though, that we can protect every woman in the world who is on the receiving end of female genital mutilation, and we certainly can’t grant asylum to all of them, so this is just a drop in the bucket and one lucky girl.

    No, but there’s always my plan of a war of extermination that can be adopted. You can’t save everyone. But you can try to kill a whole bunch of people and stack them up like cord wood. That’s a suitable alternative, I believe.

  3. says

    Liberals ignored it, but they’re finally catching on to that irrefutable fact.

    That’s cause fake liberals lie to themselves every freaking morning. Why the hell would they be bothered by someone lying to them about hope and change? That’s what they wanted to believe, and they could no more blame Obama for telling them lies than they could blame THEMSELVES for self-deception.

  4. says

    RE: Hyper Con

    The thing about any successful counter-insurgency, to which Grim says Obama is too incompetent to perform to call it anything related to COIN, is not to make unnecessary enemies out of neutrals and to not push the war so far in extremis that your current enemies don’t have a way out (other than going through you with a machete).

    You want to kill enemies, but that’s almost a side issue since it is just one means of convincing enemies that fighting us isn’t a good idea. You can’t kill every enemy, but unless you actually try, they will neither respect you nor listen to your side of things.

    However, in war it’s hard to actually find all your enemies ready to be slaughtered. They are hiding or fighting back, using civilian shields or training up their forces. Collateral damage will result and you must ensure that in fighting your current enemy, that you don’t do something that makes an enemy out of someone that didn’t need to be your enemy.

    Thus Hitler’s invasion of Russia was pretty stupid, all in all. He didn’t even eliminate Britain yet, and he went on another Napoleon rampage. Absolutely retarded. THat’s not counter-insurgency. THat’s promoting insurgency.

  5. SADIE says

    When in doubt, when feeling challenged or in a weakened position … this administration keeps resorting to Bush bashing.

    They will continue on this track until the 2010 elections, it’s the new ‘race’ card ploy. Direct the voters attention to the past, so they don’t pay attention to the present.

    We have term limits on the presidency and yet no limits on temerity.

    I’ll let Jack Nicholson sum it up………..

  6. says

    I have something rather pertinent to Book’s story about meeting 3 or 4 other conservatives in a Dojo parking lot.

    “A common language of resistance . . .”
    “Colonial rebellions throughout the modern world have been acts of shared political imagination. Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people, protest remains a local affair easily silenced by traditional authority. Usually, however, a moment arrives when large numbers of men and women realize for the first time that they enjoy the support of strangers, ordinary people much like themselves who happen to live in distant places and whom under normal circumstances they would never meet. It is an intoxicating discovery. A common language of resistance suddenly opens to those who are most vulnerable to painful retribution the possibility of creating a new community. As the conviction of solidarity grows, parochial issues and aspirations merge imperceptibly with a compelling national agenda which only a short time before may have been the dream of only a few. For many Americans colonists this moment occurred late in the spring of 1774.” — T.H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, Oxford University Press, 2004, p.1.

    Sage advice from my Michigan boyhood for the citizen disarmament crowd. . .

    “Son, let me explain something to you. Y
    ou don’t poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off.” — Grandpa Vanderboegh’s Rule of Life #32.

    Billy Beck nails the auto industry “bailout”
    “Things will start to get better when the last indignant buggy-whip maker is strangled with the entrails of the last commissar.” – Billy Beck, 8 December 2008

    **************

    I wasn’t kidding when I said the cell was forming one by one. People with common interests will tend to band together in alliance and partnership when faced against as ruthless a foe as America’s current enemies are. Thus I am pleased by Book’s positive reaction to such, but it was not a surprise to me. It is what normally would happen.

    And why Totalitarian systems are held up by a system of secret police and informants. It is to get people to mistrust strangers and each other, so that they will never find a commonality of trust or alliance, and thus be of no existential threat to the System.

  7. says

    http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/651523.html

    That’s good stuff for Jews. And it’s something I generally recommend on principle.

    THe Left likes to say that it doesn’t help when the government has nukes and an army and you just have a rifle or piddly pistol.

    But here’s the raw fact of reality here. Violence is a field in itself and all a gun does is simply categorize itself under that field under “Tools: Projectile Ranged”.

    The study of violence does not need firearms. The study of violence allows you to control a violent situation. Having light arms gives you better arms. A pistol will take down a Mumbai terrorist team and then you just go and loot the dead of weapons and ammo. Why not? They don’t need it any more.

    The same is true of unarmed combat. It is the full spectrum, in fact. Violence occurs at all ranges. Up front, at arm’s reach, beyond arm’s reach, beyond sight range even, and so forth. Tools are there in order to boost your ability to reach out and touch someone with violence. But prototypically the best tools for range, like rifles and sniper rifles, lose their effectiveness past a certain point in closeness. This is similar to the EMT theory by Boyd, formed from his ODA work.

    The Left doesn’t study violence, they just study social deconstruction instead. But that’s not violence, that’s intellectual brainwashing instead. The former is reality, the latter is only mental.

    THe key here is to be as effective as you can. We all have favorites, we are human and thus prejudiced towards our own interests and likes. But the point of being armed is the point of being able to inflict casualties on the enemy. In such a way that this is true, what must also be true is that your attack is consistent with the goal of inflicting casualties on the enemy. THat means not using a nuke on one guy or trying to use an arm bar on armed terrorists. Consistency and proportion is required in military necessity. Do what is necessary and prepare for the unlikely, but don’t do more than is necessary since that’d make you weak somewhere else.

    THe best thing about unarmed combat is that you can’t know how lethal a person is just by looking at him. You can if you base it upon guns or knives. A government can track ammunition. They can’t track some skill-hobby of yours and accurately assess the threat there. After all, self-defense is self-defense, and government will likely assume that guns are superior.

    That’s not quite true. Violence is superior, guns are only one tool to achieve that. A gun is superior in range, but not superior in inherent violence. A person should never delude themselves that one particular method is superior to all others. Hand to hand cannot be disarmed, short of a literal amputation, and then you still have body mass and legs. Hand to hand doesn’t appear on x rays or metal detectors. H2H does not cause somebody to realize that they are instants from death. It’s a stealth weapon, and like most stealth weapons you need to get very very close to the target. That is its real flaw. Melee weapons have always had benefits over firearms: they don’t run out of ammunition, they don’t need to be reloaded, and they can work at a very short range better than two people grappling trying to wrestle some guy which way. Firearms have advantages over melee weapons. Range, rate of fire, ease of use and training, and conducive to teamwork tactics (can’t fit too many swordsmen into a narrow alley for teamwork, they’d most likely cut themselves).

    Keep an open mind and like the military recommends, think outside the box.

  8. says

    Things I read on a Tuesday afternoon:

    http://www.targetfocustraining.com/articles.html

    Get page 1 and 2 of the Irish Fighter Magazine. Very very good. He describes it with more verbal impact than I have. And I perfectly agree with the points he makes.

    Especially the part about how the knowledge that you can take a life so easily will do to you. It’s a very good maturization process. It’s something that says, now you have come unto the real world with the big boys and separated yourself from your childhood.

  9. says

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joJp82DP8yM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJDExg7XoFM&feature=related

    These weren’t things I was reading. But I was looking for incidents of prison violence to study and learn from.

    Here’s some of my thoughts and reactions after viewing some clips.

    1. Prisoners will fight for various reasons but notably they will stop fighting for one reason: when they have no chance to strike back.

    2. Prisoners respect power in the form of home made ‘weapons’, and the moment they hear a superior weapon, a high powered rifle from a sniper’s deck, they will go on the ground and cease resistance. Which leads me to think, why don’t you just execute them while fighting H2H and save everybody a whole lot of time and trouble.

    3. Prisoners like to fight and it’s very easy for somebody to get killed. My solution and immediate reaction was that if they want violent so badly, I can easily execute half of them and impale another 1/4th. That’ll clear out the prisons, reduce expenses, and make society better. Purer. Safer.

    4. Prisoners, even the hard core criminal element, only has a slightly increased chance to kill. CHances increase if the person is on the ground, but this is due primarily to the simple fact that all of them have not been trained by TFT principles.

    5. These prisons amongst the Mexican borders have a jack load of weapons. I’d just put them in a cell and let them starve. Let them make weapons out of their feces, I’d like to see how they’d figure that out while dehydrating to death.

    6. Prisoners, even when they fight, don’t fight to kill, and when the fight to kill, they don’t do it very well. They do it more pro-actively than normal citizens, but they aren’t like serial killers. They’re still using violence to send a message. If I used violence, it would be to permanent eliminate those in the way. THe message that it sends to everybody else in the prison is just some icing.

    You see that one guy trying to make trouble by putting on stress. They call this violence. THis isn’t violence. It’s passive-aggressive resistance and is used to communicate something, but mostly cause the black guy is bored and has too much energy (like a dog). Violence is when I snap my foot down on the side of his knee so that it breaks sideways, something it isn’t supposed to do. And the reason to do so would be consistent with any true sociopath’s (I didn’t like the way he stood up).

    But the black criminal knew that the CO folks weren’t allowed to do such things, that even if they were allowed to do such things, that they wouldn’t choose to do it. I would, or at least that particular part of me I keep behind a well locked cell does.

    A real sociopath will maim somebody, not because they want to fight for social and gang status, but because he didn’t like how they stood up, so they corrected the issue in a very efficient manner.

    If you look at and study the BTK killer, you’ll see his apparent motivations. He was trying to communicate his infamy to the world, but only after he did the killing and jerking off to it. During the killing, there was no communication.

    Criminals will stop fighting you when you start killing them. THen this isn’t worth the cost of communicating their desires anymore. Now it’s worth their life, and communicating their displeasure isn’t worth their life. THus criminals are social creatures, just typically anti-social most of the time, asocial some of the time, but mostly fighting for social reasons, albeit in a rather brutal fashion.

    It’s hard to figure this on the social, antisocial, and asocial scale.These people are organized in social units of prisoners vs Correction Officers, or white gang bangers vs Mexican gang bangers. So the reason they fight is social, but the methods they use are asocial (murder). But most of their love of weapons isn’t particularly because they want to kill somebody. They just want to fight to defend themselves and a weapon is their best bet in a prison situation.

    Some of these people joining in riots only do so because they don’t want to get hammered by the CO. A rather inane and irrational reason, of course, but there’s tribal and monkey politics for you.

    The solution to a well behaved prison system seems very simple and even easy to me, on a physical level. Kill as many prisoners as you can and then tell the survivors that they will obey or die. THere’s nothing complicated here. Everybody benefits, society, prisoners (except the dead ones), and the COs.

    Make them fear the officers more than they fear society, the law, each other, or losing their luxuries. How is a prison supposed to do anything when law and order can’t be kept there? My version of law and order has something to do with lining the road with the crucifixions and breathing bodies of those attempting to rebel. It’s very effective, although perhaps wasteful of human potential.

    White people want to kill Mexicans because they don’t want to lose face or get killed without defending themselves? Okay. I’ll just tell them that I’ll kill anybody that needs killing and that if they need defense from a prisoner, to come to me, the chief of this little square.

    People don’t obey laws, things written on paper saying do this or do that. They obey authority, power, and the fear or respect of it. Religious authority, civil authority, family authority, anything and everything. But it has to be authority, it has to be feared, it has to be respected, and most of all, it has to be respected.

    You can’t solve fights by trying to keep both parties alive. You have to take one side and then exterminate the other. We took the Sunni’s side and exterminated Al Qaeda together, even though Sunnis were fighting us and AQ.

    Race wars, or wars in general, aren’t solved by a kind of UN peacekeeping force that can’t do jack but wipe their arse every few days.

    Law and order must be maintained at any cost. This is a prison, not a free and sovereign nation. Of course, it’s not a prison. It’s a breeding pit for killers and sociopaths. COs get attacked and deaded, and their families suffer. Why put them through the hell when my solution can be easily adopted, and at far less cost than Obama’s “death panel” solution?

Leave a Reply