It’s no secret that Obama and crew don’t like the military. Over the years, the political class generally and the Obama class specifically have worked hard to clip the American military’s wings. Some of these efforts have been direct attacks on the military’s function and structure. The most recently attack, though, is more subtle and, perhaps, more dangerous insofar as it seeks to redefine the military out of existence.
The most obvious of the direct attacks — and one that started during the Bush era — is rules of engagement so stringent that our troops are often prevented from fighting an enemy squaring off right before their eyes. These ROE’s put our troops at terrible risk because they don’t even get to shoot when they see the white’s of the enemy’s eyes but have to wait, instead, until they see the puff of smoke coming from the enemy’s gun muzzle.
In recent years, the Obama administration has piled on the military in additional ways. It’s been trying hard to stifle religious expression in an institution that sees volunteers confront death as a part of their job. It has insisted on putting women in front line jobs, even though doing so means lowering standards in a way that endangers everyone. Most recently, it’s been pushing to allow transgenders to serve, despite the fact that transgendered individuals are (a) expensive luxuries because of the hormones they must take to maintain their chosen sex and (b) emotionally very vulnerable because hormones and plastic surgery often do not touch the much deeper issues that go with gender confusion (with Exhibit A being Bradley Manning).
Additionally, of offensively, when military personnel have been attacked and murdered by Muslims shouting “Allahu Akbar,” the administration has insisted that these attacks are just another example of unexciting “workplace violence.” Doing so denies the military the opportunity to use a military response to deal with and prevent such attacks.
In many ways, though, it’s the least obvious line of attack that is the most pernicious of all, because it seeks to completely re-define the military as something other than a . . . well, a military. Instead, there’s an attempted paradigm shift aimed at turning the US military into a taxpayer-funded version of the Red Cross.
This disturbing trend crystalized for me thanks to four things that crossed my radar in the past week. First, at the USS America commissioning, I heard San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee give a speech that ignored entirely the military’s fighting capacity and spoke only about the fact that it will probably be useful when San Francisco has the next big quake.
Second, after the commissioning, I got the opportunity to tour the USS America. On the flight deck, the USS America had set up a sizable big display touting the Navy’s proud boast about going green — a boast that was not accompanied by any assurance that going green will improve the military’s capacity to wage war and defend our nation:
Third, I read a Facebook post by Mike Rowe, a TV personality, who came to fame hosting a TV show called Dirty Jobs. The show is a celebration of hard-working Americans doing the jobs most people wouldn’t. Rowe is also deservedly well-known because, despite living in San Francisco, he is a common-sense person, with a great sense of humor, and an abiding respect for America’s hard-working blue-collar class.
Given his beliefs and personality, I enjoy Rowe’s Facebook posts, and admire his independent, iconoclastic spirit. It therefore came as no surprise to me that Rowe would support Fleet Week and honor the troops despite complaints from the usual suspects in San Francisco arguing that Fleet Week is noisy, expensive, scary, and just generally a bad thing insofar as it promotes militarism. Where I parted ways with Rowe was that, rather than defending the necessity of militarism, Rowe pulled s Mayor Lee. His whole take is that the Navy is the world’s greatest humanitarian institution because of its spectacular first-responder capabilities.
Fourth, just last week, with ISIS aggressively lined up against the remnants of civilization in the Middle East, Defense Secretary has announced America’s true enemy: Climate Change. Think about that: On the one hand, we have dead bodies piling up in the Middle East, while men who share that murderous ideology are infiltrating our borders as their leaders boast about destroying America. On the other hand, we have an unbroken list of failed doomsday climate predictions and the complete absence of global warming in almost 18 years. And still, with those indisputable facts before him, Hagel says that our troop’s primary mission is battling the inchoate forces of our earth’s continuously changing ecosystem.
Here’s the reality about the military, and it has nothing to do with green ships and earthquake relief: The military exists to kill our enemies and for that I say “Thank God!” Moreover, I’m not saying thank God out of some perverse blood lust. I’m saying it because killing our enemies is what really makes the US military the greatest humanitarian institution in the world. If you stop and think about it for a moment, you’ll realize that since WWII, America’s enemies have a habit of being enemies to everyone else. Without exception, they are despots who enslave, torture, and slaughter both their own citizens and those nations unlucky enough to get conquered.
The Nazis churned out ideologues and foot soldiers of unparalleled evil who sought to erase whole classes or races of people from the earth. The American military didn’t stop Nazis by insisting that Hitler “go green.” Instead, the America military, working with the Soviets and the British, stopped Nazis by killing them in such great numbers that they were forced to accept defeat.
The Bushido warrior culture in Japan also created human killing machines who suffered no pangs of conscience when stacking bodies in China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaya, and all the other countries unlucky enough to be in the path of Imperial Japanese expansion. The American military wasn’t urging Tojo to use one sheet of toilet paper or to stop heating his house in winter. Instead, it defeated Japan — which had slaughtered and enslaved people all over Asia and the Malayan peninsula — the old-fashioned way: it killed Japanese fighters.
During the Cold War, our troops did their best to halt Chinese communists from taking over Korea and Vietnam. Those lucky enough to benefit from American military success in South Korea were spared the decades of horror their North Korean cousins have faced. South Korea is a dynamic, 21st century nation. North Korea is a stone age prison camp.
Likewise, if the Democrats hadn’t utterly destroyed the military’s efforts in Vietnam, neither the Vietnamese nor the Cambodian people would have suffered terrible depredations at Communist hands. Among other things, at least a million Cambodians wouldn’t have had their skulls stacked like spent cannon balls in the Killing Fields.
History shows that, when our military wins, democracy follows. When our military loses (invariably thanks to Democrat foot-dragging), people die and die horribly. This pattern has continued without exception into the Bush era. Our military, after the Surge left a relatively safe, stable Iraq. Obama pulled the military out, creating a vacuum that ISIS is gleefully filling. We can anticipate that the same will happen in Afghanistan when Obama does the unusual and follows through on one of his promises by pulling troops out of there too.
So what does the chattering class do? Obviously, it cannot force itself to acknowledge the good the military does by being what it is — a military force of unusual size, sophistication, quality training, and human decency. Given the military’s high standing in the public eye, though, and the fact that the public (wisely) doesn’t want it to go away any time soon, and given the fact that government policies still haven’t completely destroyed the military’s efficacy as a fighting machine, there’s just one thing left to do: Redefine the military as anything but a fighting machine. “It’s not the Army, it’s the new Peace Corp.” “Marines don’t kill; they give blankets to babies.” “Our Navy — the world’s largest floating ambulance and hospital.”
I am most certainly not saying that the US military shouldn’t help out when it can after a natural disaster. Indeed, living near faults that are predicted to quake violently in the near future, I will be most grateful if the military steps by to help pick up the pieces. However, I am saying that, while it’s true that our American military is indeed the greatest humanitarian institution in the world, it fulfills this function, not by handing out blankets after floods or by making futile efforts to fight the earth’s natural climate cycles, but by having an impressive arsenal and having more than a million highly trained individuals who are willing to put themselves at risk in order to rid the world of murderous tyrants.
I was fortunate yesterday to attend the USS America commissioning ceremony (along with several thousand other guests). It was a wonderful experience. Indeed, when I ran into a friend of mine who is a retired admiral, and asked him if this wasn’t just old hat for him, he replied that it was exciting for him too. Ships don’t get commissioned that often, and there’s seldom a guarantee that one will be in the neighborhood when it happens.
Here’s the USS America as we first saw her, while walking to the pier:
The event can be broken down into four parts, with the first two being rather dull, and the second two being wonderful. Part 1 was simply getting in and getting seated. We were among the more than 9,000 people who attended the ceremony, so the process took about an hour. We showed our tickets, passed through security, found our seats, and waited.
Part 2 was speeches. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee gave a happy, enthusiastic speech that managed to reduce the US Navy to the role of San Francisco guardian in the event of an earthquake. I couldn’t fault him for missing the whole bit about defending the nation and fighting wars. He’s a San Francisco politician, after all, and he was just so gosh-darned radiantly happy. Although I didn’t take notes, the other speakers were, I believe, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (his speech was okay); Assistant Secretary of the Navy Sean Stackley (a speech that started off political, and then came from the heart); Commander of the Pacific Fleet Adm. Harry Harris (a fun, enthusiastic, good ol’ boy speech); Marine Lt. General David Berger (a lively, interesting speaker); an executive from Huntington Ingalls Industries which built the ship (I think it was Mike Peters, who gave a surprisingly heartfelt, moving speech); and, of course, Capt. Robert A. Hall Jr. himself, who was so very proud of his ship, his crew, his family, his Navy, his country, and his God.
Part 3 was the magic part. Once the ship was duly commissioned, the command came down: “Man the ship and bring her to life.” Behind us, the Sailors and Marines who had stood so still throughout the speech suddenly started moving. One after the other, they ran down the center aisle towards the ship. Since I’m short, I didn’t try to film that, since I got only glimpses of them: very young, more mature, male, female, white, Asian, Hispanic, black . . . all of them running purposefully to the USS America.
Suddenly, a cry went up from the crowd, and I looked towards the ship. This is what I saw:
Here’s a primitive panorama I captured (click to enlarge):
The whole thing was magical as the crew, entering at the ship’s lowest level, poured out on top and arrayed themselves along the ship’s port side, all standing at attention. Next (and I didn’t record this), the radar started turning, the flags were raised, the horns and the whistles sounded and, as the pièce de résistance, two Ospreys zoomed overhead. (This actually wasn’t quite as exciting for me, because the day before, they’d been circling over our house for about an hour, which was awesome, but left me a little immune to their charms.)
As for Part 4, that was just plain fun, as we got to be among the first in San Francisco to tour the ship’s flight deck. Here’s a lovely iconic photo for you:
And of course, since this is a 21st century, here’s your assurance that the ship is as green as green can be. (I didn’t hear anyone assure me that a green ship is a safer ship or a better fighting ship, but I might have missed that part.)
(Sorry for the brevity of this post but, owing to family demands, it’s taken me 36 hours to put together even this abbreviated offering.)
I’m doing something very wonderful and exciting today: I’m attending the commissioning ceremony for the USS America. If I’m lucky, I’ll be able to convince my companion at the ceremony to stick around in the City to watch the Blue Angels fly. (My sister, who lives in a town where the Blue Angels never fly, thinks that they should visit every city in America to inspire patriotism and affection for our military.) If I’m not lucky . . . well, I’ll just come home and enjoy the memories of the morning.
I’ll write about the ceremony later, but I thought that a little music couldn’t hurt to set the mood. Sorry about the horrible video quality, but it’s all that I could find:
Yesterday, I asked whether it’s time for us to incorporate some pork into America’s bullets and bombs (or at least tell the world that we’re doing so), because doing so lets Islamic fanatics know that, if they die fighting Americans, they’ll be too impure to ascend to the Islamic brothel in the sky. This plan has two virtues:
- To the extent it deters true Muslims from fighting, it saves Muslim lives. Those who disapprove of this idea, therefore, want more dead Muslims and are therefore manifest Islamophobes.
- Because Obama has assured us that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, Khorosan, and all other violent totalitarian groups that claim to be Islamic are not, in fact, authentically Muslim, pork-infused ammunition is a great way to separate wheat from chaff. The real Muslims among these groups will flee the pork weapons, while the fake Muslims, who are apparently in the fight only for the joy of killing, will remain as legitimate military targets.
And to those who say pork and weapons do not mix, Sadie has reminded me that, just 70 years ago, they were an inseparable pair:
My sister summed me up in a sentence: “For an incredibly neurotic person, you’re very normal and easygoing.” I know what she means. All my neuroses are turned inwards. They drive me crazy, but they don’t interfere with anyone outside of my brain. If you meet me, I’m friendly, good-humored, and well-mannered. I rarely take offense, and I’m always happy to help out.
I’m the living embodiment of the reminder to judge people by their deeds, not their thoughts. Unless of course, you think the deeds and the thoughts reflect on each other, magnifying each . . . which leads to me to:
The Obama latte salute
A military friend of mine had this to say:
What I find comical about this is the outrage. You’re surprised by this man? This is par for the course. And technically, he has no obligation to salute them back. A military officer not in uniform is only obligated to acknowledge a salute with a proper verbal greeting. My understanding is saluting the Marines of HMX-1 started with Reagan.
I think there are more important things to address about him like having absolutely no plan in Syria. This is comical considering the whole “what is our exit strategy?” nonsense during the Bush admin. We don’t even have an entry strategy here.
My friend is quite right, but I couldn’t resist reminding him about that outlook/action connection I mentioned at the start of this post:
I know that Reagan started it (and did you know that Reagan, whom the Left always castigated for not going to war, was in the Army Reserve as of 1937, and was barred from active duty during WWII only because of his vision?), so it’s not deep tradition, and I know that it’s not militarily necessary.
The thing is that, if it was clear that Obama really supported the military, and wanted to fight war in a way that’s not only ethical (which is a good thing), but that also keeps our troops alive and effective (another good thing), no one would have given a flying whatsit even if he’d hollered “Howdy, guys!” and blown soap bubbles at them. The optics mattered only because they were such a perfect visual representation of which we all know he actually thinks: “Blech! Marines again! And now I have to figure out how, and how many, of those baby killers to ship overseas this time….”
And my friend, who is a gentlemen down to the marrow of his bones, shot back:
I agree, we already know how he feels about the military. Saluting is what we call a military courtesy. Failing to simply be courteous says something about character.
I have such interesting friends.
Regarding the worsening mystery virus affecting children, when does correlation equal causation?
We’ve been hearing for a couple of months now about a serious respiratory virus affecting children across America. It’s been so bad that hospitals have been turning them away.
Well, here’s some more news guaranteed to make you unhappy: the virus just got worse. According to AP, children are now showing up with a paralysis that seems to be in the polio family and that may be related to the mystery enterovirus. So far, only nine cases have shown up in Colorado, but there’s no telling where paralysis problem might end up.
The AP’s not the only one paying attention to the virus. The New York Times has a long article about its effects on children across America (emphasis mine):
An outbreak of respiratory illness first observed in the Midwest has spread to 38 states, sending children to hospitals and baffling scientists trying to understand its virulent resurgence.
I love that line about “baffled” scientists. It reminds me of a wonderful Lord Peter Wimsey remark in Busman’s Honeymoon, when he and his new bride find a dead body in their honeymoon cottage. Being famous, the Wimseys are immediately besieged the press, one of whose members, Salcombe Hardy, is an old friend (emphasis mine):
“Can I say you’ve got a theory of the crime?”
“Yes,” said Peter.
“Fine!” said Salcombe Hardy.
“My theory is that you put the corpse there yourself, Sally, to make a good headline.”
“I only wish I’d thought of it. Nothing else?”
“I tell you,” said Peter, “the evidence is destroyed. You can’t have a theory without evidence to go on.”
“The fact is,” said Harriet, “he’s completely baffled.”
“As baffled as a bathroom geyser,” agreed her husband. “My wife’s baffled too. It’s the only point on which we are at one. When we’re tired of heaving crockery about we sit and sneer at one another’s bafflement. The police are baffled too. Or else they confidently expect to make an arrest. One or other . You can take your choice.” (Sayers, Dorothy L., Busman’s Honeymoon, p. 242 (Open Road Media, Kindle Edition)).
I feel a little like sneering at some bafflement too — in this case, the bafflement of those scientists trying to figure out how a rare virus that is connected to polio managed suddenly to enter the United States and infect American children.
I know that correlation is not causation, but I also know that not everything is pure coincidence. Isn’t it at least possible that the headlines about a bizarre virus striking down American children for the past two months might have something to do with the headlines from the end of July informing Americans that tens of thousands of Latin American children, many of them sick with diseases not seen in American children, were crossing the border? And isn’t it also possible that this baffling respiratory and occasionally polio-like illness might have to do with the fact that the Obama administration popped these children on buses and airplanes and then sent them all across the United States?
Again, I’m not saying that there has to be a connection, but I’d at least like to see some scientist say, “We’ve considered the possibility that this virus came with the immigrant children, but rejected it because….”
But they’re not saying that. Instead, the MSM just pretends the children’s crusade from Latin America never happened — so much so that it won’t even assure is that there’s no connection.
The country’s in the very best of hands (a song that’s never been more timely, I think)….
The media keeps its message consistent no matter the subject
The fact is that the American media is well-trained and it follows the Democrat playbook no matter the subject. A case in point involves doggies that have been Trayvon Martinized.
About that poor woman beheaded in Oklahoma
We know a few useful things about poor Colleen Hufford’s horrible death: She was beheaded, her murderer was an ex-con Muslim convert who had just been fired for arguing that women should be stoned, and another woman was saved from a similar fate when a company official with a gun shot him.
The police are trying to play this as just another case of workplace violence, and that may be true. But even ordinary violence reflects a zeitgeist. A former convict (which is what Alton Nolen, aka ‘Keem Yisrael, is), who converts to Islam in prison, will have two seeds planted within him: violence and jihad.
As always in these cases, please remember what my cousin, the retired prison chaplain, said about those prison converts:
It is not a contradiction to be a Muslim and a murderer, even a mass murderer. That is one reason why criminals “convert” to Islam in prison. They don’t convert at all; they similarly [sic] remain the angry judgmental vicious beings they always have been. They simply add “religious” diatribes to their personal invective. Islam does not inspire a crisis of conscience, just inspirations to outrage.
(Roger Simon has more on prison conversions to Islam and Caleb Howe has more on the lifelong anger and violence in Nolen that found its home in Islam) In other words, Nolen’s criminal history made him the kind of person who would commit murder — but his Islamic conversion made him the kind of person who would elevate this murder to the level of a jihad killing, complete with the sharia-compliant death of choice, namely beheading.
So yes, workplace violence or not, his religion mattered.
And what also mattered is that Nolen was stopped short by a gun. Jihad in America would be stopped pretty damn short if all of us were armed.
As for the shooting death of John Crawford in a Ohio Wal-Mart
John Crawford’s death is another one about which we know little, but it does look as if police were trigger-happy. Crawford was in a Wal-Mart aisle, someone called in a 911 because he was holding what looked like a gun, and the cops shot him. The video seems to show the cops firing instantly, without warning and, given how still Crawford was standing and the fact that his pop gun was pointed to the floor, they also shot without provocation. The cops, though, claim that Crawford was being threatening, something that might have been obvious outside of the silent film.
Radley Balko offers a great analysis of the bizarre intersections of so many societal issues in Crawford’s death: race, police malfeasance, societal paranoia about mass shootings, mental illness, etc. Something bad happened in that Wal-Mart, and two children lost their father.
I’m very interested in further facts. If Crawford’s behavior was frightening, so be it. But if trigger-happy cops killed an innocent man, let justice be done.
No, the Obama economy is not thriving
A few weeks ago, I asked for help rebutting a Forbes opinion piece claiming that the Obama economy is thriving, and that it puts the Reagan boom to shame. Just the other day, Forbes itself published an opinion piece rebutting that earlier, pro-Obama effort, and it’s a humdinger:
With the stock market cruising at all-time highs and the unemployment rate sitting at quaint levels, a fashionable new argument is making the rounds. Barack Obama is better at economic recovery than Ronald Reagan ever was.
The numbers make the case. Dow Jones Industrial Average the day President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 was 7950; today it stands at 17,000. Unemployment in his first full month, that February: 8.3%, versus 6.1% today.
Ronald Reagan could not quite touch this standard. The Dow began his presidency at 950 and chugged to 1800 after five-and-a-half years. A 90% gain is nice, but short of the 115% gain since 2009. Unemployment over that span went from 7.4 to 7.1%—welcome enough, but overmatched by the post-2009 record.
And all the while under Reagan, there was double the consumer price inflation as under the comparable Obama period (26% vs. 13%). Interest rates were higher. Prime was at 7.5% in September 1986, in contrast to today’s 3.3%.
Whatever crisis, whatever “stagflation” Reagan faced as he swept Jimmy Carter from office in 1980, the results that came in well into his presidency pale in comparison to what the nation would put up under the leadership of Barack Obama.
This argument has glaring flaws, the most obvious of which (from a statistical point of view) is that the labor force participation rate has collapsed under Obama, while it surged under Reagan, rendering any kind of comparison of unemployment rates inoperable. The bald economic growth numbers, for their part, are double in the Reagan (20.3%) than in the Obama (9.7%) case.
Read the rest here.
By all means, let’s have over the counter birth control
To me, even the smallest dose of birth control pills acts like poison on my system. For most women, though, today’s low-dose birth control pills have few serious side effects, if one discounts the fact that they’re messing with women’s entire hormonal and reproductive systems.
Given all the other stuff that’s sold over the counter, there’s no reason for the Pill not to become an OTC drug too. This will lower women’s health care costs dramatically, both by increasing competition at the purchase level and by doing away with the perfunctory, but costly, doctor’s visit that precede prescribing the pill.
Obamacare supporters, of course, are incensed that conservatives believe the Pill should be an OTC drug because that would strip away large parts of their argument about imposing costly and ethically troubling Obamacare “women’s health” regulations on every employer and insurance company in America.
Could this be the reason race hustlers do what they do?
The retirement of Eric Holder, Attorney General of the US and race hustler extraordinaire, resulted in one of Roger Simon’s best posts. Simon begins with Holder’s extremely sleazy history: The same man who prosecuted Dinesh D’Souza for a $20,000 act of stupidity was the federal prosecutor who enabled the disgraceful pardon of Marc Rich, an exceptionally corrupt man who dealt with Iran during the hostage crisis and was lined up for 300 years in prison.
From that disgraceful beginning as an unprincipled party hack, Holder went on to become a hatchet man for the racism racket who turned the Justice Department into a purely political office advancing Obama’s hard Left, anti-constitutional, race-based domestic policies. That history leads Simon to this interesting thought:
Now I have a theory about the etiology of Holder’s fixation on race. When you know deep down you’re a dishonest person, when you have had to eat the bitter pill of your own corruption who knows how many times (even Clinton finally admitted that he had gone too far pardoning Rich and damaged his own reputation), you have to invent a narrative for yourself to justify your activities. So over may years Holder developed what I have called elsewhere a “nostalgia for racism.” No matter that racism was diminishing in our culture, he had to keep racism alive, believe it was alive. If racism were going away, he would no longer have a raison d’être, an excuse for his biased behavior, an excuse, as it turned out, to go beyond the law, act unilaterally and punish political enemies.
Why, yes. That sounds just right.
Think of Syria as you read this bumper sticker
It took me a couple of seconds to figure out the message behind this bumper sticker, and then I thought “That’s excellent.”
If you’d like one for your car, you can buy it here.
You can put lipstick on a male pig, but it’s still a male pig
With self-selected sex transmutations dominating headlines lately (“Lift ban on transgender military members“), I keep harking back to what I’ve said since the headline about a “pregnant” man (i.e., a woman who had her breasts surgically removed, and took hormones to grow facial hair). At the end of the day, when the surgically-adjusted, cosmetically-mutated, chemically-altered soft tissue is gone, and the bones are all that is left, what’s left is . . . the original sex.
To hold otherwise — to say that person who made this change is now actually a man or a woman, just because he or she wants to be — is a bizarre cultural delusion we’re fostering. On the great bell curve of biology, men are men and women are women, and that’s true regardless of surgery, make-up, hormones, and magical thinking. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t accord the person the respect, when possible, of treating him or her as s/he wishes to be treated, but it does mean that we have to accept biological reality.
Case in point: Mixed martial arts. There, a man who went through the surgical, chemical, cosmetic process of appearing like a woman insisted that he be allowed to compete as a woman. The outcome was not pretty, as his opponent Tamikka Brents, who was born female, ended up with a massively broken eye socket and a concussion. Brents explained what happened to her:
In a post-fight interview this week, she told Whoa TV that “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life.”
“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because [he] was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor,” she stated. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right. ”
His “grip was different,” she added. “I could usually move around in the clinch against…females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.”
I’m not a doctor either, but I’m pretty sure that, men have different bone structure and heavier muscle mass. Even if a man is taken female hormones, if he’s in the world of MMA training, he’s pushing those still-male muscles to the max. He’s going to be a muscle monster, with the weight of a man’s heavy bones behind him. At the end of the day, biology will not be denied.
Views from the climate change gala in New York
Power Line has a wonderful photo gallery from last weekend’s climate change extravaganza in New York. It’s got everything from the mounds of garbage left behind to the hypocritical celebrities to the hard Left people behind the climate change movement. Check it out. Laugh. Cry.
Then, if you want to laugh and cry some more, please enjoy Jeff Dunetz’s 48-item-long list of all the bad things that happen, according to the change-istas, because of climate change. Reading that list, I keep thinking of Monty Python’s Life of Brian, when Brian’s followers see everything he says as a sign of something insanely stupid:
Lies, damn lies, and British crime statistics
Since banning guns, Britain has become the most violent country in the first world. Certainly, the police are conflicted about the whole crime-fighting thing. After all, the God of political correctness tells them that they shouldn’t fight crime if the criminals are blacks or Muslims. The police have therefore figured out creative ways to massage the (non)crime-fighting numbers — they lie:
The culture of fiddling crime statistics is ingrained within the upper echelons of the police service where target-chasing has led to the under-reporting of serious crimes including rape, according to a report by MPs out today.
The MPs said a delay by Scotland Yard in addressing claims that rape figures were skewed was a “damning indictment of police complacency, inertia and lack of leadership”.
In attacking Rush, it appears that the female of the species is deadlier than the male
Rush Limbaugh went on the offensive to smoke out the small group of people trying to destroy his radio show through email and social media attacks against advertisers. What I noticed immediately is that, of the nine people engaged in this conspiracy, six are female. You’ll never have a 50/50 split in a group of nine people, but it’s telling somehow, that the group is heavily weighted on the women’s side.
I can’t decide if this is because women are indeed more vicious, or if it’s because the Sandra Fluke kerfuffle managed to turn Rush into a slayer of women in the deranged feminist mind, or if it’s simply random that in such a small group, there would be twice as many women as men. The fact seemed noteworthy, regardless of the reason.
No wonder women are raping as much as men are
Feminists have insisted that the definition of rape must be expanded far beyond the traditional definition, which pretty much was limited to a man using his penis to penetrate a woman vaginally, orally, or anally. Nowadays, every man’s touch, look, or verbal bullying is included in the definition of sexual assault, at least on college campuses. In this way, women can claim (and the Democrat party can campaign on) the canard that 1/5 of women on campus will be sexually assaulted.
Relying on the feminists’ own definition of sexual assault, Glenn Reynolds makes the compelling and convincing argument — supported by data — that women commit sexual assault every bit as often as men do. I believe this completely. If you read the trashy but informative Daily Mail on a regular basis, as I do, you’ll quickly discover that several times a week, and sometimes every day, there’s a story somewhere in America about a female school teacher forcing a sexual relationship on an underage male (or, sometimes, female) student. One comes away feeling that America’s students are taught by an army of nymphomaniacs.
Step back, puny mortals, and let the wind take over
One of the problems I’ve always had with the whole climate change theory is the centrality it gives humans. Humans have indeed shown themselves perfectly capable of trashing the local environment. From prehistoric man driving mammoths to extinction, to the Aztecs destroying every bit of protein in their region (hence the need for human sacrifices, which were later eaten), to the Soviets turning lakes into acid puddles, to American manufacturers doing their damndest to destroy our own lakes (until capitalism saved them), to the California Gold Rush stripping off sides of mountains, we are a destructive species. But there’s a quantum difference between making a terrible, and too often lasting, mess here and there, and altering the entire climate around the world, all the way until we touch outer space. That simply didn’t (and doesn’t) make sense to me.
What makes a lot more sense is a new theory that says that shifting wind patterns account for the changing climate along the Northwest. I find it especially intriguing giving the close connection between wind and sun (and I’m not just talking Aesop’s fables here).
I’m glad the New York Times had the integrity to report on this new climate theory, but I had to laugh at the opening sentence (emphasis mine):
A new and most likely controversial analysis of Pacific Ocean weather patterns concludes that a century-long trend of rising temperatures in the American Northwest is largely explained by natural shifts in ocean winds, not by human activity.
It must have choked the writer, Michael Wines, to concede in the next paragraph that the theory didn’t arise from the fetid swamps of whacked-out deniers but, instead, appeared in “the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences….” Oh, yeah!
America’s topmost colleges accept robots and turn out morons
Okay, I’m exaggerating for effect in that subtitle. There is no doubt that America’s top colleges get to take in America’s best and brightest students and that they turn out products with a certain sheen. I contend, though, that these new graduates are actually more indoctrinated than educated, but that’s just my opinion. Or maybe it isn’t….
While they do not say that America’s premier colleges are turning out mindless Leftist drones, two Ivy League instructors have come out lately to that in their pursuit of the best and brightest, these institutes of higher education are producing boring, timid robits who will not take any chances, thereby stifling their own brilliance.
At The New Republic, you can read William Deresiewicz’s Don’t Send Your Kid to the Ivy League, which has been shared on Facebook more than 191,300 times.
And at First Things, you can read Michael J. Lewis’s Children Who Never Play, which picks up where Deresiewicz left off.
In bureaucracies, the perfect is the enemy of the good
I credit Philip K. Howard with helping me move from mindless Left-liberalism to thinking conservativism. His book The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America, which I read shortly after it was published in the early 1990s, was an eye-opener because it made me realize that government not only is not the answer but that it can never be the answer. It took me another decade to complete my journey across the Rubicon, but I definitely couldn’t have done it without him.
Just recently, Howard authored a piece for The Atlantic explaining how the Stimulus got wasted, not because of any specific corruption, but because the money vanished into the bureaucratic crevices created by a million rules:
Modern government is organized on “clear law,” the false premise that by making laws detailed enough to take in all possible circumstances, we can avoid human error. And so over the last few decades, law has gotten ever more granular. But all that regulatory detail, like sediment in a harbor, makes it hard to get anywhere. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act was 29 pages and succeeded in getting 41,000 miles of roads built by 1970. The 2012 transportation bill was 584 pages, and years will pass before workers can start fixing many of those same roads. Health-care regulators have devised 140,000 reimbursement categories for Medicare—including 12 categories for bee stings and 21 categories for “spacecraft accidents.” This is the tip of a bureaucratic iceberg—administration consumes 30 percent of health-care costs.
And finally, some marvelous photographs and a joke
Nope, not my usual set of posters but, instead, links to two wonderful sites. The first explains why you won’t see Israeli women in burqas anytime soon, while the second is a panoramic photograph taken shortly after San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake. If you click on the image, you can zoom in to a specific spot; then, click again to zoom out.
Since I try to end on a laugh or uplifting note, here’s a delightful joke that a friend sent me (slight language warning), clearly in honor of Ezekiel Emanuel’s announcement that he, and everyone else, should try to die by or before age 75:
I recently picked a new primary care doctor. After two visits and exhaustive lab tests, she said I was doing fairly well for my age. (I am past seventy-five). A little concerned about that comment, I couldn’t resist asking her, ‘Do you think I’ll live to be 80?’
She asked, ‘Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer, wine or hard liquor?’
‘Oh no,’ I replied. I’m not doing drugs, either!’
Then she asked, ‘Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs?’ ‘I said, ‘Not much … My former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!’
‘Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, boating, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?’
‘No, I don’t,’ I said.
She asked, ‘Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?’
‘No,’ I said.
She looked at me and said, ‘Then, why do you even give a shit?’
Ah, yes. The infamous “latte salute.” If you haven’t heard about it yet, Obama walked off a helicopter insouciantly clutching an environmentally-deadly Styrofoam latte cup in his right hand. When the two Marines waiting at the base of steps offered him a smart salute, Obama, who seemed to avoid looking at them, vaguely pawed his forehead with the hand holding that cup and then walked on. Here, see it for yourself:
People in the military and conservatives were outraged. Liberals have been outraged at the outrage. Here are a few of the comments I’ve culled from liberals on my “real me” Facebook page:
Obama isn’t military so he shouldn’t be expected to salute.
Reagan started the saluting trend, and there’s no reason to continue it.
Obama has the weight of the world on his shoulders, so it’s ridiculous to expect him to salute.
If you’re going to demand saluting, why not require all presidents to be ex-military. [Bookworm: Not a bad idea, but the liberal who wrote that was obviously being sarcastic.]
We all do things like waving a “hi” while holding a coffee cup. He’s a good guy and sincere.
For military people, the honor of directly serving the president outweighs all other things.
Weak leaders like Reagan (who sold arms to terrorists) disguise their weakness by saluting.
Bush did worse, because he hugged a dog when saluting. [Bookworm: What I see, given my bias, is that Bush found himself holding a dog, and struggled to construct the best salute possible under the circumstances.]
You get the idea. Progressives simply cannot understand why Obama’s failure to perform this silly, formulaic act should excite so much disgust amongst the president’s critics. Certainly, the Left is correct that, just as they viewed every eyebrow twitch on George Bush’s face as a sign of evil or stupidity, conservatives are watching Obama like a hawk for proof that he is indeed a far-Left ideologue, who is hostile to America’s core values and interests. In what is still a kind-of-free political system, this partisanship is natural.
Conservatives, however, are on to something deeper than mere politics or tradition when they look with disgust at Obama’s almost studied disrespect for the Marines. As I mentioned above, you need to look at his body language. It’s not just the limp, cup-in-hand salute he offers; it’s the way he rushes past the Marines, refusing to make any eye contact.
Obama, unlike Eisenhower (whom Leftists note was a general who did not salute the troops), is a wartime president. More than that, he is presiding over the longest war in American history and one, moreover, that appears to be heating up significantly on his watch, with an indefinite, probably far off, end-point.
It doesn’t matter that Obama is trying to distinguish himself from George Bush by promising that his latest war won’t be “boots on the ground” fight. We know that this promise is as untrue as all of Obama’s other promises. After all, Bush also tried a no-boots-on-the-ground strategy, which rejoiced under the name “Shock & Awe.” That strategy failed dismally until the boots-on-the-ground Surge turned the tide.
The reality is that you can bomb battleships and military bases, but you cannot bomb disparate individuals who can instantly melt into the surrounding landscape and population. The only way to deal with that is hand-to-hand combat. That’s what the Israel did to win back Jerusalem in 1967 and to destroy Hamas’s tunnels in 2014; and it’s what the US did to destroy the Iraqi Islamic fanatics in places such as Fallujah.
The problem with boots-on-the-ground fighting is that people die. They die in especially large numbers during the first days of fighting, when the Commander-in-Chief is trying to convince the public in a republican democracy that a ground fight really is a good idea. Sure, these fights produce incredible tales of heroism that are still told around military campfires by modern-day bards, but at the end of the day, a culture that still values most life (more or less, depending on whether the life has already been born or isn’t yet aging its way to death) is left staring at a long list of names carved into a wall.
Moreover, because our Constitution (possibly with an eye to our first president) designates any sitting president as Commander-in-Chief, the American way is for the president to command that all these young men be sent to potential death. This power over life and death is especially large if you’re a Commander-in-Chief who insists on ignoring the clear language in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that “Congress shall have the Power . . . to declare War” and, instead, contends that he doesn’t need no stinkin’ Congress. He’s the Obama and has the imperial power to declare war.
Not only has Obama given himself the sole power to send these men into battle, he’s doing so at a time when he’s shrinking our military to a size and readiness more consistent with an America right before World War I than with an America fighting a sadistic, hydra-headed enemy all over the world in a battle that has lasted for more than a decade and that promises at least another several years to come. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that more war with less military probably means more military deaths.
So what about that salute? From a lower rank to a higher rank, a salute is obviously a sign of deference. When returned by that higher rank to the lower rank, it’s a sign of respect. The higher ranking officer is recognizing the individual serviceman’s humanity, his training, and his willingness to go into battle. Never is this mutual respect more important than with a Commander-in-Chief who is in the actual process of making life-and-death decisions about these troops.
Given this relationship between America’s Commander-in-Chief and his troops, it’s stunning that Obama’s whole body language says “I don’t see you. You’re not there. You’re not worthy.” Perhaps that’s understandable. It’s so much easier to send the invisible, unworthy ones into battle than to do so with real human beings. After all, as Stalin tellingly remarked to Churchill when the two met at Tehran, “When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it’s statistics.”
In other words, when conservatives see a Leftist Commander-in-Chief — one who is uncomfortable with the military and who seeks to cut it down to size, even as he plans to send more troops into battle — rush past saluting Marines, avoiding eye contact, and making a bare pretense of a salute, they see a Commander-in-Chief who is saying “Eh, they’re just statistics. Why bother?”
I was in perpetual motion yesterday, driving teenagers all over the place, to both sports and social activities. My day ended at 11:30 at night, by which time writing was no longer an option. Today is moving in the same direction. I’m leaving now for several hours of rec soccer and shopping, all of which are 40 miles from home. Still, I wanted to share a few things with you and leave you with some music.
Thing 1: As the Middle East gets worse and worse, with President Obama saying that he’s going to be, not just Commander in Chief, but the only commander, Leon Panetta breaks his silence to say that it was Obama’s idea — against the military’s best advice — to pull completely out of Iraq, creating the vacuum that the Islamic State has now filled. The only good thing I can think that’s coming from the current situation in Iraq is that, with Muslims from the world over answering the Islamic State’s siren song, destroying self-styled the Islamic State should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Too bad our military leader, instead of blowing up the whole damn barrel at once, plans to extract each individual fish with tweezers.
Thing 2: As the Democrats hammer away at the meme that American colleges and universities are more dangerous for women than South African slums, Glenn Reynolds has the answer:
The real problem, which the Democrats having created wish to ignore, is that parents and taxpayers are still funding colleges and universities that have abandoned their in loco parentis role. An 18 year old doesn’t have the sense to be released into the world without some oversight. Universities once gave that oversight. Now they just promote the myth that one in five women are going to be raped, without changing their anarchic culture of co-ed dorms, male and female binge drinking, and an administration that springs into action only after the fact, when it can persecute and, without due process, prosecute young men.
Thing 3: Beautiful, spooky, mystical pictures from panorama shots gone awry.
Music 1: A rock song with a country lyric: “I used to be love drunk; now I’m hungover.”
Music 2: A classic, from Harry James and Helen Forrester:
A friend emailed me a comment:
Bill Clinton just said in an interview that America has proven we can’t win a land war in Iraq. Too bad he omitted: “Because we won’t let our military win it.”
I agree with my friend, and I want to examine a little further what he said, and I’ll do so via a series of links.
Charles Krauthammer argues convincingly that ISIS is yanking at America’s tail right now, because it knows that Obama will not fight the war to win. It needs to prove itself regionally, and there is no better way to do so than to watch America retreat.
We can tell that Obama doesn’t want to win the war because he can’t even get himself to call it a war. We’re assured that it’s a not-war, or maybe a not not-war. Whatever it is, no matter how many kill shots Obama personally orders, there is no war, except when there’s not a not-not war.
Jon Gabriel says that the reason behind Obama’s reluctance to go to war is grounded in his jaundiced view of America. If we say ISIS is terrible and that we’re going to protect the world from ISIS, the implication is that we’re the good guys. Except that Obama cannot have America be good. Therefore, America cannot fight a war against evil.
I agree with Gabriel, but I want to go back to what my friend said, about our refusal ever to let the military win a war. That wasn’t always the case, even when Democrats were president. American won WWI under a Democrat and repeated that feat with WWII. It was only after WWII that America became embarrassed to win wars. (For one theory behind that embarrassment, check out this history of the UN.) It’s only a short step from “has not won a war in 60+ years” to “cannot ever win a war.”
Whenever I go to my mother’s place, I see a car with a Bush-ear bumper sticker, stating that “War is not the answer.” And every time I see it, I say to myself, “That depends what the question is.” For example, if you start talking to people about Nazis and other seriously bad actors, many of them will start agreeing with you that war can indeed be an answer. If you’re the anti-war type, you don’t people’s thoughts to head in that direction. How much better, then, to have a bumper sticker saying “Wars cannot be won,” or “There is no victory with war”?
Average Americans are so ignorant that, if the Democrats lose just a few more wars, voters won’t remember that victory is possible, and that it only matters that the right person or party should be in charge. Instead, they’ll just remember that wars cannot be won . . . ever!
Yet another day where I start with an apology for not writing more or writing sooner. I had what I think is a fairly severe arthritis flair-up, loaded myself up with anti-inflammatory meds, and took a long nap. Thankfully, I’m feeling better and moving easier, so it’s time to write! Here goes:
Jonah Goldberg on Obama’s slo-mo rush to not-war
After years of hiding his head in the sand, Obama has suddenly realized that there are dangerous people out there, and they’ve got their guns aimed at us. He’s now desperately trying to rush us slowly into something that looks like war, acts like war, and talks like war, but isn’t actually war, and he’s not going to listen to any advice from old fogies like generals or admirals. Jonah Goldberg suggests that, given Obama’s ignorance, reluctance, denial, and ineptitude, Obama might want to slow that “rush” down a little:
We are through the looking glass when it is okay to say that opposition to requiring elderly nuns to pay for birth control is part of a “war on women” but airstrikes and coordinated ground attacks by allied militias aren’t like a “war” on terrorists.
Although we shouldn’t forget that there is one man brave enough to step up and say there is a war go on — John Kerry! Yes, John “Jen-jis Khan” Kerry, has announced that there is a indeed a war going on, between ISIS and . . . not not the United States or the West. (Fooled you!)
Instead, John “yes, there is a war” Kerry has announced that ISIS is at war with Islam. No wonder the folks at Power Line are wondering whether John Kerry is actually a GOP agent, working hard to discredit the Democrats.
Also on the subject of not-War, you can’t afford to miss Daniel Greenfield’s “Don’t Mention the War.”
The horrors of war by lawyer
[I]f the Marines sought to engage in any more than a running skirmish in response to shots fired while they were out on patrol, a battalion, not of fellow warriors but of lawyers, had to review the proposed fight plan first to make sure that it didn’t violate the ROEs. Even knowing about this bureaucratic, legalistic twist on warfare, reading about it in One Million Steps is still a shock. It’s just mind-boggling that lawyers were calling the shots in a genuine ground war (as opposed to the lawyer’s usual field of battle — a courtroom). Wars are fluid, dynamic situations; lawyers are stolid, cautious, and risk-averse. To make fighters in the war dependent on lawyers is insane.
It’s not just on the battlefield that the lawyers’ innate caution is bolloxing things up with it comes to fighting a fast-moving, deadly, and determined enemy. Daniel Henninger explains that way up the line, at the Obama command level, lawyers are also interfering with what should be battlefield strategies (emphasis mine):
The complex elements of modern American warfare include not only sophisticated ground-based troops but air power, unmanned drones, electronic surveillance, and the capture and interrogation of enemy combatants. Every one of those elements of U.S. military power has become a litigation battleground.
However intellectually interesting these disputes over our rights and values, each adds another thicket of legal consideration before, or even during, military action. There are now 10,000 lawyers in the Department of Defense. The legal staff assigned to Gen. Dempsey alone could fill a law firm. No one goes to war in this country until those DoD lawyers—plus lawyers at the Justice Department and White House—define in detail the parameters of battle.
The U.S. military has become a giant Gulliver wrapped in a Lilliput of lawyers.
Indeed, the White House has just announced the our nation’s top lawyer himself — that would be Harvard Law Review editor Barack Obama — will have to sign off on every single strike in our not-war against Islam:
The president hasn’t yet given the green light for an attack on Islamic State militants in Syria, but the U.S. military campaign against the group there is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control–going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential signoff for strikes.
Do you remember Jodi Kantor, in The Obamas, telling about Obama’s devotion to his own skills:
Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.” (p. 66.)
Now we can add something new to Obama’s list: In his own estimation, Obama is a better military adviser than people who have actually studied and gone to war. This is what happens when a man of few distinguishing qualifications starts believing the media’s PR about him. He’s not just a “black Jesus,” he’s also the second coming of Alexander the Great.
Funny illnesses cropping up all over
I mentioned at the top of this post that I might have had a serious arthritis flare-up. It’s entirely possible, though, that I’m actually getting sick. A lot of wacky illnesses are circulating, not the least of which is the hitherto “unknown in America” mystery virus hospitalizing kids all over the place, which is not a common “back to school” feature.
A Power Line reader has suggested what we’re all thinking: Is this a byproduct of the sick, illegal kids the Obama administration has been shipping all over the US? Perhaps what we’re seeing here is the indigenous people’s revenge: after 300-400 years, they’re going to wipe us out as surely as Europeans did back in the 16th and 18th centuries, when they exposed vulnerable indigenous populations to diseases that had become tolerably endemic in European cities.
The Israel yardstick
I told my mother that an ideology’s approach to Israel tends to be an extremely accurate way to measure whether it’s a good ideology or not. Look anywhere in the world, and wherever you find Israel-haters, you’ll find racism, totalitarian impulses, homophobia, misogyny, a fondness for euthanasia against any vulnerable populations, etc. Knowing this, it’s worth thinking about the implications flowing from the Democrat party’s ever-increasing hostility to Israel.
More evidence that, when he scratch a Leftist, you find an antisemite
Etsy.com, an online sales collective for artists, recently banned the sale of any goods that reference the Washington “Redskins” on the ground that the team’s name and logo are so offensive it would pollute the site to carry them. Etsy, however, is perfectly happy marketing swastikas. Read all about Etsy’s peculiar biases and preferences here.
I’ve never shopped at Etsy, nor had I planned ever to shop there, so I can’t make a statement by boycotting the site. But if I did shop there, I’d immediately stop doing so.
One Leftist anti-Semite just got the recognition she deserves
Over at the Watcher’s Council, council members have voted for this week’s weasel, a Leftist anti-Semite and all around idiot. You’ll have to visit the site to see which specific Leftist, antisemitic idiot won, though.
Jewish gun organization surviving in different form
I believe every Jew should own, or at least know how to fire, a gun. (I also believe all Jews should know self-defense.)
I only recently learned that there was a Jewish pro-Second Amendment in the US, called Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. Unfortunately, through a disastrous combination of ill-health and health-related fatalities, the JPFO looked as if it was going under. Fortunately, though, those still able to manage the group realized that they needed to reach out for help. The JPFO is now merging with the Second Amendment Foundation, a forty-year old organization with 650,000 members. Yay.
More evidence, if you needed it, that climate change is faith, not science
We’ve discussed here before the fact that, because climate change is a non-falsifiable theory, it’s religious in nature, not scientific. If you’d like further evidence of the fact that climate change must always be accepted as core truth, no matter how the data changes, get a load of this AOL news headline: “Global warming likely to cause colder and snowier winters, scientists say.” And yes, the “news” story attached says just that: global warming means global cooling — Praise be to Gaia!
The scientific consensus was wrong AGAIN
I’ve never liked artificial sweeteners, since I think they taste nasty. Also, while I’m not one of those people who insists on all-natural, all-organic food, I viscerally felt that the body handles real sugar better than fake stuff. In my mind, it was better to eat real sugar in smaller amounts, rather than to load up on artificially sweetened food.
A doctor acquaintance of mine ridiculed me. His argument? If you ever go to a medical conference that offers both sugared and artificially-sweetened soda, the doctors will all go for the artificially sweetened stuff.
Well, in another blow to conventional wisdom amongst scientists, it turns out that artificial sweeteners mess with the body’s chemistry, contributing to obesity and diabetes among other things. Let’s just say that I’m not surprised, either about sweetener’s dangers or about the scientific community being wrong again.
The Orwellian nature of campus “free speech” zones
You and I like this poster:
Over at Penn State, however, the campus authorities wouldn’t like anything about that poster. Although they have a “free speech” area, it turns out that they only allow such speech as they’ve previously vetted and permitted to occur in that area. And we wonder why American college students come out dumber than they went in, despite their glossy patina of Marxist catch-phrases.
A lost America
Caped Crusader sent me the link for a beautiful elegy for an America lost:
We, largely rural kids of the small-town South, represented without knowing it a culture, an approach to existence, and a devastating principle: You can’t impose decency, honesty, good behavior, or responsibility. They are in the culture, or they are not. If they are, you don’t need laws, police, and supervision. If they are not, laws won’t much help. And this is why the US is over, at least as the country we knew.
Read the whole thing here.
I should add that the kids in my community have a good culture too. They don’t run to gangs, they work hard in school, and, except for drugs and alcohol, they’re generally law-abiding. But rather than seeming like the face of America, they often seem like an aberrant group, peeled out of the 1950s, with a stop-over in the 1960s to pick up on the drug culture.
Andrew Klavan takes on Obama’s contention that ISIS/ISIL/IS is not Islam
This isn’t one of Klavan’s best, and I’m not surprised. The administration has cut itself adrift from reality, and it’s hard to parody lunacy. Nevertheless, Klavan gives it the old college try and it’s still a fun video:
As in past years, people who were older than about ten on September 11, 2001, have honored its anniversary. These social media acknowledgements of that fateful day tend to take two forms: (1) the “where were you then” form, as exemplified by George Takei, or as I think of it “the fly trapped in amber” approach ; and (2) the “9/11 still matters” viewpoint, as exemplified by Lt. Col. Allen West. I incline to Col. West’s approach, but it leaves important questions unanswered, which I’ll try to explain here.
George Takei has more that 7.5 million Facebook followers, thanks to the frequently amusing things he posts there. His popularity means it’s possible to discern certain cultural trends from his posts and from the response to those posts. Take, for example, his 9/11 post. To his credit, Takei didn’t forget that today is a special day. Instead, he acknowledged it and asked his followers to reminisce about their 9/11 experiences:
Last I looked, more than 20,000 people approved of this post, almost 4,000 shared it, and around 4,000 added their comments.
There’s nothing wrong with what Takei and his followers are doing. After all, more than fifty years after the fact, we still have people spending Thanksgiving explaining exactly what they were doing in 1963 when they learned Kennedy had been assassinated. It’s our way of assuring ourselves and others that we too are part of a cataclysmic, unifying, paradigm-shifting event, even if we lacked the geographic proximity to say truthfully “I was there.”
What’s missing from this “where were you then” approach to 9/11 is that it avoids taking a serious look at 9/11’s impact, not just on our personal emotional status, but on our nation and the world at large. “I was there, if only in spirit,” is a far cry from dealing with the practical reality that “Islamism is still here, in spirit and in fact.” It’s dangerous to lock 9/11 into the past, only to drag it out annually to admire it, much as one looks at a fly’s tortured body locked in ancient amber.
Lt. Col. Allen West represents the opposite end of the “Remembering 9/11″ spectrum. The events of 9/11 may have happened thirteen years ago, he says, but they matter today. He is correct. They matter very much. In his 9/11 post, Col. West, after briefly describing his own 9/11 memories, turns the focus where it rightly belongs:
And here we are 13 years later and still living under the threat of an Islamic terrorist attack. We go through security protocols all because of Islamic terrorist attacks. We just witnessed two Americans beheaded by members of an Islamic terrorist army.
Thirteen years later and it is as though we learned no lessons from 9/11. Our own recalcitrance to define this enemy was demonstrated last night by our president, Barack Hussein Obama, who firmly declared that ISIS is not “Islamic” — then what the hell are they, Amish? Political correctness has placed us in a position where almost half of our country fears another major terrorist attack.
(Please remind me to pull out that “What the hell are they? Amish?” line next time I cross paths with an Islamic apologist.)
In addition to reminding us that 9/11 continues to have real-world repercussions, West proposes that the military provides an affirmative solution to radical Islam’s continuing aggression:
My fellow Americans, we don’t have to live under this specter of Islamo-fascism and jihadism. We cannot go another year — certainly not another 13 — living in fear all the while refusing to admit that they exist. I am tired of being told that we cannot offend folks. I am tired of hearing that it’s not all Muslims. If that’s so, those moderates need to “man up” and kick some extremist arse. Because for 13 years, we’ve fiddled around and played games of winning hearts and minds and nation building and all we got in exchange were two beheaded Americans.
The original “day that will live in infamy” led us to one goal: the destruction of the enemy who attacked us. It was Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who stated that he feared they had awakened a sleeping giant. But the giant that is America is still asleep.
When President Ronald Reagan was asked how he defined victory in the Cold War he replied simply, “we win they lose.” And it was Alexander the Great who said, “I would not fear an army of lions if led by sheep, but I would fear an army of sheep if led by a lion.” America is looking for a lion who will crush the wolves and embolden, unleash and direct the indomitable American spirit that will not cower.
I agree with Col. West that radical Islam needs to be stomped out, or at least sent to the far outskirts of civilization where this nihilistic ideology can wither and die on the vine. What I’d like Col. West to do, though, is to explain precisely how one goes about doing this.
The “how” of destroying radical Islam has been on my mind of late. Just today, when I explained to a young man of my acquaintance that radical Islam cannot be accommodated but must be destroyed, he asked the obvious question: “Well, what would you do?”
I had no answer. ISIS is actually the easiest problem to solve, because it has set itself up as an Islamic state. After all, if it’s a state, we can declare war against it and wipe it out. The problem is that, outside of ISIS’s helpful decision to attach a large target to its collective backside, we’re more hampered when it comes to the constantly increased number of other manifestations of radical Islam.
Looking outside Iraq, radical Islam isn’t a coherent, bomb-able, nation with borders. Instead, it’s a toxic ideology that permeates larger societies, both Muslim and non-Muslim. And even within Muslim nations or communities, it’s actively embraced only by about 10% of Muslims — although the majority provide strong passive support (putting the lie to Obama’s assurance that there’s nothing sharia-like about “real” Islam).
With regard to those passive sharia supporter, Col. West is correct that it’s time for the “so-called” moderates to put up or shut up, but that still leaves us with a problem: Where do we aim our guns?
Do we resume a hot war Afghanistan, just as we’re on the verge of treating, leaving a triumphant Taliban? Do we drop bombs on remote islands in the Philippines, where a bloody Muslim insurgency has gone on for years? Or how about taking the Marines to India, home of the Mumbai massacre? Or maybe we aim our guns on in Qatar, an oil-rich nation that generously funds Hamas (and is home to a CENTCOM presence).
And so it goes, with country after country hosting a large radical Islamist contingent that too often is an untouchable Fifth Column. Need more examples? There’s Turkey, which is a NATo member, and which is slowly being dragged from the 21st century back to the 7th, with 68% of Turkish citizens supporting Hamas. England was our ally in Iraq, but London is Ground Zero for radical Islam. France, where 16% of the population supports Hamas, is witnessing a mass Jewish Exodus that continued unabated throughout the summer, despite Israel’s wartime footing. Wartime Israel was safer to French Jews than peacetime France. And there’s always Malmo, in Sweden, where 40% of the population is Muslim. Thanks to this influx, Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe.
Radical Islam in the Middle East also leaves us without targets. We can’t attack Saudi Arabia, which has for decades funded the Sunni side of toxic Islam, because it’s long been our ally and, absent domestic drilling, is a necessary oil purveyor. Moreover, the Saudis are now afraid of the Frankenstein’s monster they created, and are making nice with Israel, our ally in the war against jihad Islam. We’re also unwilling to take on Iran, which has for decades funded the Shia side of toxic Islam. Worse, it seems that Obama would like to partner with Iran to help get rid of Sunni ISIS. And then of course there’s Gaza. We weren’t pleased when the Israelis delicately bombed it, so it’s unlikely that we’ll start bombing it ourselves any time soon.
And really, if we’re going to have to bomb whole communities of radical Islamists, we’re going to have to look within our own borders. We’ll need to add the states of Minnesota and Michigan to the list of targets, not to mention towns such as Fremont, California, and large parts of California’s Central Valley. Heck, if an FBI friend of mine is correct, it might be time to drop a bomb on Marin too, since that idyllic Leftist paradise has a burgeoning radical Islamic population. (Remember John Walker Lindh? His Marin connections weren’t a coincidence.)
Given the parasitism of radical Islam throughout the world, what precisely is the military solution to this ideology that has permeated the world’s fabric? Obama’s approach for the past five-and-a-half years has been a dismal failure. Moreover, if his speech last night (a fairly impotent combination of ambition, distraction, uglification, and derision) is anything to go by, his future approach to jihad seems to be headed to the same graveyard as his past course of action.
So, Col. West, if you’re reading this post, please expand on how you would deal, not just with ISIS, but with radical Islam’s pernicious spread throughout the world. With America on a wartime footing, this may well be your time to aim for the land’s highest office. Much as I like you, I wasn’t sure about your chances as a peacetime president because Americans might be leery of again electing a man with limited Congressional experience. As a war-time president, , though. . . . Well, if you have a workable course of action against Islam, that plan, put together with your conservativism, leadership skills, fearlessness, and bone-deep patriotism, means you’d have my support and my vote in a heartbeat.
UPDATE: JoshuaPundit believes that Iran is the pivot on which radical Islam turns. Deal with Iran, and the other dominoes will fall in a way favorable to Western interests.