Looping the Hen

Lack of Pollution leads to Global Warming

At least that's what I think this says:

And a NASA study reported Thursday in the journal Science found that an important counter-balance to warming — sunlight blocked by volcanic gases, dust, pollution and other aerosol particles — appears to have weakened.

Didn't we hear forever that we needed to cut our aerosol usage? We did that, and now we get global warming because there aren't enough particles in the air. Shouldn't people worry that trying to prevent global warming might cause some other catastrophe?

This is one of the environmentalist's biggest problems. We live in a huge global ecosystem, and they keep picking bits and pieces to focus on. However, like they've always told us, the butterfly effect effectively prevents us from predicting whether any particular action we take is going to be better than any particular inaction.

I've heard it posited that we are actually in the middle of an ice age and that global warming is the only thing keeping the glaciers from covering huge swathes of land. I don't put a lot of credence into that theory, but the bigger point is that environmentalists, and the global warming fanatics in particular, keep wanting to flip climate switches when they truly have no idea what the ramifications will be.

If we turn off all the coal-fired power plants, will that cause the above problem to get even worse, causing even more global warming? Who knows. I for one would like to keep the electricity flowing so I can turn on whichever I need, my heater or my air conditioner.

That's so...err...never mind...

So it is ok to make insulting and stereotypical comments about someone's religion, but defend yourself with another phrase in common usage and face punishment and a note in your file? Have we become the largest country of crybabies in the world? (I apologize if I have offended any 2-year olds with that term)

More political correctness gone wild in America.

A 30 to 1 Kill Ratio 'Raises Doubts'

I have been unusually non-political lately, spending more time concentrating on poker, Civ 4 and work than on Iraq, climate change and talking heads.

Still, I found this account of what sounds like a huge victory in Iraq a little one-sided. In the first paragraph the author presents his lede:

Accounts of the bloody battle near Najaf have produced more questions than answers, raising doubts about Iraqi security forces' performance and concern over tensions within the majority Shiite community.

Okay, so my doubts about the Iraqi security forces are supposed to be raised. However, later on in the story, we find that with US and British help, they captured 650 enemy combatants, and killed 300. The Iraqi security forces lost only 11, 30 wounded, and there were 2 Americans dead when their helicopter was shot down.

So, let me try and understand this. The good guys kill the bad guys at a 30 to 1 ratio, and disable them on a 100 to 1 ratio, and we are supposed to have our doubts raised? How about this as a more accurate title: 'With US support, Iraqi Security forces devastate terrorist militia' or 'Enemy militia has worse odds than longshot in Kentucky Derby.'

Is it possible the Iraqi's let the group assemble so they could all be killed or caught in one fell swoop, as it sounds like happened? It is possible that intelligence agents had this on their radar for awhile, and the media was just not informed. Who knows. All I can say to the folks, Iraqi, American and British, who participated in this battle is that you kick serious Soldier of Heaven buttocks.

I'm not sure what the reporter expected. With near a thousand enemy combatants, this was a battle larger than many in history, and should be expected to take more than a few resources, and time. The fact that the good guys came out of it with (relatively) few losses is good news and should be a source of pride for our armed forces and those Iraqis they trained.

The Enemy of My Enemy...

Internecine struggles in the Middle East. It is definitely good news for the rest of us, but does it allow Iran the potential to become another North Korea? Excluded from virtually all world activities, destitute, but with the bomb nonetheless? The hope would seem to lie with the greater mobility of the opposition movements in Iran than there ever was in Kim Jong's Korea.

Another interesting nuclear-related article here.

Virtual Tombstone

If only we could all deal with our disagreements in such a way. Terrorists could blow up virtual buildings; pixelated Jack Bauer's could torture and decapitate said terrorists. All in all, it sounds like it would be a grand old time.

Kelo Christmas Cards

I can't tell whether the Hartford Courant is unsympathetic to Ms. Kelo or not. One of the commenters states:"It's amazing anyone could be so vindictive when they've made so much money," said Gail Schwenker-Mayer, a supporter of the development project who received one of the cards.

Maybe Ms. Schwenker-Mayer would accept 3 times the dollar amount for her priceless diamond engagement ring, or maybe I could give her $40 for the stray cat she adopted 10 years ago, way more than 3 times its value. However, most people understand that some things have value above and beyond its dollar cost; for many, homes are one of those things. I guess some people don't understand the concept of priceless.

Stealing a woman's home and then thinking its ok because you gave her 3 times its dollar amount is making silk out of sows' ears. How much does New London stand to make by stealing those peoples' homes? Tens of millions; hundreds of millions? $400k is a paltry price to pay for such a return; if New London was trying to be equitable, giving Ms. Kelo a % of the projected revenue of the project would be a more adequate method of determining her home's value. Because if it wasn't worth more than $400k, they wouldn't have taken it.

I for one echo Ms. Kelo's anger, and think she is justified calling down whatever she chooses upon the Thieves of New London.

Kelo's Bigger, Uglier Brother

This almost made me physically ill. It is sanctioned blackmail and a visual level corruption. Unbelievable.

A Breath of Clean Air

We're never quite as bad as people seem to want to portray us. I still believe it is because the richer we get, the more time people have to worry about their environment. To get there, we just need to allow wealth to build as it may.

Working toward a better environment may actually mean...working toward a better environment.

Who knew?

Interesting. The Democrats aren't even in office and already we're getting smaller government. Sure, the article is slightly slanted against the Repubs, but coming from the Post that's not surprising. I'm guessing that still doesn't alter the basics of the article, as the Right hasn't been great on the size of government since...well, since they gained all the power.

Now, if only we could go another 10 years without any earmarks or any increases in the size of government and the budget would be at about the right size.

A Wasted 10 Years

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When Newt Gingrich was booted after the Contract With America, the Repub's appeared to have lost whatever guiding principles they had. Both parties are corrupt, however I would contend that in '94 and '96 the Republicans were not quite so corrupt. By 2000 and having control of both houses, they became the machine, just like the Democrats were when swept out of office by a rising tide of discontent.

All I know is that as a conservative (Libertarian), having Republican dominion over the executive and legislative branches never transformed into passing laws I wanted to see. They didn't make the tax cuts permanent, didn't repeal the inheritance tax, didn't fix Social Insecurity, and didn't tackle the US's immigration issues. On top of that, they took us back deep into the red and deficit spending with huge Democrat-like social programs.

If I wanted social programs, I would vote Democratic. What I want is the mythical small government Republicans promised once upon a time. I support the war, I support fighting terrorism using most of the methods attacked over the last several years, and for me this election had nothing to do with that.

The GOP brought this on themselves, and I am sure there is much handwringing going on behind the scenes, with folks wondering how it could come to this. I'll leave those folks with the words of JFK (no, not John Kerry); they can take a look at the items left on the table they could have acted upon and know why they lost. They mostly got the war on terror right; but they got everything else wrong. Had they simply done something, their losses might not have been so bad.

There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long range risks and costs of comfortable inaction. -John F. Kennedy

GOP's Secret Weapon: John Kerry

Minnesota National Guard makes fun of John Kerry. Yay!

Bribes for babies...

The part that struck me most about this article is the $960 cash subsidy per month for a third child. That is around what all of my bills run monthly. Assuming they only get half that for child 1 and 2, and you are looking at potentially $2000 monthly, tax free and in cash, on top of all the other child care subsidies and job security for 3 years following a child (potentially nine years job protection after your 3rd child!). Even if you choose to work, you have 36 paid holidays yearly, plus another 4-6 weeks paid vacation. That's all of 194 actual workdays yearly for those keeping score at home. I thought I was doing pretty well with my 3 weeks vacation and 11 paid holidays yearly, for a total of around 235 actual workdays yearly.

To reverse negative population growth, which is a death sentence on a society, many measures are 'appropriate'. Although my Libertarian instincts scream at the mere notion of such a grand cash-for-babies scheme, I understand a nation-state's survival instinct on that scale (I could even think of it as an odd form of national self-defense). However, the amount of resentment your average single, childless person could feel is potentially huge. Which I guess is the point, as they are trying to turn single, childless people into income-redistributing, check-collecting mothers and fathers.

Pot...meet kettle.

I almost laughed out loud when I read one part of this rant. I won't comment on it as a whole as it is a typical empty political screed you will see often from the right and left.

The line I find so funny is this:

A sitting member of Congress threatens the use of the public policy process in retaliation to anyone who supports the other party’s agenda of environmental safety, healthcare access, education, civil rights and most importantly, rejecting special interest politics.

I'm curious when the Democrats started rejecting special interest politics? I must have missed that somewhere. It is the basis of their power. Environmentalism, universal health care, affirmitive action...whether any of these are good or bad, I don't see how one cannot see them as the cornerstone of special interest politics. Toss in globalism, political correctness and the desire for a nanny-state, and I have yet to find something that acts universally in a positive way. Almost everything the political system in this country is about is based on pandering to one or more non-universal constituencies.

It's no surprise that the only party that truly cares about people in a 'treat everybody equal' kind of way is the Libertarians. However, because everyone does not want to be treated equally, and because they want handouts and want the government intervening in our everyday lives, we have political parties. I won't even assert that the Republicans don't do some of this too; however, it is the bread and butter of the Democratic party.

Hmm...

I think I missed something...what part of what the Pope said wasn't true?

It seems the terrorists have embraced western-inspired political correctness as one of their weapons.

Sums it up for me...

We went from aggressively defending ourselves, our allies, and the right thing to do to...well...not much, as todays resolution gives Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran more breathing room...ugg.

(Cartoon via G-Max, if anyone knows who its by I'll give attribution)

Say it ain't so!

At the very least, part of my non-blogging is due to various stages of disgust over the political landscape of the last several weeks. Utter disbelief at the stupidity of (almost) all politicians as well as the nitwits in the UN have broken through my psychic defenses and rendered me speechless.

The only good news I've seen in the last month is here. Congressman Flake (someone, from somewhere) put forth 19 anti-pork amendments, and to my disbelief (though I must admit some pride) my Democratic Congressman (Cooper) voted for every one of them. Elsewhere in TN, the Republican's and Democrat's ended up pretty evenly split in their support (or non-support) for wasting my money.

It's a scary thought, but from my vantage point in TN, thanks to Congressman Cooper and Phil Bredesen (well, and the ever-spending Republican majority in Congress), it appears that at least some Democrats are becoming more fiscally conservative than the conservatives. Other than national security, that is my new 2nd voting issue. So if we ever win the war against Islamofascism, I might actually vote for a Democrat. *Shudder*

Guest Blog #1 - Crossfire

This is going to be long, with both my thoughts and G-Max's note in its entirety; I am taking the liberty to post his comment to a new entry (Guest blog #1!), because it is well thought out and an important subject. So be warned, not for the faint of heart. And to Tarpy, no complaints from you after this for at least a week! Being the strong politico that you are, you should weigh in also.

Ok... as conservative as I'm getting in my old age, my liberal tendencies have to shine through here when it comes to protection of first amendment rights. Do I agree that absolutely a line has to be drawn in the protection of national security? Absolutely... the NY Times picture you included in your post demonstrates that. I see, however, three problems with the majority of the reactionary conservatives decrying the 4th estate's report of these terrorist stopping tools: First, the NY Times picture and "article", while sensational, is just that. To equate the stories that have been published in our time with having the same effect as the "one if by land" story is like comparing apples with orangutans.

Second, while I agree that this generally liberal press (as compared with the ideology of this administration) will opt more often than not with printing a story than surpressing it in the supposed name of National Security, however the conservative approach assumes that the press has not (during this administration's reign) surpressed a story in the name of national security. And, yes, while I can't point to concrete examples in the last 6 months of where they have done so, but asking for proof would be akin to proving the negative. Empiracally, though, the media has suppressed stories in recent past for national security purposes -- such as knowledge of NSA wiretapping and troop movements in the Gulf.

Third, and most importantly, the views expressed in the links adopt an extremely slippery slope approach toward news reporting. It assumes that the benefit to the people from withholding the story will always outweigh that from running the story if lives can potentially be saved. On its face this may seem logical, but to what extreme do we take it? Ok, fine, so what if we suppress the story about wiretapping and recording suspected terrorist transmissions from overseas (based on the President's record of zealous attempts to fight terrorists even in the face of privacy or other rights, however, the story should not come as a surprise to anyone), where do we stop from here? What if the President has a bad weekend in the Mideast while discussing international peace efforts with Jordan and Syria and pisses off a number of Muslim nations? Should the press surpress this information because terrorists can then turn to these nations to attempt to garner additional help from these countries in their fight against the US? Or hypothetically the Supreme Court hands down a verdict that the CIA/FBI/NSA is violating the right to privacy in their use of infrared or radio frequencies to search ship cargo holds containing international goods without permission of the shipowner? Suppress that too? Or how about the press reporting that airports still have a number of holes to fill in their checkpoints in order to make airline travel more secure? Stop that one as well? All of these potentially pose a threat to our national security as they set forth loopholes that terrorists can possibly explot, but the question remains where to draw the line?

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer, but I do know that it isn't allowing the government to direct what can and cannot be printed. Muslim countries already have that you see, its called state run press. To all you naysayers, I say criticize the press all you want, but I believe that reporting on problems like this causes private industry and the government to search for solutions to the problems the press is reporting on (and I dare say more quickly than if the issues weren't presented to the public). True, maybe the government and private sector is doing so to prevent egg from ending up on their collective faces, but in the end, if that makes the airlines I fly on more safe and secure, or the borders subject to more scrutiny, or cargo aboard sea or air vessels subject to more screenings, or other loopholes being closed, then by all means, I double dog dare you to tell me the media's reporting of the weaknesses to our security cannot (and has not and will not) make our country safer in the long run.
G-Max

I think this topic is important, in that it provides the contrast between the liberal perspective on the press's actions of late (and in general their feelings on security and defense) and the conservative. I think it also explains why to a large degree the American people typically have more faith in the right on security matters. Both of these programs were barely blips on the consciousness of people at large after they were exposed, because most people assume the government is (and more importantly, should be) doing these types of things to keep them safe. As I used to be a privacy advocate of the 1st degree, I see much of my old reasoning and reflexive defense of certain rights, and it may show why I drifted right on security matters. It is easier to hinge an argument on potential loss of freedom, which many liberals regularly do, than it is to defend actual exposure of programs responsible for tracking and capturing terrorists.

While I agree that the picture in the previous post is sensational and satirical, is it really apples to primates? I'm not so sure. Both the NSA program and the SWIFT program were operational in nature, and although they did not involve 'troops on the ground', they did (do?) let us capture people who want to kill us. I would also submit that the war on Islamic Fundamentalism, being a different type of war than a straight-up battle with the British, requires different types of tactics and strategy. So as Mr. Revere and companions allowed us to engage the redcoats, the NSA wiretapping program and SWIFT both allowed us to track and engage the terrorists, who typically are difficult to isolate. In that sense, I would say they are more similar than not; however, the semantics of irony and satire are not any points I would have any difficulty conceding. If you can figure out how to get the bad guys to wear bright red and line up straight so the Marines can shoot them, I'd be happy to forego these types of programs.

I don't know many (any, actually) conseravatives who say that 'no' stories have not been supressed due to national security concerns. I am certain that there have been stories not published due to national security concerns. In fact, I wish there were more stories not published due to national security concerns. The NSA story took over a year to come out if I remember, and Geraldo got kicked off the air for implying some troop movements. However, do you think troop movements specifically do not get published because it is out of the newspapermans' desire to protect their country and save lives or because they know for a fact it is one of the few times they will actually be in trouble if they print them? The one thing in common about all the national security stories is they look to have been outed by partisan political motivation, not any desire to 'serve the people.' Especially ironic is the New York Times publishing editorials saying that the administration is not doing enough to track terrorists funds or impede their operations, and then publish stories exposing the programs that are doing exactly that.

One of the main problems with the Times printing these stories is that they are fed by people who are breaking the law, and their security clearance, which are typically only granted after deep investigations (I remember my brother having his kindergarten and 1st grade teachers contacted before he got his). These are the people tasked with our security, and the papers are giving them an outlet to abuse their positions and disregard their responsibilities to keep us safe in order to attempt to make the administration look bad. The one time the media actually became interested in punishing leaks instead of exploring them was the Valarie Plame non-scandal; why is that do you think? Perhaps because it is the one time that the leak came from the right and damaged people's image of the left's worldview.

The slippery slope argument, which I used to use consistently (and one we used in many an off-case), is almost always the centerpiece of 1st Amendment discussions and anti-administration bias. The argument basically runs 'We need to expose ourselves to danger to protect our freedom!' However, it is here where the fundamental unseriousness of the liberals and left about national security and protecting our country shows most clearly. The slippery slope goes both ways. Instead of losing fundamental rights to expression (which are not really in peril, nor even demonstrated as being almost in peril), we are instead exposed to information that will allow terrorists to refine their operations and kill us more effectively. But at least I get to feel better about my right to blog about national security secrets now, right?

Neither the NSA program nor the SWIFT program were illegal, nor were they on any sort of slope. They were both operational successes. They both had congressional oversight by both political parties. They both had large amounts of procedure built in designed to protect individual rights; the NSA program received warrants from the FISA court in around 99% of cases and only in the most extreme and time-sensitive cases were warrantless taps conducted. Even in those cases, the NSA went back to seek warrants after the fact. The SWIFT program had additional international oversight.

If, during the course of their investigations, the Times had found abuses of these programs, I could see wanting to expose them. However, these were not programs where some 20-year old hacker is listening in on Bill Clinton talking dirty to an intern or to us talking about our unbreakable code. These were programs specifically tracking terrorists phone networks and financial transactions. There is no evidence, or even hint of, any abuses taking place. So I'm unsure what 'public interest' was presented or what abuse was prevented by the exposure of them?

I find this quote most interesting "...I double dog dare you to tell me the media's reporting of the weaknesses to our security cannot (and has not and will not) make our country safer in the long run." The funny thing is, I agree with you. I want my baggage to be safer, and my planes to be safer. The problem is, both the NSA program and the SWIFT program were the programs making our country safer in the long run. No one at the Times ever argued that exposing these programs would make us more secure, unlike ones exposing flaws in our security nets. These were best-of-breed counter-terrorism efforts, with operational oversight and no reported abuses. I hope you are not suggesting we are now safer because these programs are now probably ineffective? These programs were exposed to sell newspapers and attempt to make the administration look bad, nothing more, and that is infinitely more troubling than some possible and unproven hypothetical abuse. When Bill Keller wrote his editorial defending the Times exposure of the SWIFT program, his argument was not based on anything as serious as alleged or possible abuses, but instead the vague notion of the 'publics' right to know.'

When the White House or the Pentagon requests a newspaper to not print a story, it is just that, a request. No one has limited the freedom of the press to publish. We are not on the verge of a state-run press, and it is hyperbole to suggest it. These types of articles are the proof that the government is not trying to run the press, otherwise many Times' folks would be in jail where they belong for violation of various espionage laws. In fact, I would suggest that is proof that the administration is being too accomodating when it comes to protecting the 1st Amendment, not that there is about to be some 4th Estate coup.

I would like to hope that the press would publish those stories where it really is in my best interest to 'know', such as a loophole in airport security that needs to be fixed ASAP (where that information could allow me to make an informed decision not to fly, if I chose). It is too bad they are choosing to expose the programs that are actually working to protect us, not those that aren't, and my family and friends are less safe because of it.

We don't need no stinking secrets!

For those who have been following the New York Times exposing national secrets controversy, this satire isn't anything but true. If you don't know about it, you should. Think the government is bad? The media is rapidly becoming worse.

Background here, here, and here.

(Image HT Les Baitzer via Powerline.)

Running the Asylum...

Sometimes I wonder when (If?) Kim Jong Il or Fidel are going to kick the bucket. Perhaps they have entered into a Faustian bargain or have an impressionist painting extending their lives. They have been part of the crazy landscape of foreign politics for going on how long? 40 years? Eeek.

Kim Jong has apparently taken total leave of his senses, as he is now stealing trains from his best ally. (HT: Glenn)

Kooky.

Hooters for Neuters...

I hate political correctness, especially when people are trying to help. Sorry G, but Cali is at the top of the stupid tree sometimes.

Sticking it to the Man...

In the tradition of the Pirate Bay, a BitTorrent site (a download concept similar to peer-to-peer), I recently logged onto All of MP3.com, a Russian music download site I saw mentioned on Ars. It is a purchase site, where you can pay by the track or the song, but it appears the entire cost structure is based on the size of the song (you can choose your music quality), not on anything resembling the recording industry's ridiculous pricing.

I am sure the RIAA says it is illegal, but it looks like a professionally run site, and there are no pop-ups, ads, or any other annoyances. Just song downloads that run 10 to 20 cents and albums between a dollar and two. It is currently the target of litigation, as well as being under pressure from the Russian Government, which is in turn being pushed by the US and the WTO to shut it down.

Not that I would advise anyone to do anything illegal or immoral or anything, being that I love the RIAA and the MPAA with all my lil heart, but you should at least check both the mentioned sites out...for informational purposes only.

For those who are into the Piracy vs. the Man debate, make sure you check out the legal threats page of The Pirate Bay, it's hysterical. (old hat tip to WCB)

Giving Credit Where It's Due

I meant to post this ages ago. It is sad when Barney Franks has to point out when conservative free-market Republicans go astray.

Sheesh.

So...

A former governor, a Saudi prince and a country music star walk into a bar...

No, actually, not much of a joke. I was privileged to attend a function this past Tuesday for Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, ambassador to the United States. It was put on by the Strategic Alliance, a Texas-based PR firm headed by Meredith Iler, a prominent Republican. They appear to be trying to reduce the generally negative view of Saudi Arabia after the 9/11 attacks.

There were about 70 to 80 prominent members of Nashville society there (mostly Republican from what I could tell), from bank presidents to Fortune 500 board members. The food was superb and prepared by a local restaurant owner. I'm usually not much for fancy-schmancy hordeurves and such, but they were exceptional. (Although the sweet white wine I was enjoying may have contributed to my positive overall experience!)

Best anecdote: My lovely girlfriend came over and said 'I was over there and saw this woman with Crystal Gayle hair...and then she turned around and I saw her name tag. It was Crystal Gayle.' I had seen Ms. Gayle earlier in the evening but I wasn't sure it was her, as she was shorter than I would have guessed!

Other than the fact that I would have liked to argue with the ambassador, it was an enjoyable event. At one point he insisted that all Israel had to do to gain peace in the Middle East is to give up half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. We've seen how well giving up land to terrorists has worked so far (Read: not at all, unless you count letting people shoot rockets at you from closer as a win)

Google Abusing it's Super Powers?

I've read some articles along this line for quite a while. If it ends up being true Googling will no longer be something I do.

They have too much power as a search tool to be sorting the news and search results by their biases (if they are indeed doing so).

To Baby...Redux

Thanks for the comments on the last post folks. I was going to respond directly in the comments, but this has been a pretty big issue on my mind for a while, so I think it is worth another.

The parents certainly view things through a protective lens, and regardless of my 'perfect world of child-rearing', I might put the same pressures on myself to keep my kids safe.

However, I think one comment states pretty closely the more specific question I wanted to examine (Bethany's):

i agree that it WOULD be great to afford the next generation the freedoms we had as kids, but it is sadly and undeniably a different world today than the one we grew up in. (one filled with internet predators and tweener thrill killers,etc.)

The question is this, is it really a different world? Or one created by a sensational media.

I wish I had statistics all the way back to the seventies (And more recent data), but according to this crime rates against kids actually dropped against children between 1993 and 2000, more than half. But you'd never know it listening to the radio or watching TV.

My perception, and I would guess many others', is that with all the news coverage and media blitzing, it seems like the problem has steadily gotten worse. However, according to everything I have read in the last 10 years, it seems most crime numbers have fallen against those of the 70's and 80'. One might argue that it is 'parental overkill' that is causing these numbers to go down. However, there have been similar declines in crime against almost all segments of the population, so I doubt that is truly the answer.

Is it possible that it really is safer now than it was when I was growing up? If that is the case, it seems that we really are strangling our kids. Beth, you joke about GPS, but many parents are already using it on their dogs, let alone their kids. Shouldn't cell phones and GPS technology make us more apt to trust our kids alone, instead of less? Where is the line between realism and carelessness?

It sounds like some would think letting 9-year olds walk 3 miles home from school is 'carelessness', let alone bike-riding to another town to buy comic books. But how much of that is programmed by a society that believes that any number of incidents against children larger than 0 should lead to greater regulation of how we raise them? TN just passed laws mandating child seat use until 9 years old and 5 feet tall? Huh? I feel bad that Brett is going to have to buy his wife a booster seat! Where does the madness end?

I am not advocating total anarchy, but there needs to be a return to common sense. Smoking kills 300,000 people annually. Alcohol adds another 100,000. Driving not impaired accidents still kill 80,000. Poor diet and lifestyle kills hundreds of thousands more. (Some of these numbers are coming off the top of my head as I remember them, if anyone has the actuals I will plug them in). So why don't we change the things that kill large numbers of people instead of regulating those things that kill small numbers? It strikes me as societal hypocrisy.

I am sure it is easy to get elected and pass 'fuzzy' laws like making sure kids are in safety seats until they go to their junior prom, and perhaps save 10,000. But at what cost? I have to pay higher premiums on private insurance and Medicare taxes to compensate for those who choose to smoke or drink and then go to the doctor when they get sick. Why don't we mandate smoking as a crime and save 300,000 yearly? Why don't we ban automobiles that go over 55mph and save 100,000? I hate to sound clinical, but how is it the things that kill 1 or 20 or 100 or 500 people get the attention and effort? Why is it that we are paranoid about our children to such an extent that even after a 50% decline in crimes against them and we are more fervent than ever about protecting them because we are convinced the bogeyman is going to pick them up between here and the back yard?

These are Devil's Advocate questions, so please don't take this as an attack on anyone's parenting. Of course we want to protect our children. I have three beautiful nephews, a perfect niece and I am sure the most beautiful daughter that ever lived (that's another story) that I want to live long, healthy lives. I just wonder where we draw the line between too much and not enough?

To Baby or Not To Baby?

*Cough* I was going to post this, well, someday when I had it more thought through and some statistics, but I find myself prodded by folks who should instead be sewing wings or beer wench outfits or some such! Crazy world indeed!

I hear all the horror stories of kidnapped, killed, raped, abused and other harms that come to children left alone. Part of me wonders if the world is really that much worse than when I was growing up, or simply more aware due to our sensationalized media addiciton. Glenn Reynolds, the world's most popular (at least the most read) Libertarian, mentions that in TN, the State considers leaving a 9-year old alone is neglect. Although I know it is likely true in our era of Parenting Police, I find the notion preposterous, and a little sickening. The article offers a possible explanation for declining birth rates, while other writings of his explain the danger of negative population growth, such as exists in most of Europe today.

The concept of having children in such a world is so vastly different from the one I have envisioned for most of my adult years, it is causing me to rethink the whole idea. When I was nine, I was going to Pierson Middle School (4th/5th) in the sleepy little town I grew up in, population circa 9000. Unless I had to be home for some reason, or it was below -10F, I walked. It is around 3 miles home (I always thought it was more, but Google just corrected me), depending on the route. G-Max and I would often walk or bike to his house, which was only about a mile away, or head to the library to play chess or stratego for a couple of hours.

Between the hours of 3pm and 6pm on school days, my friends and I had near total freedom to do what we wanted. Sure, we spent thousands of hours in front of the TV, but we also spent it reading, wandering through Kenny's, (our random dollar type store) playing all sorts of games, fooling around in the back yard and the trails behind my house, and otherwise just generally being kids. On the weekends we even occasionally took bike rides to other towns around 9 or 10 miles away to buy comic books or to play video games at the Saybrook Bowling Alley.

Was I a little bit of a latchkey kid? Yes. Do I think my mom or dad neglected me? Nope. Thinking back and looking at the situation today, I honor Mom for respecting me enough to trust in my decisions as early as 8 or 9 years old. Do I want to be stuck to my children's every waking moment for 14 or 15 years before ever letting them be their own person? No, not even a little bit. I don't believe I would be the independent and self-reliant person I am had I not had the freedom when I was younger to learn to enjoy being by myself or with my friends without constant supervision.

If I do have children, I for one want them to understand independence and not need anything other than their own imaginations to be able to enjoy themselves. One of the statistics I had meant to look up was the number of grown men between 25 and 35 that are still living with their parents. If I recall, the number was something horrific, like a third or more.

Did I screw things up on occasion? Oh yes. The worst incident actually occurred when I was older (15 or 16 I think). (Using Lysol and a lighter to kill a bug on the window is not the brightest idea ever) But even though I had the freedom to screw up, I rarely did. When I was living with my father for my last two years of high school, I didn't really have a curfew. Why? Because I never abused the privilege and gave him a need to implement one. And I think that is the way it should be. To learn to be worthy of trust, one has to be trusted.

If I do have children, I hope I allow them as much freedom as mine did me. I hope I instill into them the characteristics that will make them worthy of it. And I hope our society moves away from the mentality that we have to be omnipresent in our kids lives, or at least filling it with all conceivable manner of extra-curricular activity. I used to wish I grew up in my father's time in, of all places, Plainfield, CT, another sleepy little town. TV was not an option. When I hear his stories about him and his brothers, and kids with names like Digger and Johnnie (Knight, actually), I am jealous of the life they had.

Drowning in the Hot Tub

I know how my best friend (G-Max), a Green Semi-Conservative with Liberal tendancies (Or semi-liberal with conservative tendancies) must have felt about politics for many years. When the Republicans completed their domination of the political branches in 2000 (although the Judicial is debatable), some believed (myself included) that we were entering the promised land of smaller government, more years of balanced budgets, and less of a bureaucratic nanny-state. When George W. and the Republican congress passed the tax cuts early in his first term, I was even more convinced we had a good thing going.

After 9/11, although many felt our civil liberties were being threatened with extinction, I felt I understood the need for the Patriot Act and some hard decisions about the War on Terror. The crazies on the left (and some on the right) raised the spectre of a fascist state under Bushitler and his Republinazi regime, but it never materialized. I agreed (and still do) with the mission in Iraq and the importance of establishing another democracy in the Middle East.

So as the years since W took office passed and we saw traditionally liberal big government programs such as No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug benefit pass as well as the retreat from Social Security reform and the fiasco of an immigration policy, I began down the long road of disillusionment. I guess it was shortly after 9/11 that I started reading blogs and discovered Glenn Reynolds. (Instapundit, see sidebar) Independent, polite, curious, and an avowed Libertarian, he helped me to the path.

The problem with being a Libertarian (or in my case, moderately Libertarian) is their lack of any sort of political clout. I believe the percentage of folks who might now be classed as Libertarian (even unintentionally) is large enough to warrant some listening to, if only we had the energy of the grassroots Libs and Cons, or even the Greens. (Anecdotally, discussions with most of my friends leads me to believe they are of the same bent, even though they are from varied backgrounds and geography.) I read this today, describing one possible explanation for our lack of focus.

I for one am almost ready to jump out of the hot tub.

In the past year or more, I have become so fed up with the establishment Republicans, I am most likely either going to support independents down the ticket or stay at home (the Libertarian ticket is generally loony). In the past few days, however, I have been reading some of the responses by more than a few folks, right and center, of the consequences of a protest vote.

Are they right? Is it too dangerous to have the loonies like Pelosi and Kennedy in charge? At this point, I am still undecided. It took Newt and the Contract With America for the Republican's to reassert themselves as a party. If we relegate them to the back seat for another 4 or 8 years, will they follow up with some more large ideas? Will we still be around for them to do so? I may do as the above article suggests, and send checks to folks like Tom Coburn, who looks to be one of the few with a set of nads to go with his values.

If the Democrat's retake one or both houses in 2006, at least then Bush may actually have to use his veto, instead of rubber-stamping every pork-laden bill that crosses his desk.

(Moonbat) Hannibal at the Gates

Much of Jon Stokes discussion of the NSA wiretapping controversy is solid reporting. However, it appears he has a bit of the moonbat lefty in him as well.

First, the article he links is far from a convincing case against the administration, let alone 'skewering.' It glosses over many of the substantial issues, not least of which is the fact that while yes, the NSA was tapping Americans, it does not mention that it was tapping American's who are talking to Al Qaeda or their associates.

I also found his random bashing of Power Line interesting because Powerline, if nothing else, is exhaustive in their discussions of the topics they choose to cover. The folks at Powerline are definitely conservative, strongly so, but not nearly as partisan as many attempt to pin on them. I think people dislike them because, like Michelle Malkin, (who also comes in for the occasional ad hominum at Ars), they are very effective at getting their message out. More effective by far than most of their detractors.

Ars is a great site and I read it twice daily. However, the longer I read the more it becomes apparent that some of the staf there run a lot left of me (nothing wrong with that). They are great news collector's; however, for in-depth analysis (even in their core fields), they have nothing on Powerline.

It's Piracy for Thee but not for Me...Pot, meet Kettle

It appears that the storm troopers at the MPAA have been caught making unauthorized copies of a copyrighted film.

Oh, the lovely irony. The LA Times news account seems pretty even-handed (for them anyway).

To be honest, I don't fully understand or pretend to comprehend what the current copying standards are. However, I do know that if the MPAA thought they could manage it they would chop people's hands off and cane them for even thinking they have the right to make so much as a backup copy without paying some sort of outrageous fee. Considering if they have their way, you won't be able to even own electronic equipment capable of copying your own property.

I figure with the MPAA leading by example, I am going to go make a copy or 10 of something. Actually, according to them: "The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings," she said. Maybe I will sue them in the future for attempting to deny me Fair Use rights for property I own; according to them I will be then within my rights to duplicate at will. Neat.

Political rant at the Escapist

As I noted in an earlier post, the quality of writing at the Escapist has improved considerably, and the pretentiousness has for the most part decreased. There are exceptions for every rule.

I was doing a little catch-up on some back issues and ran across an article by Dave Thomas titled 'The Coward.' The issue is dated September 20, 2005.

The article, had it not strayed from the realm of its subject matter to vacuous and partisan political attacks on the administration, would have been a solid read. Dave is obviously a good writer; he is funny, has better grammar than most, and looks like he tries to write about off-the-beaten-path subjects. His unnecessary insertion of politics into an article about people I respect, the heroes of the US Military, utterly cancels any value his article could have had.

To be honest, I had to read many pages before I finally hit the red zone, as early on his partisanship was camouflaged. For example:

In the striptease of saloon conversation, I gave him the OK to let it all hang out. He told me how much he loved his country and how proud he was to serve. Then, leaning forward with the menace of a guy that's at least 220 and built like a vending machine said sternly, "But that doesn't mean I support this administration. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of what they are doing."

Ok, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but I do understand that even folks in the military don't always approve of the administration's actions, even though the majority support them. However, that paragraph to me screams 'fiction'. Flowery rhetoric followed by a minority opinion expressed as if the author were expressing his own sentiments. His next few paragraphs reinforce this notion:

Then his face fell as he explained how much respect he had for the people in combat, the soldiers that were serving in the line of fire.

So I asked the question.
"How do you feel about a guy like me who never did serve?"

Without a beat, he pinned me with a stare said flatly, "Well, to be honest, I kind of resent that."

Without anger and with very few words, he told me what I already knew - I'm a coward. The only thing that makes this weight a little lighter is that I live in a country of cowards. Being a coward in America is like wearing black clothes at a Nine Inch Nails concert - it's not just a fashion statement, it's a uniform

Umm, really? I'd like to speak with this soldier, because he expresses opinions I have never heard in all the conversations I have ever had with folks in the military (Including 2 brothers, myself, my father, grandfather), and all the reading I have done about them, which in the last 3 years has been considerable. In 1000 anecdotes, letters, stories relayed by folks in the military, I have never once seen any member imply that those at home are cowards. Does it mean that in this case, talking to this writer, it didn't happen? No, of course not, he may be speaking to Pablo Paredes or one of the very few like him. But color me skeptical.

Anyhoo, by this point I'm not sure what the article is trying to say. We're all cowards? Okay, let's tell the folks on Flight 93 that. Tell the tens of thousands of folks who showed up to help in New Orleans that. I believe most people have it in them to be heroes, and in Dave's words, to run up the stairs of a burning building while everyone else is running down. What it seems like Dave would have us to believe is that anyone who doesn't join the military must be a coward, in a country of cowards. Sounds nihilistic to me, and is essentially the same as the chickenhawk theory that only those who have served can speak. It is funny that it is George Bush who actually has given our military the chance to be heroes, to rescue people from tyranny, to 'run up the stairs of a burning building.' In fact, a whole country of burning buildings, human-eating woodchippers, mass graves and rapists. Dave continues on in this vein:

Worst of all, like all the Emo kids who think acting deep means that you actually have anything inside your hollow pubescent chest, the modern American coward thinks they've got it all figured out. They don't call it cowardice; they call it the "American Dream." And only Americans seem to mix up that this dream is just the fantasy of becoming rich and famous. The American Dream is the hallucination of ultimate leisure, of fast cars, early tee times and hot wives spread out across lush backyard BBQs from sea to shining sea.

Really? Striving for the American Dream is now the ultimate expression of cowardice? Wow. So let me ask, if that soldier above wanted to live the American Dream described by Dave a few paragraphs down, would that make him a coward too? I don't know about Dave, but my American Dream, and most of my family and friends' American Dreams have, well, nothing to do with being rich or famous. Sure, that's anecdotal at best, but the author of the article provides no support for his assertion either. My American Dream is to have no debt, a wife, kids, some friends, poker every Friday night, and sex three times a week. And to retire with all my loved ones living within 10 miles from me. I don't know of but a handful of people who long to be rich and famous to the extent they call it their American Dream.

The author continues to blather on for a while about how we are all cowards replacing courage with fey patriotism and some other nonsense. It seems to me that there are more words in the article showing disdain toward the average guy (and not so average guy, as we learn that Lance Armstrong isn't a hero either, just " some super freaky human like the Flash or Wolverine,") than it does exploring what I think is supposed to be the point of the article. I thought he said he was doing an article on the military, but maybe I misread that line.

Finally, we do find some meat in the article, and it seems the author does have some talent for reviewing games.

The second most interesting thing about the game is that it's fun. This is interesting because we assume that the government can't do anything right - at least not as well as the private enterprise of the free market. So, people are surprised to find that AA is good enough that you'd actually think about spending a few bucks to buy a copy. Which leads us to the most interesting thing about the America's Army game: It's free. ...

For example, characters in the game say things like "Range walk," which presumably is something real drill instructors yell at real recruits. If you do stupid things like say, shoot your commanding officer, you'll loose rank and even end up in the brig. (Which is probably something more squad-based online games should consider.)

There is some more good stuff in there worth reading, but it doesn't last even a full page, before we get hit by another rhetorical smart-bomb:

Thanks to a war that nobody really wants to be in, but no one seems to have the slightest idea how to get out of, the Army is missing its recruitment goals by hundreds of thousands of enlistees a year. Politics aside, the arsenal of democracy is running out of floor staff. McDonald's has less trouble staffing the fry station than the Army has putting butts in state-of-the-art combat vehicles.

Hmm...does he read the same source documents the rest of us do? The US Army releases its recruiting figures regularly, and they appear in a number of places:

September’s recruitment numbers for the Army components could indicate a stronger fiscal year in 2006 in terms of overall recruitment. Actual recruitment numbers in 2005 fell slightly short of projected enlistments for all three Army components.

• The active-duty Army gained 8,710 new Soldiers into its ranks in September, exceeding that month’s goal of 8,365 by 345. Fiscal year 2005 active-duty Army recruitment goals stood at 92 percent complete, with 73,373 new Soldiers joining the force. The mission goal was to recruit 80,000.
• The Army Reserve accessed 2,208 Soldiers into its ranks during September, exceeding its goal by 190 Soldiers. At the end of fiscal year 2005, the Reserves Army accessed 23,859 Soldiers, 84 percent of its mission goal of 28,485.
• The Army National Guard gained 6,048 Soldiers in September, 98 percent of its monthly goal of 6,148. A total of 50,219 Soldiers joined the Guard’s ranks by the end of the fiscal year, 80 percent of its recruitment goal of 63,002.

The size of the active-duty Army has increased by 13,000 Soldiers since Sept. 11, 2001. The number of active-duty Soldiers is approximately 492,600. The Army Reserve end-of-year strength was roughly 189,000 Soldiers, and the National Guard’s forces numbered about 333,200.

I'm guessing Dave wouldn't want facts getting in the way of a good narrative. The Army isn't even looking for hundreds of thousands enlistees in a year (well, close, at 171k or so). For 2005, reenlistment goals were actually at 108% of goal, a strong indicator of just how much support there is in the military for 'a war that nobody really wants to be in.' Even initial enlistment was off only around 15%, or around 24,000 men, a huge difference from Dave's fantasy. If you count the additional recruitment from reenlistment, it is a total recruiting shortfall of 18,000 or so. I would venture that the additional 6,000 reenlisting soldiers also carry a ton of additional value over raw recruits due to their experience.

We go on to hear Dave drop other hard-left talking points, such as 'Bush was not democratically elected, he's a confused dog owner,' and other asshattery, including a swipe at the Governator.

So I am still wondering, what was the point of the article? Was it to truly provide us a view into the Army's marketing campaign, centerpieced by America's Army? Or was he looking for an editorial soapbox? You can decide for yourselves, but I'll put my vote on the latter.

Okay, that was too long, me and my cowardly dreams are off to watch Smallville!

Best satire humor site on the net...

Scrappleface.

"A spokesman for Microsoft said it would phase out of the television news venture in order to focus on its core business of providing free security patches for its popular Windows software."

(Truth in advertising...I think he's center-right to mid-right...doesn't make him any less funny)

All sorts of good news out today

Sony BMG recalls malware CD's.

It probably won't be 3 months before they try something similar in a different form, but I'll take what I can get. I hope people have a long memory on this one; it is beacoup important. It will be XBox 360 for me over the PS3 due to all their actions as a company.

Phew

ICANN and the US will remain in control of the internet backbone.

I didn't really expect anything else, but with many of the wishy-washy politicians we have around lately, you never know.

Update: A good editorial from the WSJ, though anti-climactic. I think its importance is the understanding that despots didn't support the UN power-grab because they want to help starving children log on to Disney.com. (HT: Glenn Reynolds)

Gamers: 2 Jack Thompson: 0

I first mentioned him here.

It appears our friend Mr. Thompson is pulling himself off the GTA lawsuit. Big whiny-butt.

The devil you know

Who do you believe? Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman writes an op-ed about the UN meeting to determine how to wrest control of the Internet from the US.

Kofi Annan presents us his kindler, gentler view.

Decide for yourself; but I trust Kofi about as much as I trust Satan.

Update: More backstory here. (via Instapundit)

MPAA/RIAA: Truly Suckful

The two antitheses of Fair Use are at it again. It is crap like this that makes many of us (or me at least) want to pirate music or movies. The recording industry has no idea how big a hole they are digging for themselves. People who want to make sure artists are compensated justly for their work will eventually become fed up with a neverending string of new technologies that stifle our ability to use our own property. I'm all for revolting against our Musical Overlords.

I think this is the most important graf:

These laws aren't about piracy, and anyone who thinks they are needs to stop, look, and listen. Once the MPAA and pals have their way, you're going to pay through the nose for even the most basic of Fair Use rights. You're going to pay for the right to rewind and "re-experience" content. The Copy Prohibited Content class, complete with its asinine insta-delete feature is nothing but a back door into attacking what the content industry hates most: your ability to timeshift content. Yes, Jack Valenti said the VCR would destroy Hollywood, and while these moonbats no longer believe that, they do know that the rhetoric works.

Umm, yep.

Semi-related article here that I hope hurts profits for Sony. I'm so glad they have decided to start including deep-level spyware with their CD's, I don't get enough from Neopets.

A Tale of Two Thneeds

"One wonders if the same results would be witness were the experiment to be repeated with libertarians instead of chimpanzees..."

This quote set off a rather lively intercourse in the comments section of this post (and mostly having nothing to do with the actual theme of the post). Honestly, I was more interested in the general display of cliches, sarcasm and stereotypes than the article, which didn't answer a lot of basic questions it brought up.

We learn that Democrats are thieving bloodsuckers on the purses of the country, that Libertarians are heartless and evil, with no concern for the sick and suffering of the world. I'm surprised I didn't hear the Republican's getting a good bashing over the evil Chimpy Bushitler stuff that the Kos'ites and Moveon'ers normally inject into any discussion of politics. (Actually, reading some of the new comments, there is discussion of the Dastardly Rovian Cabal, who are planning to blot out the sun and hook us up to generators for the benefit of our Nanotech Overlords) There are strawmen and some folks who happily provide lengthy discussion not necessarily related to the quote they are attempting to argue against. There was even a statement based on an Arnold movie, not really sure what that was about.

I guess it is easy for many to pigeonhole others instead of realizing that people are much more complex than our base assumptions. I know my friend from Cali (G_Max from the comments) is Green, while I am closer to Libertarian (though not quite). Well, what does that really mean? You may not believe me, but I don't really want to pollute the oceans with a toxic sludge of mercury and dioxin. I don't want children to grow up with brain cancer because someone once thought it was a good idea to use lead paint. And to be honest, no matter how much we tease each other or argue, I don't really believe he thinks that of me.

People may not like my argument, part of which is that I believe that the wealthier society is as a whole, the more 'natural environmentalism' will take place. And that I believe wealth is best generated by business. Its like Maslow. Once the necessities are out of the way, like food, shelter, clothing, then people are more likely to open their eyes to wilderness, and endangered species and ideas beyond their immediate needs. (Even if it is for no other reason that someday rich people might want to go there and see the pretty owls.)

If I am a logger who can't feed my family, well, you know, the Spotted Owl isn't a symbol for crap other than that I am a failure and can't provide for my loved ones. Is saving the Spotted Owl a worthy goal? Sure it is. Is it worth having 30,000 people out of work to do so? For me, that is a much harder question, and most likely I'll go with the logger keeping his job. By that token, does that mean my friend is indifferent to the son and daughter of the logger? No, of course not; however, because of where he's at, he sees a bigger picture, the one of the whole planet and the inherent value of every species. He would probably be amenable to suggestions of relocating or retraining the loggers, or making sure they get some sort of financial aid.

I would most likely suggest instead that the lumberjacks, who really like the wilderness (hence their profession), might be persuaded to part voluntarily with some of their earnings and partner with the Sierra Club to buy up 20,000 acres for the cute lil feathery job-stealers to live. Sure, would it be better for the owls to have 70,000,000 acres to live in? Yes. Is it realistic to put infinite swaths of natural resources off-limits for the Lorax and his friends? Probably not.

In the end we believe in similar results, but to different degrees. He's not a demon, and neither am I. There are a whole slew of arguments we have that are just as complex, from affirmative action to the economy to the war, and although our viewpoints often differ on what are the best methods to developing a great country (and world), they mostly end up at the same place: lots of happy people, and a pristine world for them to explore.

Swords... poison... spells... battles...maiming... killing!

Hat tip to the Jessica for this one. Harrassment by those against video games, role-playing games, collectible card games or any other healthy form of entertainment has been an annoyance of mine since Dana Rohrabacher and friends were telling me we would all go Tom Hanks and try to fly off the World Trade Center or something.

It is interesting the majority of my gaming compatriots when I was younger are much more advanced (in general) in their careers and/or relationships (err, except for me) than those who didn't game with us.

Of course, the only problem with attacks like those in the story above is now technology gives every geek more power than 100 would-be censors. (Or, in terminology floating around the blogosphere in the last couple of days, we are an army of Davids) It is telling that in the story above it is the gamers who end up donating to a worthy cause while the weasel weasels out of it.

Advantage: Gamers

Call me skeptical

"Cowardly dogs" is not quite the insult I expect from a bunch of Rangers or special forces.

Although I guess it is possible that this was a psych-op, I remain deeply skeptical these were the actions of US Armed Forces.

I guess the funniest part is that those folks that videotape themselves sawing tourists' heads are 'insurgents', while US forces attempting to rid a country of terrorists are labelled as war criminals. Also note the gratuitous use of Abu Ghraib from the obviously non-partisan Sydney Morning Herald, as well as reporting this story as fact without any response by the US and even before the show the story references has aired.

I don't know if 'SBS's Dateline' is equivalent to the show by the same name in the US, but if so, I would have expected to see some more Google News entries on it by now.

Expect to see this show up on the hate-America networks soon!

Update: Story is developing; news release from Centcom.

The Marines: Tough, proud, cuddly

Love him or hate him, Bill Whittle is one of the finest essayist's on the 'net. I haven't stopped by in a while (so this entry is not terribly timely), but every time I do, there is something worthwhile to read.

If you have the time and inclination, go read this essay. And even better, if you have a lot of time, go read all of his essays and buy his book.

The part of "Tribes" where he uses Lt. Colonel Grossman's description of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves to describe our society, I understand and have attempted to verbalize on occasion, though not nearly 1/1000th so well as Bill's exposition.

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

He goes on to describe how sheepdogs (the fulltime paid 'dogs being the armed forces and law enforcement) make sheep uncomfortable. A quote by Orwell, which one of the warbloggers also uses eloquently to head his page (though I can't remember which one at the moment), summarizes nicely: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

If I may expand (poorly) on Bill's essay, we can apply the paradigm to other countries fairly readily. Where his focus was more inward, on our country and the contrasts between some peoples' actions on 9/11 in NYC and in the wake of Katrina in New Orleans. Some countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq 5 years ago, (and Syria, Iran, North Korea, Sudan today, etc) had no sheepdogs, no heroes, no one to look to for protection, only wolves in sheepdog clothing.

The next time someone berates me because I support our country's promoting of freedom, I might simply say "The Iraqis and Afghanis had no sheepdogs and too many wolves, we had to go." By the same token, there are countries (France and Germany come to mind, as well as the leadership of the UN) that are almost completely clueless as to the necessity of a bite to go with a bark. Sometimes the way of the sheepdog really is the only effective way.

Iraq and Afghanistan had millions of people with the capacity to be sheepdogs, but the wolves were too many and would regularly take down the sheepdogs (with wood chippers, beheadings, mass graves) before they had a chance to do any damage. Today and every day in Iraq and Afghanistan now, thousands of citizens stand up to be sheepdogs, because we gave them the chance. On more than one occasion when there has been a bombing of a law enforcement employment line in Iraq, the following day the line was longer. That is courage. And we need honor that courage and to stay until the flocks in both those countries are safe and well-protected by their own fuzzy, toothed companions.

Sometimes there are those that pretend to be sheepdogs, (by thinking they are protecting the sheep by telling them to run and hide), like Al Gore, who would prefer we kept our sheepdogs at home where they couldn't harm or offend the wolves. When asked recently about how things would be different if he was president, he answered "We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us." In other words, he would have let the wolves have their way unless they harmed us specifically. To be honest, there are dozens of places in the places in the world I wish we could (and would) unleash our hordes of courageous, honest, and generous sheepdogs.

Before anyone starts with the 'you're a chickenhawk' squawk, one of the most interesting points Bill raises is that there is nothing wrong with being a sheep. They are generally productive, moral, positive people; they simply lack the instincts necessary to be a 200 pound, 4 legged tooth-carrier. Personally, I often wonder what I would be like in a crisis. Like Bill, sometimes I wish that I were near enough a crisis to find out. I believe that most American's, deep inside, have the capacity to be heroes. We see them on the news every day. We saw hundreds or thousands of heroes on the news on 9/11.

I used to daydream about living in the world of Mel Gibson's Road Warrior. A time where there are frontiers again, where there are bad people to fight against, and good people to protect. A place and time to figure out where I stood, truly stood, on the scales of men. Maybe I would fail, or run, or die, but at least I would know.

Not very smurfy at all

Although I firmly believe in the right of each person to say, think and (mostly) do what they like, it does not mean I have to agree with what they actually say, think and (mostly) do.

I remember the Smurfs. I liked the Smurfs. They made me happy many Saturday mornings. The misadventures of Gargamel and Azrael. The inappropriate cross-species crush I had on Smurfette. Papa Smurf was like the Lorne Greene of the Smurf community, stolid and grandfatherly. I had the Smurf video game for the Colecovision some time in 1981 or so; it was the most played game I had next to Venture and maybe Zaxxon. There were hushed rumors that if you jumped around in the right fashion you would unlock a secret scene in which you got to see Smurfette naked (or in other versions of the rumor, in compromising positions with another smurf)

So although I defend peoples' right to make such trash, I think it is a disgusting use of a beloved set of characters.

Icons have power, which seems to be the reasoning behind this video. However, some icons also provide a sense of safety and the remembrence of good times past, and it is a hideous injustice to use them just because you don't know how else to reach people.