The "gift" that keeps on giving

John Kerry. What a lying, treasonous bastard. Instapundit has the best line: "Like Jimmy Carter, he'll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he'll console himself with the approval of America's enemies." Except Kerry's feelings are not a result of America rejecting him, but are instead the reason for America rejecting him.

Not Busted

Sandy Berger. What a sickening double standard.

Busted

10 Myths of the Iraq War, by Strategy Page. Not surprisingly, the myths appear to all arise out of leftist opposition to the war.

Sorry for the light posting

Between this disaster of a sports year and my job keeping me busier than ever, I've had little time to post.

As if this sports year could not get bad enough

the dispute between my Pittsburgh Penguins and the Ctiy of Pittsburgh/Allegheny County/Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over a new arena is getting ugly, with Mario Lemieux saying he was "disappointed" by the state's latest offer and Govrnor Ed Rendell threatening to go to the NHL Board of Governors if the Pens try to move. Stickler here is rumored to be Lemieux's partner with the Pens, who is not believed to have much loyalty to Western Pennsylvania and may sell out the city for an extra $20.

Next, my Chargers are in danger of moving because the City of San Diego is bankrupt.

Can't anybody here play this game?

Andy McCarthy has questions for Hillary about what she would do with terrorists. This is just too good not to post:

Maybe Sen. Clinton can begin her Conversation With America by explaining what she thinks of her husband's pardon of 16 FALN terrorists in 1999 (which Clinton's former advisor Dick Morris has said was done to help HRC politically with New York's Puerto Rican vote in her 2000 run for the senate).

She might then follow with her views of Pres. Clinton's last official act: pardoning Weather underground terrorists Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans. (See Jay Nordlinger's piece here; also, this piece of mine, in which I discuss support for radical attorney Lynne Stewart, upon her conviction for material support to terrorism, from former Clinton administration Justice Department official Jo Ann Harris — note my error, as well: I said Clinton had pardoned Weather Underground terrorist Laura Whitehorn; not true — Whitehorn was actually paroled in 1999; it was Evans (Whitehorn's and Rosenberg's co-conspirator in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Capitol), not Whitehorn, whom Clinton pardoned along with Rosenberg on his way out of office.)

With the conversation thus started, we could then perhaps address the Clinton administration's complete failure to do anything (i.e., no military action and not even the usual ineffective indictments) in response to the bombings of Khobar Towers (1996) and the U.S.S. Cole (2000).

We could then ask whether Sen. Clinton favors the declassification of the Millennium After-Action Report (addressing the Clinton administration's performance in the run-up to the Millennium bombing plot) which Sandy Berger was caught stealing from the National Archives in 2003.

Then, finally, we could ask about the failure to do anything meaningful to apprehend or kill Osama bin Laden upon his indictment in Spring 1998 — after which he carried out the embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and 9/11.

Armed with this information, we would be in a much better position to assess how firm she'd be with terrorists.

Right on target, baby.

On the other hand, the GOP has apparently lost Hugh Hewitt on security issues:

Since the 1968 presidential election, the Republicans have held the mantle of national security and they have deserved it. The Democrats have been the party of pacifism and retreat. History simply will not allow the Democrats to run from this label as their forced retreat from Vietnam demonstrated and their softness with regards to the former Soviet Union proves. On EVERY MAJOR NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE the Democrats have been WRONG. At least they are consistent. In opposition for most of my life, the Republicans have stood with America and argued for greater American security at nearly every turn. They argued consistently for a tougher stance against communism both in Eurasia and in South America. They favored programs designed to challenge the Soviets and ultimately produced Ronald Reagan who defeated the Soviets by confronting them and competing with them on every front. It was as he said, “Simple, we win they lose.” Ultimately it broke their backs and not the US bank. But today, Republicans risk something far greater than self-defeat in Iraq; they face demoralizing permanently the armed forces that protect this country.

[...]

America began to respect the armed forces once again as they time and again demonstrated their professionalism and dedication to the nation whether in the skies over the Gulf of Sidra, taking down the Achille Lauro from terrorists or on Grenada. No longer were soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen ashamed or embarrassed to wear their uniforms. They wore them with pride and their fellow citizens respected them for their service. The point to be made here is that the armed forces were supported consistently and often at great political cost by ONE party, the Republicans and that support was rewarded by fidelity and electoral support. Today, Republicans risk discarding that trust for crass political expediency. Instead of demonstrating leadership “under fire,” political fire, the type of leadership they demand of their armed forces under REAL FIRE, they are now joining the sirens song of cut and run orchestrated by the Democrats and their wholly owned subsidiary, the mainstream media. (emphasis mine)

I gotta go with Hugh here.

Let's just be blunt

2007 has been a sports disaster for Western Civilization. Buckeyes meltdown, Chargers implode and in danger of moving, Penguins in danger of moving, Colts in Super Bowl. Is suppuku an acceptable option at this point?

Just because

The Marty Choke-O-Meter

Or so I call it. ESPN calls it the Gag Factor. But whatever you call it, it may cost Marty his job in San Diego. I don't know that it's justified based on the season the Chargers had, but if you just had to look at Sunday's meltdown ... I still don't even want to think about it.

After Ohio State's loss and now the Chargers, I'm deep into clinical depression. I mean, I've actually lost weight since the start of the new year. And I'm not even trying, though wearing that miniskirt is still a top priority.

The Responsibility of Self-Defense

Helen Smith has a very interesting post on the psychology of self-defense. Key graf:

There is no easy answer to what to do when confronted with a violent crime--certainly, it seems best to avoid a crime if possible by being aware of one's surroundings etc. But once violence is in front of you, passivity is not always the answer. Remember, the criminal has a script in his mind too--that is, that you will not fight back. The element of surprise can work just as effectively for law abiding citizens who are willing to do whatever it takes to save their own lives or that of a loved one.

This touches on a topic I’ve wanted to post on for some time and been too busy to do so – the responsibility of self-defense.

More often than not, we look at self-defense from an individual standpoint. Either, what should be done to protect the life of the victim from the assailant or, in some blue states, what can be done to protect the life of the assailant from the victim. On the record, law enforcement usually advises that we should give in to the criminal without a fight to have the best chance of preserving our lives.

But that conclusion, questionable at best by itself, falls apart when the robbery or carjacking is approached from a societal standpoint.

Dr. Smith is right that the criminal does not expect the victim to fight back. This expectation causes many criminals to enter the cost-benefit analysis routine, at least by instinct since many of them are too stupid to consider it rationally. Brandishing a weapon will often have the effect of cowing the victim into submission, even if there is no expectation that the weapon will need to be used. They get what they want with little in the way of danger or harm to themselves.

But what if they expected that danger every time they tried this? What if there was no expectation that the victim would give up without a fight?

This is what I am talking about by approaching it from a societal standpoint. Creating an expectation of resistance by victims among the criminal element could result in a higher proportion of dead and injured victims, but could result in more dead, injured or captured criminals as well, since such altercations often leave physical evidence for law enforcement. Most importantly, though, it could lead to a significant reduction in crime as criminals shy away from confronting victims, leading to many, many more lives saved.

In short, we have a paradox: individual passivity may save the victim’s own life, but create more victims and cost more lives to society overall.

My own position on this is that there is not just a right, but a responsibility to self-defense. The reduction in crime rates in jurisdictions with concealed carry laws vis-à-vis those in gun control jurisdictions strongly suggests that a criminal element with a fear of resistance among the population will shy away from crimes. If that fear can be ratcheted up to an expectation, the reduction could be even more.

As I said here, law has changed over the years to preserve life in general over the protection of civilization – life, liberty and property – which is the true duty for government under the social contract. A victim should not hesitate to threaten or take the life of an assailant. A carjacker has declared their own life not worth that of your car. A robber has declared their own life not worth the value of the cash in the drawer.

What is more important from a moral standpoint is the life of the victim. What is more important from a societal standpoint is reducing the number of such victims in the future.

Sad signs for my Chargers; ominous signs for Western Civilization

Like that of my Ohio State Buckeyes, the magical season of America’s Team – the San Diego Chargers ended today in a miasma of stupidity. It is one thing to be beaten physically, but to beat yourselves with a forest of stupid, stupid mental errors is simply inexcusable. I don’t even know where to begin, but I will borrow from the old standup routine, “Here’s your sign.”

· Marty Schottenheimer

You don’t normally expect mental mistakes from a Schottenheimer-coached team, but we got them aplenty today, a few of which came from the coach hisself. Marty apparently replaced his defensive coordinator, Wade Phillips, with Gregg “Stop Me Before I Blitz Again” Easterbrook at the end of the first half, leading directly to a New England touchdown. Later, he challenged a very obvious Marlon McCree fumble, costing what would turn out to be a badly needed timeout in the second half.

Marty Schottenheimer, heeeeere’s your sign.

· Eric Parker

It wasn’t enough for Parker to have two critical drops ion the first quarter. In the third quarter, he fumbled a punt. Had a chance to fall on the ball and recover it, but instead he tried to pick it up. Brilllllliant! New England recovers. Field goal.

Eric Parker, heeeeere’s your sign.

· Drayton Florence

The field goal try after Parker’s fumble might have been iffy, but after stopping the Patriots on third down, Florence chose to taunt the Patriots and head-butted one of them. 15-yard penalty and first down.

Drayton Florence, heeeeere’s your sign.

· Marlon McCree

Late in the fourth quarter, McCree intercepted Tom Brady on fourth down at the San Diego 30. First, it’s fourth down. Why didn’t you just knock the ball down? You cost the Chargers field position at the very least. But that wasn’t enough. Troy Brown stripped him of the ball and the Patriots recovered. First down and they go on to score the tying touchdown.

Marlon McCree, heeeeere’s your sign.

· Quentin Jammer

Like Ohio State made a terrible Chris Leak look like Dan Fouts, Jammer made a terrible Reche Caldwell look like John Jefferson … uh, before the drugs, leading to the game-winning field goal.

Quentin Jammer, heeeeere’s your sign.

· Antonio Cromartie

Could have let the ensuing kickoff go out of bounds, Chargers ball at their own 40 with a little more than a minute left. Instead, he picked it up on the sideline and returned it to the Chargers 29.

Antonio Cromartie, heeeeere’s your sign.

· Antonio Gates

Took a 3-yard pass from Philip Rivers on the final possession, turned it outside as if to go out of bounds and stop the clock, but then turned it inside, where he was surrounded and tacked in bounds. Cost the Chargers at least 15 seconds, which they could have used to get Nate Kaeding into a more advantageous position for a potential game-tying field goal.

Antonio Gates, heeeeere’s your sign.

· Phil Simms

CBS color commentator was lauding the performance of the Chargers defensive backs after McCree’s disastrous interception and fumble. And look up above. How many Chargers defensive backs do you see with their own signs?

Phil Simms, heeeeere’s your sign.

Unfortunately, Bill Belichick and the Patriots, whom I hate, are the now last thing standing between the football barbarians and the Super Bowl.

Light posting for a bit (again)

No, I'm not busy or sick. I'm just avoiding the news. Last night's Buckeye performance was just so bad, so inexcusably and unfathomably bad. We're being ripped to shreds by the media (see, e.g. Jim Rome) as a result. And justifiably so. You just don't get over something like that easily.

Never

had I seen a Jim Tressel-coached team outcoached.

Until tonight, that is. The Ohio State Buckeyes were woefully unprepared and unmotivated for the national championship game. This may be the worst Ohio State loss ever. An abject humiliation.

Congratulations to Urban Meyer and the Florida Gators.

For those of you interested in cheerleading

and I am, partly because of the dancer side of me, partly because I like cute girls, Uni Watch reveals there is the Professional Cheerleader Blog.

Classic addition by subtraction, if true

Reports that Iranian Supreme Islamofascist Mullah Ali Khamenei is dead. No confirmation from anyone yet, though, so until then I take it as wishful thinking, like Castro's death or Chavez's toppling.

Wipe them out ... all of them

The African Taliban has apparently been routed from Somalia by Ethiopian troops with help from the US Navy and special forces.

Civilization's Longest Day

A friend of mine lent me a copy of Japan’s Longest Day and I’m working my way through it now. The book is about August 14, 1945, the day Japan attempted to surrender to the Allies by accepting the Potsdam Declaration and the drama that went into it. This drama carried some themes that may sound familiar, if troubling.

To give some background without going into too exhaustive detail, if you wanted to pin Japan’s entry into and conduct in World War II on one specific party, it would be not Emperor Hirohito, but the Imperial Japanese Army (specifically, the Imperial Japanese Army elements in China). The IJA basically controlled the Japanese government. Under the Meiji Constitution, the IJA had what basically amounted to a veto power over the government, and if it’s minister resigned, the government would fall. When combined with an accepted “ritual insubordination” by the Army that dated back to the shogunate, and the existence of assassination as an accepted practice in Japanese politics, the Army had what amounted to control over the Imperial government.

August 14, 1945 and the efforts to essentially get around the Army to surrender was a case in point. The Japanese cabinet was deadlocked, with Prime Minister Suzuki and Foreign Minister Togo wishing to surrender, and the military, mainly the Army, dead set against it. Suzuki had to take the extremely rare step of getting Hirohito to intervene – twice – to get War Minister Korechika Anami to agree to the surrender.

But even then, elements of the Army resisted, the result of which, what has become known as the Palace Revolt, is the subject of Japan’s Longest Day.

A group of young hard-line officers, led by Maj. Kenji Hatanaka, attempted to derail the surrender. These extremists had long held the moderates in Japan hostage, and they proceeded to do so again. They first tried to enlist Anami, but he deftly strung them along. While arguing for a continuance of the war in the cabinet, Anami had actually been walking a fine line trying to keep troops such as Hatanaka from assassinating him for being too accepting of the idea of surrender. Suzuki, Togo and Hirohito himself all feared assassination by the Army.

Once Hirohito put his foot down, Anami went along with the surrender. Hatanaka then tried to get him to resign from the cabinet, which would bring down the government, preventing a surrender, but Anami refused.

Hatanaka then planned to seize the palace grounds to “protect” the Emperor. He had trouble enlisting support to do so, but he had enough to make things difficult. Imagine cabinet members sneaking around the palace grounds and government offices, wondering which of their army guards they could trust. Hirohito had taped an announcement of the surrender to be broadcast to the Japanese people, and Hatanaka even tried to seize the tape.

Ultimately, Hatanaka’s revolt failed. But it was due in part to an exercise in control by more sane leaders in the Army such as Anami (if sane can be used in this context; he committed suicide at the end of it) and because there was agreement that the Japanese Imperial polity, facing defeat and the complete annihilation of the Japanese nation, had to be preserved.

Where am I going with this? Today, we hear from the PC crowd that most of the Muslims of the world are held hostage by the extremists such as UBL. They cannot speak out against his extreme brand of Islam out of fear of violence or assassination, such as that practiced by the Imperial Japanese Army. The Japanese experience in World War II shows that such a situation can have devastating consequences. The Palace Revolt shows that, when the stakes are high enough, such a situation can be ended positively.

Unfortunately, today with radical Islamofascism, we do not have the elements that made the positive outcome of the Palace Revolt possible. There is no accepted leader of Islam. When the mullahs of Iran look sane, you have an issue.

Worse, at best there is no agreement among Islam’s adherents as to an outlook, or if there is, it is not one that encourages rapproachment with the West.

Even the leaders of the Palace Revolt understood that Japan was losing the war. I doubt Muslims share such an opinion of this war.

So now that USC has trounced Michigan

will all the jerkwads who complained that Michigan had been "screwed" out of an appearance in the National Championship Game and a do-over against Ohio State shut up?