PubliusCicero

Buy A Gun Day

2007-03-31T22:46:00.000-07:00

Buy A Gun Day

April 15th is National Buy A Gun Day. Yes, this is also tax day. No, it is not a coincidence.

I'm not entirely sure I'm going to be able to participate this year, due to a lack of funds. But for the rest of you, go out there and buy a gun! There is no better way to exercise your Second Amendment rights - and your rights to life, property, liberty and self-defense, for that matter - than to buy a gun. For those of you who don't already own a gun, allow me to make a couple of suggestions:

http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=3&section=products
http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/SelfLoading/60.aspx

Both are reasonably priced, versatile, and ammunition is widely available at reasonable prices.

UPDATE: Smoke on the Water reveals the true meaning of BAG Day - uncompromisingly.

Observations on Things, V

2007-03-01T13:19:00.000-08:00

Observations on Things, V.

"Irony:

2. Colloq. The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way."

This afternoon, as I was doing some research on Marxism and the 19th century socialist movements, I was also listening to my iPod set to 'shuffle' - and the song "Money" by Pink Floyd came on.

Do you begin to see why I ascribe to the political philosophy commonly known as "conservatism" (but which is really classical liberalism)?

Frank Chen, aka Stiletto, 1986-2007

2007-02-12T21:19:00.000-08:00

Frank Chen, aka Stiletto, 1986-2007

A friend of mine committed suicide yesterday. He walked out onto a beach in North Carolina, watched the sun come up, and shot himself.

I never met you in person, Stiletto, but I always hoped I would someday. I only knew you from the forum, first at the Nation of Riflemen, and later at the Other Side of Kim. You always came up with these zany, impractical new ways to build firearms, and we always gave you a hard time about it. But for all your eccentricities, and goofy ideas, you were a standup guy. You understood concepts like honour, personal responsibilities and duty and did your best to live by them. And for all your metrosexual tendencies, you were a proud warrior in fighting the good fight, and it was my honour to stand shoulder to shoulder with you.

In your last livejournal entry, Stiletto, you wrote:

"I don't feel like I'd be particularly missed, and I don't feel like anything in particular matters anyway. I'm replaceable."

Stiletto, I don't know how you could possibly have believed that. You were, without question, one of the most unique, colourful individuals I have ever known; and that in a forum filled with eccentric, uncompromising individuals. You are NOT replaceable and you will be most sorely missed. With your passing, the world is a less colourful and sadder place without you in it, and just a little bit worse off all the way around.

Eternal rest grant unto him, o Creator, and may perpetual light shine upon him.

Requiescat in Pacem.

The Most Awesomest Christmas Video You Will Ever See

2006-12-24T16:33:00.000-08:00

The Most Awesomest Christmas Video You Will Ever See:

http://www.illwillpress.com/xmas.html

I have not laughed so hard in months. Please, please go watch it now.

Warning: there's a fair bit of profanity, so turn your speakers down. NSFW in New York, New Jersey, Massachussets, California or Washington, D.C.

h/t to the Anarchangel for the link.

Some Lines You Just Don't Cross

2006-11-24T19:16:00.000-08:00

Some Lines You Just Don't Cross

'Bout two weeks ago, one of my favorite bloggers, Lawdog, posted an interesting piece over at his place. Now usually Lawdog spins some hilarious yarns about his childhood in Africa, or his experiences as a sheriff's deputy, but this one was in deadly earnest. Some highlights:

"Deadly Force - the taking of a human life - is one of the most profound actions one human being can undertake; not only for the recipient, but also for the person who weilded it.

To use Deadly Force against another -- to kill some mother's son -- is to take away everything that person was, everything he is, and everything he could be...

...Today, I want to ask if you -- as an adult -- have sat down and truly pondered Deadly Force? Have you, as an adult, made the conscious choice to decide when, where, and under what circumstances you will use Deadly Force, and when you will not?

And more importantly, as an adult, have you drawn a firm, bright line between I will and I will not?

I ask this because there are people -- purportedly adults -- who have stated to me that they do not know under what circumstances they would attempt to take the life of another, and that they don't wish to think about such things until the moment that it becomes necessary.

This is complete, total, and utter bushwa.

Make your decision now. If the time comes, trust me, a violent face-to-face social negotiation with a critter is neither the time, nor the place for an inner debate vis a vis morality and philosophy.

Get the debate done now, so that it will be one less thing to worry about when the time comes."

This, for me, was a compelling piece, because I remember quite clearly when, and why, I started holding this debate with myself. "Could I kill another human being? Under what conditions or circumstances? And why would I be right to do so under those conditions?" These are questions I still ask myself and meditate upon the answers frequently - almost every day in fact. Keep reading, and you will understand why.

I've always been interested in guns (along with weaponry in all its forms). Don't ask me why, I couldn't tell you. They have simply fascinated me since I was eight years old. I read everything I could get my hands on about them, and occasionally I found opportunities to shoot. But I couldn't really learn to shoot until I was in college, when I was out of my parents' house and had a some spare cash. I bought my first gun in February of 2003, a surplus Lee-Enfield. Now anybody who knows much about guns knows that a Lee-Enfield is a poor choice to learn to shoot with. I quickly discovered that it kicked like a mule and I couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside with it. What I needed was a .22. So that summer, while I was working for the college, I went out and bought one, a Remington 597, and fitted it with a nice big scope. The same afternoon I headed off for my first real range session ever.

I took plenty of ammunition and targets, and set up on the 100 yard bench. I set up a target and sighted in my scope. I then proceeded to start sending lead downrange. At first I was all over the paper - it looked like a shotgun pattern more than a group. But as I worked on my breathing, my trigger control, my sight alignment, the groups began to shrink. I spent three hours at the range that day. By the time I was done, the bullseye in that target was gone.

As I packed up and drove home that day, I felt different. It was a subconscious thing at first, a tingling in the back of my mind. But as I thought about it, I realized that what I was feeling was power. As I had watched the effect of my bullets that day, it had begun to seep into my subconscious mind what kind of devastation they could wreak. A .22 long rifle cartridge is almost the very bottom of the power scale of cartridges, yet it is quite capable of killing or severely injuring a human being. More powerful cartidges are even more potentially deadly.

Over time, as I thought about it more, I realized that the power I had acquired that day was the power of life and death. It occurred to me that with this awesome power comes an equally awesome responsibility. If I were going to have such power, I was morally obligated to set firm, clear rules about when I could justly employ it, and when I could not. It seemed clear to me that I could only justify using it against those who presented a real and immediate threat of physical harm to myself or other innocent people, or against uniformed combatants of a declared enemy (though the latter is of course unlikely in civilian life). In turn, I had to define what circumstances or behavior qualified as "real and immediate threat of physical harm."

1. First, the presence of a weapon - gun, knife, sword, cricket bat, doesn't matter. I know what sorts of things can be used as improvised weapons as well. In the case of an exceptionally large, strong man, or someone I reasonably believe is a serious martial artist, the presence of a physical weapon may be waived.

2. Threatening behavior. Making verbals threats is usually the biggest one, but facial expressions, brandishing a weapon, or even body language also can qualify.

3. Unlikely to ever occur, but wearing the uniform of a recognized enemy state or non-governmental organization (read: gang, or terrorist). Note that these days under the Geneva Convention, a uniform can consist of something as simple as an armband or hat, or even just an AK-47.

Of these three options, the first two are far and away the most important. Anyone in my presence who meets both criteria 1 and 2 will be dead as fast as I can make them that way. Under police rules of engagement, the police are required to wait until a suspect actually points a firearm at someone before they are allowed to shoot. But police also have body armour, backup, armoured squad cars, helicopter surveillance, SWAT teams and police snipers. Those are luxuries I don't have. If I have to wait until a goblin actually attempts to harm someone, it may already be too late. To sum up these criteria, I quote Malcolm Reynolds of "Firefly:" "If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed."

To learn to shoot is literally to acquire the power of Zeus - the power over life and death of your fellow man. Indeed, on a good day, my skill with a rifle makes Zeus with his thunderbolts look like a pussy. But there is a vast difference between men and gods. The power and immortality of the gods of ancient Greece made them immune to the consequences of their actions. They never had to learn to accept responsibility for their actions. Instead, they became vain, selfish, arrogant and proud gods who meddled in the affairs of mortals, who wielded their great powers for their own amusement or aggrandizement, often at the expense of the very men who worshipped them. But we mere mortals, we humans, lead brief, tenuous lives, easily damaged or snuffed out. We have no supernatural powers, and for us, time flows only one way. There are no second chances for us, no 'do-overs.' The consequences of the decisions we make and the actions we take are final. We have had to learn to live with the consequences of our actions, to take personal responsibility for ourselves. I know that if I were ever called upon to use my skill with firearms to take human life in defense of others or myself, I would ask myself for the rest of my life, probably every day, if it had been really necessary. "Well, maybe he was just bluffing." "Maybe if I had just talked to him some more, I could have dissuaded him..." But in those situations, the hard cold reality is that the decision has to be made fast. And I know that when I die, and someday I surely shall, my life and all my sins and decisions will be judged by the only Judge qualified to really judge any of us. All I can do is go with as clean a conscience as I may, and be able to defend my decisions.

So, yeah, Lawdog, I know where my firm, bright lines are drawn. More importantly, I know why. Because there are some lines you just don't cross.

Observations on Things IV

2006-11-22T11:45:00.000-08:00

Observations on Things, IV

In retrospect, allowing women to vote, or for that matter to leave the house, may have been a bad idea.

FLASH: UCLA Security Tortures Iranian-American Student with Taser

2006-11-16T21:15:00.000-08:00

UCLA Security Tortures Iranian-American Student With Taser:

Youtube link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3GstYOIc0I

Okay, I have to admit that an ‘Iranian-American’ student is automatically a little suspect even to me. And I understand that security officers are extremely cautious, because they want to go home at the end of the night. And I understand that it is standard procedure in law-enforcement and security circles that using pain to induce compliance is acceptable.

But this is completely ridiculous. Those security guards tortured that guy, and they clearly were not justified in the slightest. I gotta believe this was racially motivated. I have seen some nasty shit before, but this is some of the worst. I don’t want those guards reprimanded or fired, I want them on a fucking gallows. If I had been there and been armed, I honestly don’t know if I could have kept myself from drawing on those rentacops to stop it, and fuck the consequences. It would have taken everything I had to stand by and just watch. I note, also, that NO ONE in that library was sufficiently unsheeplike to actually DO anything. I am PISSED. It had better be all over CNN, MSNBC and Fox tomorrow morning, or there’s going to be hell to pay. Please, spread this around. Tell or write everyone you know.

And do you know why all this happened? Because he refused to produce his I.D. while sitting in the library. Spot-checking I.D. is fundamentally statist and oppressive, and fucking ridiculous. This is a preview of the glorious socialist utopia to come, folks.

National Ammo Day/Week

2006-11-13T20:46:00.000-08:00

National Ammo Day/Week:

November 19th is National Ammo Day, but you can participate the entire week of the 11th through the 19th. All you have to do is go to your favorite sporting goods store and buy 100 rounds of ammunition. If you don't own a gun but wish to participate - well, I strongly urge you to go buy yourself a Marlin Model 60 .22, should cost just over $100, but if you don't, your author will happily accept donations of ammo in the following calibers: .22 Long Rifle, 7.92x57 JS Mauser or 7.5x55 Swiss.

For more information, please see: http://www.ammoday.com/

Happy Veterans' Day!

2006-11-11T16:28:00.000-08:00

Happy Veterans Day!

If you know a veteran, please thank them for their service to our country today. We owe them more than we can ever repay. You can give them a hug too, like I did, but that's cuz it was my dad.

That is all.

Today's Daffynitions

2006-11-09T12:24:00.000-08:00

Today's Daffynitions:

H/t to The Cynic's Sanctuary

GOLF: The art of driving hard, avoiding the rough, surmounting traps and hazards, aiming straight, and arriving on the green at last, only to end up in a hole in the ground before your companions. The favored pastime of businessmen and their cronies, probably without a full appreciation of its metaphorical implications.

GUERRILLA WARFARE: A rude modern mode of back-country combat that preserves all the traditional miseries of war (e.g., serious injury, death, destruction of property) with none of the benefits (glory, decisive victories, spiffy uniforms).

(Fuck you, Hezbollah)

If This is Global Warming

2006-11-08T14:48:00.000-08:00

If This is Global Warming...

...let's have more of it. It is the middle of November, it was 75 degrees outside with not a cloud in the sky this afternoon, and I could drive around in a tshirt to run my errands. I love it.

I think I'm going to sell my PT Cruiser and go buy a Hummer H3.

(I'm kidding. I would never do that. I love my car.)

Before You Vote, Read This

2006-11-06T20:58:00.000-08:00

Before You Vote, Read This

From the man who brought you Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, comes the clearest, most compelling analysis of our current state of affairs yet. I could only hope to someday write with such clarity and compellingness:

Orson Scott Card at Civilization Watch

H/t to Kim du Toit

Why I Love Granite City

2006-11-03T14:26:00.000-08:00

Why I Love Granite City

1. Every single Granite City is also a microbrewery, and it's damn good beer. I love their Broad Ax Stout. That would be enough reason to want to go back every week right there.

2. The food. The food there is genuinely really good, probably the best you can get at any chain restaurant. And I'm picky.

3. This is the one I'd forgot about until I went back last weekend. Granite City consistently hires the most beautiful young women I've ever seen in one place. Yeah, that's politically incorrect and it's unfair hiring practices and sexist and I'm a sexist neanderthal for liking it, blah, blah, blah. Watch me not care.

I would eat there every day if I could. Or at least once a week.

Go. Watch. Now.

2006-10-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

Go. Watch. Now.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

So apparently, David Zucker, the producer of such quality motion pictues as The Naked Gun and Scary Movie 4, has gotten fed up with the Democratic party's 'ideas' about foreign policy, and made a movie about it. Please, go, watch, be entertained and spread it around as much as you can. The more people who see this, the better.

H/t to Lawdog

FLASH TRAFFIC!

2006-10-08T22:14:00.000-07:00

FLASH TRAFFIC!

As of 12:04 A.M., Monday October 9th, 2006, North Korea has apparently successfully tested a nuclear device.

CNN

This is not good.

UPDATE:

It now appears that the test was a 'fizzle.' This occurs when the chain reaction in the plutonium-239 (or uranium-235, but usually plutonium) is incomplete. The result is a smaller explosion than intended, but still much more powerful than any conventional explosive and with all the usual nastiness of radiation, EMP and fallout.

Observations on Things, III

2006-10-08T22:12:00.000-07:00

Observations on Things, III

When you're looking through a fall sale mailing, and the lingerie models look like jailbait, you know you're getting old.

Update to Sig Mosquito Post

2006-10-04T11:25:00.000-07:00

Update to Sig Mosquito Post

Well, after reviewing my Sitemeter results for several weeks, I have noticed that a considerable majority, as much as 75%, of my traffic comes from people running Google searches regarding the Sig Mosquito, and finding my Gratuitous Gun P0rn post. Many of those searches regard the numerous mechanical troubles the Sig Mosquito has experienced, so I thought I would write an update to help those folks out.

New Shooters: If you are in the market for a new .22 pistol, and want something designed like a service automatic because you are planning to use it as a training piece as I did, my advice is don't buy this gun. Wait a year or two for Sig to iron out all the problems. Look at a Walther P-22 or CZ Kadet instead - they are also designed like an ordinary service pistol, so they share ergonomics . The P-22 will cost you considerably less as well, while the CZ Kadet costs a little more.
http://www.waltheramerica.com/firearms/p22.cfm
http://www.cz-usa.com/product_detail.php?id=34

Ammo: A lot of people have Googled looking for the best ammunition to use with the Sig Mosquito. My advice is CCI Stingers, which have performed flawlessly in my gun with the heavier recoil spring installed. CCI Velocitors should also work well, but I have not tried them. These are also your best choices if you have to rely on your Mosquito as a defensive weapon, as I do. If you can afford a steady diet of Stingers, you're set. But if, like me, you cannot afford ammo that costs 5 times as much as regular bulk .22 long rifle, you may have to tinker a bit. If that is the case, the very first thing you should do is try the factory lube included when you bought the gun. It's almost like the manufacturer expects you to use the lube they gave you... If that is not enough to make your Mosquito reliable, then you can try clipping a full coil out of the WEAKER recoil spring. With both of those modifications in place (factory lube and trimmed recoil spring) my Mosquito was perfectly reliable the last time I took it to the range, using Federal 40 grain, 1200 fps bulk ammo .

Final thoughts: While I cannot in good faith recommend the Sig Mosquito for a beginning shooter, for an experienced shooter who wants a fun gun for plinking or cheap service pistol practice (and normally carries a full-size Sig) it may be a good choice, if they're willing and knowledgeable enough to tinker a bit. Given Sig's enviable reputation for quality and reliability, the Mosquito is a difficult to explain anomaly. I think Sig though "well it's just a .22 so we can cut some corners." Whoops. I am just thankful I finally got mine running properly. I expect Sig will get the problems ironed out in another year or two.

Heh. Now That's Funny Sh*t

2006-09-13T16:32:00.000-07:00

Heh. Now That's Funny Sh*t.

A U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Faluijiah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, “I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent.

We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.

I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein is a miserable, lowlife scumbag, and he yelled back that Ted Kennedy is a good-for-nothing, fat, left wing liberal drunk.”

So I said that Osama Bin Ladin dresses and acts like a frigid, mean-spirited lesbian! He retaliated by yelling, Oh yeah? Well, so does Hillary Clinton!”

And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us.”

I Remember

2006-09-11T12:21:00.000-07:00

I remember where I was. I was in my college cafeteria, eating breakfast, when Emily Watson slapped her tray down, and told me that planes were hitting the World Trade Center. Then she walked over to turn the t.v. on to CNN.

My first though was that some numbskull had flown his Cessna into the side of the building. "No biggie, just Darwinism in action. Hopefully nobody else got hurt. Somebody flew into the Empire State Building back in the '30s, remember." Then I looked up, and saw the hole in the side of the building, and the smoke pouring from it. "That was no Cessna, that was at least a commuter plane."

I'm from the rural Midwest. I had no idea men could build such things, as skyscrapers with floors the size of city blocks. I had no idea how big the towers were...

Then the second plane hit. I was watching, live, when it happened. I got a good look before it hit. "That was no commuter plane, that was a 767, looks like." Every time I see that video, I relive that moment, see the fireball shoot out the other side of the building. I knew I had just watched hundreds of people killed in an instant.

"Somebody must have ROYALLY fucked up calibrating the radar at JFK." That was the only reasonable explanation. "Why doesn't somebody get on the phone and call them, before more people die? Why is it taking so long to get this straightened out?" And as the minutes went by, a new thought crept into the back of my mind... could it be terrorists...? "No. Terrorists are idiots, barely competent to murder Israeli schoolchildren. There's no way they could have pulled this off. An operation like this is way too big, we'd have gotten wind of it for sure..."

Then they told us it was terrorists.

Shit.

"Oh, shit."

"I hope you didn't like the Middle East, because it's about to go bye-bye."

"Thank God Al Gore isn't president."

As I wandered around campus later that day, I heard a lot of people asking, "How could someone do something like this? How could they murder so many innocent people? How could they hate us so much?" I felt like asking them, "Why does that surprise you. Do you not know any history? Were you not taught about the Holocaust? Or about how the Japanese and Vietnamese treated American prisoners of war?" Human beings hate each other, a lot and frequently. It's just one of the things we do. I was surprised by the 9/11 attacks, in that I had no clue they were coming. I was not surprised that a group of individuals could concieve of such a brutal, cowardly and murderous attack. I guess years of studying military history made it impossible for me to be surprised by the depravity which the human mind can concieve.

2,973 innocent Americans were murdered that day. Murdered, without cause or provocation. The United States' record in the Middle East is not spotless, but NOTHING we have ever done justifies the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people. Since then, attacks in Bali, Madrid, London, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon and elsewhere have killed hundreds, if not thousands more.

Then there's the constant abrogation of our rights and privileges. The constant impositions of airport security are a case in point. Every foiled terrorist attack offers a new opportunity to invade our privacy. I have to drop my trousers every time I fly, so that a TSA guard can swab my prosthetic leg and run it through an electrospectrograph machine to ensure that it's not packed with explosives. Worse, I can't blame them, because I was told the first time that they had in fact recieved specific and credible intelligence that Islamic terrorists were planning to try exactly that. Now you aren't even allowed to take liquids, of any kind whatsoever, onto the plane. I was recently at a wedding, and the guests who flew in told me that even mothers with nursing babies were in fact forced to pour out their formula. If this trend continues, in a few years you will have to hand over even your clothes, and get issued a hospital gown, to fly. You laugh, and say that's ridiculous, we'll never put up with that. Ask yourself this - five years ago, would you have believed that someday we'd put up with mothers being forced to dump out their babies' bottles?

I am sick of this shit. I am sick of the fact that a bunch of murderous little jihadi fuckwits with a massive inferiority complex sitting in some fetid desert on the other side of the world get to fuck with us this way. I am sick of the fact that they get to dictate how we fly and travel, that they can destabilize our economy and society with the mere threat of violence. I am sick of the inconvenience they cause me personally. Maybe it's wrong to wish for the death of other people for the sake of my own convienence. But when I consider just how unjustified these jihadi terrorists are in their violence... I'm okay with it.

I want blood. I want the individuals responsible, every single person who help plan, train, facilitate, or support, the 9/11 attacks dead. If they're tried, that's fine; if not, just as good. No matter how long it takes, no matter where we we have to go to find them, I want them hunted to the ends of the earth, and I want them killed. Not merely for vengeance, either, though I have no trouble admitting that revenge is a pleasant bonus here. But justice demands that these people be brought to account. And because they are, quite frankly, too dangerous to be allowed to live. We may, no, we must, be as magnanimous as possible with other countries in our pursuit of justice, but we must also always get our man. And I want the same for all the other terrorists who think like them as well. I want this, not because of the colour of their skin, or the language they speak, or even because of their beliefs. I want it because of their actions, because of what they've done.

And I want the ideology that spawned them destroyed. Not Islam itself, which is not that different from how Christendom was in 1400. But Christianity, however slowly and fitfully, managed to adapt itself to the modern world over the course of 500 years. Islam can, and must, do the same. No, it is the radical perversion of Islam, this twisted death-cult, with its brutal oppression of women, its brainwashing of young men into suicidal jihadis, its rejection of everything the modern world has to offer, that must be destroyed. Its ideas must be attacked, undermined, mocked and discredited at every available opportunity, across the Middle East and the Muslim world, until it is wiped from the face of the earth, and becomes a faded and unpleasant memory.

Wahabbism Delenda Est.

The Abortion Post

2006-09-03T12:14:00.000-07:00

The Abortion Post

Well, it was coming sooner or later anyway. I had not intended to post on this topic quite so soon, but since I essentially wrote it anyway on a thread over at the NOR forums, I might as well repost it here

The reason abortion as an issue is so hotly debated is this:

In the end, you have two individuals whose rights are in fundamental opposition, and cannot be reconciled. Such a zero-sum game is actually unusual in the human experience, but here there is no getting around it.

On the one hand, you have the fundamental right of a woman, the mother, to make her own choices and control her own body. Under natural law, this right cannot be justly denied.

On the other hand, you have the fundamental right of the fetus to be born and to live. This also cannot be denied.

For those who are about rejoin that a fetus does not qualify as a life, I have this to say: perhaps not, but assuming a healthy and viable fetus, and a healthy mother, it is a potential human life. If carried to full term, it will become a living human being. This being the case, all such arguments about ‘when life begins’ are rendered irrelevant. Of course, if the fetus is not viable, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy, then of course an abortion is acceptable. There are people out there who will attempt to deny that, claiming that all such events are “God’s will.” Frankly I find that attitude reprehensible - this is the 21st century, and God would not have given us brains if He hadn’t intended we use them.

A fellow NOR forumite wrote: “Contraceptives do fail.” Abstinence doesn’t. I’ve managed to keep it zipped for twenty-three years, and I cannot be that impressive of a human being or I’d have a job and friends, so if I can do it, clearly it can’t be that hard. I don’t understand why other people have so much trouble with it. If contraception fails, too bad. You were doing something you shouldn’t have been, you made a mistake, and now you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of people who would be happy to adopt your baby.

It also does not help that some (not all, but some) pro-choice advocates apparently love abortion. They come across, at least, as being in love with the idea of young women having fetuses vacuumed out of their wombs. There’s radical fundamentalists on both sides of this debate. And while we’re on this topic, I find it insane, even nauseating that in some states girls as young as 14 can get an abortion without their parents' knowledge, let alone consent. They cannot get the pill, or morning-after pill, or hell, a flu shot, without their parents’ knowledge and consent, but they can get an abortion? This sort of thing is what leads me to the statement I just made.

Ultimately, what I do know is this: Because you have the fundamental rights of two individuals in conflict, the ethical issues involved can only be resolved by the affected individuals. IT IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S DAMN BUSINESS. If a state, in a popular referendum, wishes to make laws regarding abortion, that is fine; that is the will of the people of that state voicing their collective conscience, and majority rules. No government, federal, state, or local, may justly impose legislation on this matter by fiat, because they must, by definition, impose on the rights of one group or another, either mothers or feti. I personally would like women to choose not to have abortions, except in cases of medical necessity, rape or incest (why is that last always included? WTF?). But I also cannot justify the government taking away their right to choose.

Oh. My. God.

2006-08-30T10:42:00.000-07:00

Oh. My. God.

Y'all remember the South Park movie? You know, the one where Saddam Hussein is portrayed in a homosexual relationship with Satan?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds36384.html

That's right, folks. Saddam's Marine guards made him watch it.

I'm dyin' here.

(Exits, laughing)

Are You Bloody Well Kidding Me?

2006-08-29T19:43:00.000-07:00

Are You Bloody Well Kidding Me?

Go here, and read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/i-hope-and-pray-we-dont-_b_28011.html

Too lazy? Okay, I'll reproduce the relevant bits below.

"What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

Be in a position to elevate the party's chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:"

That's the money quote right there folks. In case it's not clear, Mr. Shaw just explicitly stated that he wants more Americans to die in terrorist attacks so he and his party can advance their own political agenda. An agenda based on the Democratic party's own bizzare unreality, which consists largely of flawed, discredited or unConstitutional policies like...

"Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;"
Over my dead body. I am completely serious. I am as dedicated to fighting a national health care system as I am universal civilian disarmament. I am a survivor of serious childhood cancer, and I would be dead without modern medicine. I understand what's at stake. But on this issue, I will not compromise. People who promote universal healthcare usually point to Europe as a model, but they are either somehow unaware, or don't care, that European healthcare sucks. Sure, everybody gets free healthcare (only it's not free, it's paid by taxes), but everyone gets the same crappy quality of treatment too. Worse, a national healthcare system is one of the primary opportunities a government can become oppressive. I know, you're thinking, "Huh?" Well let me ask you this - what do you do if citizens are engaging in behavior that is risky or damaging to their health? If everybody's paying for the healthcare, isn't it incumbent on the government to reduce costs as much as possible? Therefore, wouldn't it be necessary for the government to regulate any such unhealthy behavior? Is it acceptable for a government to set limits on how much alcohol you get to drink, or ban using tobacco, or control how much salt you put on your food? If that sounds farfetched - it's already happening in Britain. I know, I lived there. Personally, I would consider that totalitarianism and tyranny of the first order. The healthcare and insurance system in this country is in serious trouble, and needs fixed, I won't argue that point. But when's the last time getting the government involved made an improvement to anything?

"Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;"
Huh? The air is just fine where I live. This is a local problem in a very few cities, not a national one. Why is this worth your fellow citizens being murdered over?

"More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;"
See above. Why is this worth innocent people dying?

"Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;"
The only gun legislation that has a statistically valid correlation to reducing crime is that which encourages the ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens - concealed carry permits, castle-doctrine and stand-your-ground laws, lack of waiting periods, etc. Somehow, I don't think that what he has in mind.

"Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;"
Er... well, here I'm with him all the way - this is Bush's one policy that truly infuriates and sickens me. But I don't think my innocent fellow citizens should be killed to get it.

"Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;"
Umm... I doubt many people who have even minimum wage jobs risk losing them in order to commit violent crime. I do know that most violent criminals are totally unemployed (drug dealing doesn't count), and half of all gun deaths in this country are felon-on-felon anyway. If you want to reduce violent crime, make sure low-income minority kids get quality education, and then decent access to jobs by growing the economy. Higher minimum wages will probably just encourage more illegal immigration, but then Democrats want that too, since it means more voters for them.

"Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers' lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts."
The War on Terror is only "foolish" according to your definition, sir, and that of the ignorant, head-in-the-sand folks who think like you do. As I point out in my post below, "So, Why the Iraq War, Part I," the bottom line is that the Bush Administration policy has worked. We have not been attacked again on our own soil in five years. We have already tried the Democrat approach to the War on Terror. It was called the Clinton Administration. The War on Terror began with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the very first year of his presidency. For eight years, we did nothing because Clinton didn't have the testicular fortitude to do anything. The result was nearly three thousand dead Americans one fall morning. At the end of the day, I would rather the War on Terror be fought incompetently, than not at all.

On the plus side, based on this article, I can finally understand why far-left liberals believe, indeed insist, that 9-11 was a conspiracy by Rove and Bush and whoever else to gain power and impose their agenda on the country. It is because those far-left liberals would do so themselves in an instant, if only they were competent enough to pull it off.

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

2006-08-25T16:59:00.000-07:00

Found on Craigslist:

"My Son Is A Moron... He Did Not Come From My Loins...

Date: 2006-07-20, 1:39PM PDT

You do everything you can for your kids. God knows I've tried. But it seems like God enjoys a good joke, now and then. I was raised in a strict household. My parents bore offspring from the early-50's to the mid-60's. I was around the middle of this brood. With nine mouths to feed, we did not have a lot of extras. We worked for simple things, like bicycles. Nothing wrong with that. It's what we knew. And we were given a great foundation, on which we could create a life for ourselves. As I said, my parents were strict - which made me not wish to be such with my kids. Ah, my kids... I'm in my forties, and the wife is a bit younger. I make a fine income, and try not to sweat anything. I get up... have coffee... look out at the ocean... read the paper... move onto my business. I appreciate not having a house full of screaming kids in the morning (something that was impossible when I grew up). All I ask of my kids is to; a) be respectful of everyone, b) be honest c) get good grades, d) clean their rooms. I do not ask for much, nor do I demand much. However... that is going to change tonight. Events that occurred this morning will bring about change like these kids have never known. The wife has kept me in the dark about some things as well. It's my fault. I accept it. But I can reverse this downward trend - now. My generation (baby-boomers) has found that it is easier to go around a wall, than climb over over it - or knock it down. I'm as guilty as anyone.

My guilt turned into rage this morning. My son (and my wife) convinced me that he NEEDED a car (he's seventeen). I was not keen on a kid driving, that has trouble standing a surfboard, or walking down the stairs without tripping. But I relented (again, why fight it). With some stipulations, we aquired a car for this child. The rules were put in place, and he proclaimed we were the greatest parents in the worls. Uh huh... It's 12:00pm, and he has yet to get out of bed. His mother has been instructed to tell my prodigy that he is GROUNDED. We have never done this, but we are today. And I mean GROUNDED in his room! Not out by the pool. Not in the gameroom. His cluttered abode is where he better be when I get home tonight. And I'm going to be stopping for a drink, first. I deserve a drink after this morning. Let me tell you about my day. I go out to my car in the driveway (I have a three-car garage - and "hers" is the only one that fits inside). My insanely over-priced piece of shit refuses to start today (3rd time in 2 months - the car is 6-monthss old). Okay... I call 'AAA'; it will 45-60 minutes. No time to wait. Okay... I'm going to take my kids' car. I go in and retrieve the keys (everyone is till asleep @ 8am). I leave a note telling him to call me.

His car is down the street at a friends house. Why? He claimed that our driveway was too crowded (and the other kids might scratch it). Okay... I find his car... set off the alarm... Shit! People, one word; LOJACK. Goddamn, I hate those alarms. Anyways I get in the car, after noticing the REALLY nice rims & tires on it. Hmmm, how did he pay for those? WHEN, did he get those? I get in, and notice a new STEERING WHEEL... without the AIRBAG - that I demanded he have. Oh, this car is totally bitchin' dude! It gets better... I start it up... A huge racket comes from the exhaust (not stock anymore!)... And the stereo starts screaming out profanities! The backseat is now occupied by a huge box with speakers in it... and fast-food trash... and 'ziz-zag' papers... and empty 'trojan' wrappers (a chip off the 'ole block). To say the least I am pissed. I proceed to drive this rattling, screaming (I tear the faceplate off - finally), piece of doo-doo down the road. I swear, I think I awakened everyone in the neighborhood.

I head out onto PCH, and drive less than a mile... when MB's finest pulls me over... WTF? I know I wasn't speeding. The officer comes up to the car, and asks for my license and insurance card... I hand over the license, and tell him I'm not sure where the insurance card is - 'it's my son's car'... "look in the glovebox" (he is - actually - smiling now)... I open the glovebox... and a small BONG falls out... I look at him... he looks at me... This is not happening! Oh, but it is. The first thing I say is 'it's not mine!'... "um, sir, could you step out of the car, please"... I get out, and we step onto the sidewalk. He tells me he stopped me for having an illegal exhaust (no shit - it sounds like two-dozen weedwhackers coming down the street). He also informs me that there are plenty more violations on this car... And I start laughing... He asks why am I laughing... And I tell him how my day is going. "What about the water-pipe?" Indeed! I inform him that this is all a surprise to me, but I would like him to write up everything that is illegal about the vehicle. He looks at me like I'm crazy. But I want my kid to learn a lesson. And the officer obliges me. He, even, finds some weed in the trunk... 17 tickets later, we are finished... almost... I ask him if I can keep all of the drug paraphenalia? "Why?" I want my kid to destroy it. I want this kid to know his "fuck-off" days are over. The officer agrees. I could see he was wishing he could be there tonight, for the "lesson". He was pretty decent about the whole thing. This guy took, almost, a half-hour to go through all of this paperwork - and search. I thank him, and head out... He tells me if I get stopped again today, that I should show all the citations to the other officer - and I should not have any problems... Problems?!!

We have problems. I have lost control of my family. My wife is a co-conspirator. She has just been told that I want a listing of all of our household bills & accounts. 'Yes, dear - we are going to perform an audit'. She is protesting, but I do not care. This is war. I know my family loves me, but they have played me for a fool. I may be a fool, but I am not dumb. She does not know that I just found out my son is in Summer school, because of bad grades. She doesn't know that DMV has provided me with her, and his, records; apparently they have a problem with obeying traffic laws. It's not going to be easy, but something must be done. I swear, I feel like I have become my father... I want the best for my family, and feel something radical must happen. I can only hope they - truly - understand it is for our own good. Some things that will be addressed tonight;

1) Son's vehicle is gone; oil up that chain on your bicycle.
2) All three kids will empty out the garage; sell it/ donate it/ whatever.
3) Mom will have a household budget.
4) Chores - that's right; everyone will have assigned chores.
5) Chores will be done, before anything else.
6) Homework will be done daily, before dinner. * Or, immediately after sports events, but always prior to 10pm.
7) Son's tickets will be paid with his allowance.
8) Son is grounded for the rest of the summer.
9) Son will study from 8am until 4pm - daily, durint the rest of summer vacation.
10) Videogames are banned from 10pm until 6pm - daily.
11) Everyone will be up by 8am - daily.
12) The youngest child is on a diet - now.
13) Mother will inform father of ALL infractions.
14) Dad will be home by 6pm - daily.
15) Everyone will eat dinner, together.
16) Mom will cook dinner - and it better not come out of the microwave.
17) The maid is being given four weeks notice. * That is going to be fun - I may not see a sexual interlude for awhile.
18) Dad is getting a new car, and parking it in his garage.
19) Son may get a USED car, when his grades are A's & B's, for two - consecutive - semesters. 20) Mom and son are to attend driving school.
21) Son will explain drug usage - completely, or face rehab & boarding school.
22) Mom will be weaned off of her "medications"; NOW.
23) Children will make their own lunches, for school; no more money for shitty school food. 24) NO soda. Maybe, when we dine out. Maybe, on the weekends.
25) NO MySpace accounts, or any other assinine accounts - a computer geek will check all of their computers - monthly (they need fear put into their lives).
26) Dad will attend all school functions.
27) Everyone will be present for all birthdays.
28) Children will wear clothes that Dad approves of.
29) Mom will dress daughter like a little girl; not a 'hoochie-mama'. * and - definitely - no "juicy" pants on her bottom!
30) Daughter will not have any underwear, except for briefs.
31) Sons will not be told to pull up their pants, or face having said pants donated.
32) NO 'Rap' music, within Dad's hearing range.
33) NO tattoos, until you are out of my house.
34) NO piercings (except for daughter's ears), until you are out of my house.
35) NO dyeing of hair, until you are out of my house.

Did I miss something? I'm continuing to add to the list...

Tell me if I missed something...

Tell me if I'm wrong...

I've seen those "wife-swap" & "nanny" shows...

I hate to think that is my life...

Wish me luck...

I may be sleeping on the patio tonight..."

I wish this guy the best luck in the world, I do. The problem is, I think it may be far too late for him. I see this a lot on tv sitcoms too - parents let their children run free until they're teenagers, and then begin trying to impose discipline once they start misbehaving. The problem is that once they're rebellious teenagers, it is way too late to try and impose parental authority. I got swatted as a little kid when I misbehaved, and I turned out a better person for it. It only took about half a dozen actual spankings before I learned. By the time I was six I knew that the line was when Dad threatened to go get the slipper, and I really didn't want to deal with the consequences of crossing that line. After that, just the threat was enough to keep my brother and me in line. The bottom line was I learned respect for authority and for the law, and it's kept me from doing a lot of stupid shit as a result. In retrospect I also wish my parents had made me get a job in high school instead of prohibiting me from having one. If they had, I might have a real job now instead of being an unemployed useless sack of shit. Hindsight...

The Town Square Test

2006-08-20T11:44:00.000-07:00

The Town Square Test

This is interesting:

" If a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom." (1)

I really like this idea. It is one of the best literal, empirical tests of whether or not you live in a free society and may actually speak your mind, and yet it's beautifully simple. It also tests not just government restriction on free speech, but social attitudes as well.

What brought this up? Recently a young English lass put it to a practical test, although that was not her original intent. She bought an Israeli flag and wore it around Oxford as a cape for several days. You can read about her experience here:
http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com/node/533
Initially, things went well, and she recieved a lot of support. Until late the second day, when one man decided to take offense, and eventually threatened her with violence. He continued to stalk her the next day, and she was finally forced to call the police.

Of course, that was in Britain where liberal doctrines and political correctness dictate public discourse, even more than they do here. For example, only six months after the London Tube Bombings last July, Muslims were permitted to demonstrate while wearing simulated suicide vests and hold signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam" in response to Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet as a bomb-wielding terrorist (2). So far as I have been able to determine, not one British subject counter-protested. But a seventeen-year-old girl was threatened with violence for openly displaying support for Israel.

Of course, it is not as though the United States is immune here. This past spring hundreds of thousands of Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, demonstrated across the American west for "immigrant rights." Those protests included displays of Mexican flags, and some of them included threats of violence and civil war to retake "Azatlan," those parts of the U.S. (Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico mostly) which once belonged to Mexico. But when students at Skyline High School in Colorado mounted counter-protests using the American flag, the principal banned the United States Flag because it was offensive (3). Excuse me? Demonstrating with the Mexican flag on U.S. soil is okay, but demonstrating with the American flag in a public building is not?

Then there's the case of Tyler Chase Harper, a public high school student in California who made the mistake of wearing a t-shirt stating "Homosexuality is Shameful" to school (4). On a "Day of Silence," an explicitly pro-gay event. He was suspended for violating the school's dress code, and the court case went all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Let me see if I understand - explicity pro-gay free speech is okay, but anti-gay speech is not? Just to be clear, Mr. Harper's shirt was in no way violent, nor did it promote nor condone violence against gays. I'm sorry, but if the LGBT students at Mr. Chase's high school were made so uncomfortable they couldn't study or felt threatened by his shirt, the problem is with their perception. I wonder if the LGBT community has ever considered just how uncomfortable their 'activism' has made much of the rest of America? And yet, when's the last time you heard conservative Christians whining to the media about how their rights were violated by LGBT demonstrations? When did you last hear Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson claiming that the LGBT community should be denied the right to protest, or exercise their free speech rights? Sure, they'll speak out against what they percieve to be a perversion, but I've never heard them claim gays should be denied First Amendment rights.

So what am I driving at? Simply this: You do NOT have the right to NOT be offended. If someone else's speech makes you feel threatened for your safety, then that is a problem, and may justly be regarded as hate speech. But if it merely offends, insults or makes you uncomfortable, that is NOT grounds to deny them their First Amendment rights. God grant that someday we might return to Voltaire's rule which guided the Founding Fathers:

"Sir, I may disagree with what you have said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Shout it from the rooftops.

1. Natan Sharansky, The Case for Democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_square_test

2. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp

3. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3661451

4. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060420-1304
-ca-bannedt-shirt.html

2006-08-19T11:44:00.000-07:00

Gratuitous Gun P0rn, Post #1: Sig Mosquito

UPDATE: For people looking for information on the Sig Mosquito, are having trouble with theirs, or want ammunition advice for it, also see this post here:

http://publiuscicero.blogspot.com/2006/10/update-to-sig-mosquito-post.html

All right, so I had intended to hold off on posting any gratuitous gun p0rn until after I'd had time to write the relevant essays so as not to frighten off/freak out those moderate, liberal and apathetic people I'm mostly targeting with this blog. But I had so much fun last Tuesday when I took my new Sig Mosquito to the range, I can't help myself.

The nice thing about the Sig Mosquito is that it's designed like a normal semi-automatic service pistol. This means it shares its feel, control levers and manual of arms with Sig's full size automatics, just scaled down 90%. Here's the gun in question:

And another view:

This is also nice because most of the .22 semi-auto pistols on the market are HUGE, at least compared to my hands. I bought the first version of this gun some time ago, when I thought I was going to be hired as a screener by the TSA. I'd been considering a .22 pistol for some time, as I've largely mastered small-bore rifle, so that would allow me to begin acquiring a new marksmanship skill while using the same cheap .22 long rifle ammunition I already keep on hand. When I discovered that the Department of Homeland Security (which runs TSA) issues Sigs, that pretty much sealed the deal. Unfortunately, the trigger promptly broke before I could even get it to the range for a proper tryout. This was a bit disconcerting, since Sig has an excellent reputation and is considered one of the best pistol makers in the world. Fortunately, they also have a reputation for excellent customer service. I finally got ahold of them via email, and after determining the repair was under warranty, they promptly emailed me a UPS label with shipping already paid! It took them six weeks, but instead of repairing my gun, they shipped me a brand new one at no cost, and paid for the shipping and FFL transfer fee. The whole repair process didn't cost me a cent.

So finally last Tuesday I got to take the new gun to the range. Here's the target:

Yeah, I know - it doesn't look that impressive at first. But keep in mind this was my first real outing with a pistol, and I got considerably better during the day. If you look closely, the entire center of that target is just barely hanging in there. I also did 9 and ten shot rapid fire strings (which accounts for the vertical stringing) and double taps, which I didn't think I'd be able to do at all the first day. Of course, I was having so much fun I emptied an entire 500 round brick in about three hours...

Just for gits and shiggles, here's some more pics:

Of course, after you put 500 rounds through it, you have to clean your dirty gun, so here it is disassembled:

I also learned a new rule during the cleaning process... NEVER clean your guns outside. Why? Well, I took it outside to clean it on the picnic table on our deck, since it offered a nice work surface. As I was disassembling the magazine to clean it I neglected to keep my thumb over the magazine spring and its keeper... Oops.

Uh, yeah, the magazine spring promptly launched itself and the keeper into the stratosphere. The magazine came back to earth right in front of me, but the keeper, this tiny little piece of plastic, did not.
That's a nickel next to it for scale. My first thought was that it had fallen down between the planking of the deck, in which case I was royally screwed, since without that itty-bitty part, the gun don't work. But it also occurred to me that it might have shot all the way up onto the roof of my house, so after scurrying around frantically looking for it for a while, I finally went and dug out a ladder. The problem is that I HATE ladders - I'm not afraid of heights particularly, it's just ladders that scare the shit out of me, and the deck was still wet and very slippery from the rain. Fortunately, I found it caught on the gutter-guard as soon I climbed up, but yeah, no more cleaning guns outside.

Overall thoughts: This gun still has some serious reliability issues. For whatever reason, it will NOT extract or eject the first fired round, and the problem is not with the magazine, because it did the same thing whether I put two rounds in or stuffed it with eleven. It could be due to operator error if I'm still limp-wristing the gun for the first shot, but I clamped down on it pretty hard and it still had the problem. My guess is that the ammo I'm using (Federal 40 grain bulk) is just a hair weak for the recoil spring, and that first shot doesn't generate quite enough recoil. I'm going to try some CCI Stingers - if the problem persists, it's not the recoil spring. But if it IS the recoil spring, then I ought to be able to clip half a coil out of the spring, and if that doesn't do the job a full coil. Recoil springs are standardized in weights and widely available on the off chance I thoroughly wreck one. Hopefully that will solve the problem.

Observations on Things II

2006-08-17T15:35:00.000-07:00

I have discovered that I am not, in fact, chubby. I am simply not tall enough for my weight.

That is all.

Military Pay

2006-08-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: I have been informed that portions of the following are incorrect thanks to a fellow forumite at the Other Side of Kim. Most importantly, the Cindy Williams who authored the editorial is NOT the actress who acted on Laverne and Shirley. Also, she wrote for the Washington Post, not the Washington Times. My bad. See Snopes for the full story:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/gipay.asp

MILITARY PAY...PLEASE READ!!!

This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across The World.

On Nov. 12, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise coming service members' way this year -- citing that the stated 13% wage was more than they deserve.A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.

"Ms Williams:I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account.Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40, after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum... I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in our armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN; I leave the choice of service branch up to you.

Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone -- obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it.

You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your opined piece.But, tomorrow from KABUL, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish!

A1C Michael Bragg Hill AFB AFNCC"

Courtesy of my (very pregnant) friend Deedee, whose husband deployed last week to Iraq, via Myspace bulletin.

Is This a Joke?

2006-08-10T12:00:00.000-07:00

Go here, and read, and then if someone can tell me if it's for real or not:

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2306

I honestly can't tell. I think it's appalling that the world has been brought to such a state that one could honestly believe the British Parliament would be investigating why Muslims hate airplanes.

Observations on Things I

2006-08-10T10:08:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was listening to the classic rock radio station here, and Pearl Jam came on. Okay, a little odd, but they have a 'classic' sound, so it made sense.

Then they put Dave Matthews on.

Sigh.

Well, I do believe I am officially an Old Fart if music from my youth is now "classic rock."

Sigh.

2006-08-02T10:51:00.001-07:00

So, Why the Iraq War?

Recently, I spent four hours trying to talk some sense into a friend of mine over the Iraq war. I was reminded that there is a lot of confusion about this, and I thought that perhaps I might be able to clear some of it up.

There were in fact a host of good reasons for invading Iraq (and some not so good ones). The problem is that the ones the Bush Administration tried to sell us and the U.N. on, Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties to Muslim terrorist groups, were not really true, and I knew that at the time.

The following list is what I believe to be the complete list of reasons for the invasion of Iraq, but note that very few have ever been (or ever will be) admitted to by the Bush Administration.

1. Distract Al-Qaeda: This was quite possibly the biggest reason for invading Iraq, the general idea being to paint a bullseye so big on Iraq that the various Muslim terrorist organizations couldn't ignore it, thereby diverting their attention from the mainland United States. I would point out that if so, this strategy has worked brilliantly. Our territory, our embassies and our military besides those deployed in-region have not been attacked again since 9/11, the longest such period since 1993.

2. Feasibility. In many ways, Iraq was the easiest Middle Eastern state for us to invade and attempt to democratize. We had already fought the Iraqi military once, and defeated them decisively. Their capabilities were a known quantity. We were familiar with the terrain. Further, for all his evil, Saddam Hussein did some things that have advantages for us. Iraq was not a Muslim theocratic state under his rule, but rather he pursued a policy of secularization and Westernization. By the standards of the region the Iraqi people are well-educated, and their economy was in reasonably good shape, with plenty of oil to fund the post-war reconstruction process. These factors made Iraq highly attractive for America's first foray in rebuilding and democratizing a Muslim nation.

3. Bases/Friendly Ally: A democratic Iraq, bordering on both Syria and Iran, would provide an ideal staging point and a powerful ally in the Middle East. Planners in the Pentagon and Bush Administration probably recognized in the wake of 9/11 that fighting Islamic terrorists would be a long and difficult war. A democratic Iraq would be a powerful symbol to the region of America's ability to pacify, democratize and bend to our will a Muslim state. It would inspire the more progressive elements in the region to cooperate with us, and provide far more space, better strategic locations and more security for bases than Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

4. Chemical/biological weapons. While the accusations that Saddam was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons were likely specious from the beginning (see below), he was known to have had possession of chemical weapons, particularly mustard gas and sarin nerve gas and had pursued development of biological agents. Further, he had already used them against Iran and the Kurds, and it was reasonable to believe that he might use them again (1). The problem here is that Saddam Hussein did in fact largely comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which required him to give up his weapons of mass destruction, and with the inspection teams sent in to verify their destruction (2). Understand, however, that the inspection process is very intrusive and particularly for an absolute dictator like Saddam, would grow tiresome. Also note that in such dictatorships, it's not unusual for the government bureaucracies to lie to themselves and each other, since the consequences for mistakes are... unpleasant. Hence, it may not have been possible for the Iraqi government to comply fully. I knew in September and October of 2002 that we would not find any significant stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that if we found any at all, it would be a few rusty old warheads. Some 500 degraded warheads have in fact been found (3), which sounds like a lot, but in fact is a reasonable number to have been "lost." That said, it is also the case that even a dozen canisters of sarin nerve gas squirreled away would be enough to kill thousands of Kuwaitis, Saudis, Israelis or American troops, whether by Saddam or terrorists.

5. Residual Guilt: During the First Gulf War, President Bush Sr. called upon the Shi'ites and the Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein and promised that we would help remove him from power. When the war ended after only 100 hours and Saddam remained in power, he was free to crush those rebels. For over a decade, in the Pentagon, the military, elsewhere in the government, and amongst conservatives and Republicans generally there was a great deal of guilt and a feeling that we abandoned and betrayed the Iraqi people, and that we had failed to finish the job (4).

6. Human rights abuses. Saddam Hussein was a viciously evil man, as were his sons and other members of his government. Often compared to Hitler, this is one case where the comparison is apt, for Saddam's evil was of the same sort as Hitler's, though Saddam can scarcely compare for scale. He used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war against both Iran and Iraqi Kurds, his own people (the Halabja poison gas attack (5). In 1998, he conducted a genocidal reprisal campaign against the Kurds, which leveled 2,000 villages and killed 300,000 people (4). Ordinary Iraqis were not safe either. The rapes, torture, murders, political imprisonments, the absence of any rule of law or justice system have all been well documented elsewhere, and I presume I need not repeat them all here. Suffice it to say that under Saddam the entire nation of Iraq led tenuous, fearful lives, which could be measurably improved by 'regime change' and a new democratic government.

7. Nukes: This of course is the most famous of the reasons which the Bush Administration gave for the invasion, the charge that Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire plutonium or enriched uranium in order to build nuclear weapons. The problem is that it was a specious charge from the beginning. I knew that in October of 2002, and wish I had put it in writing then. How could I know that? In 1981 Iraq had a brand-new nuclear reactor located at Osiraq, just south of Baghdad. This was capable of producing weapons-grade fissile material and had been purchased from France. The Israelis found the Osiraq reactor an unnacceptable threat to their security, so they launched Operation Opera. On June 7, 1981 they used their very first operational squadron of F-16s to bomb it (7). In so doing, the Israelis made it very clear that they would not tolerate a nuclear Iraq. Furthermore, the Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad, is far more effective at gathering intelligence in the Middle East than the U.S. or any Western state. If Saddam had been trying to acquire the bomb again, the Israelis would have known and dealt with it long before we could.

8. Terrorism: The Bush Administration claimed that Saddam Hussein was sheltering and training Muslim terrorists. This was untrue from the beginning. Why? First, Saddam Hussein was not stupid (evil dictators rarely are actually). He knew full well that if the United States found that he was supporting terrorism, his days would be numbered, and like all dictators what he cared most about was holding on to power. Pursuing policies that would jeopardize that power would not benefit Saddam. This is also why he complied with the U.N. requirements to destroy his WMD stockpiles. Second, the other Muslim states of the Middle East and fundamentalist Muslim terror groups HATED Saddam Hussein, and wanted nothing to do with him. Why? Because he was secularizing and Westernizing, and also had imperialist ambitions of conquering the rest of the region, or at least regional hegemony.

9. Legacy: I do think part of Bush's motivation for the invasion of Iraq was his desire to live up to his father's legacy. I cannot prove that, of course, but Bush Jr.'s frequent references to his father in the fall of 2002 in connection with the runup to war does suggest a psychological link. George W. Bush has also consistently seemed to be an insecure individual, and since taking the office in 2001 has frequently seemed to be in over his head. He could well have been trying to prove something.

This is, I believe, the complete list of actual reasons why we went to war in Iraq. If there's anything I may have forgotten, I am open to suggestions in the comments. Note also that oil is NOT on the list. I do not believe that oil was in fact a motivation for the invasion of Iraq. The costs involved are simply higher than they are worth. Halliburton cannot be making *that* much money on their operations in Iraq, simply because the operating costs are so high in that environment. In Part II, coming soon, we will explore what went wrong with the war in Iraq, and how to fix it.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
2. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution/687,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_
Security_Council_Resolution_1441
3. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
4. Read Tom Clancy's Executive Orders for evidence of this. Clancy is a pretty obvious propagandist for the Reagan/Bush/Bush arm of the conservative movement (though a fine storyteller nonetheless).
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
6. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq#Iranian_and_Israeli_attacks, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Clancy, Tom. Fighter Wing. Berkley Books; New York, New York, 1995. p. 93

2006-07-24T13:17:00.000-07:00

A Declaration of Intent, Cont'd.

So why should you read my blog and not someone else's? I bring two things other bloggers don't have: a unique perspective, and education and training which has equipped me with tools ideally suited to the task at hand.

What do I mean by a unique perspective? Some time in middle school it dawned on me that people perceive the world through filters. When they receive information about the world around them, they understand it in the context of a preformed worldview, according to their preconceptions. They take the information they recieve, and fit it into a preexisting mental construct of how the world works. This is in contrast perceiving reality as it actually is, and then constructing a mental framework of how the world works based on objective observation. It seemed to me that this tendency of human beings must be the explanation for the general state of disorder in the world. If human beings' perceptions of the world are distorted by their mental filters, their perception of reality will be flawed, they will draw inaccurate conclusions, in turn making bad decisions which would inevitably lead to frequent, if not near-constant mistakes, in how they relate to the real world. The process begins in infancy, long before people are even aware of it. Parents and family are the strongest agents in forming one's mental constructs, followed closely by school, and then the mass media, and religion for some. The result is that people are brought up with exposure to only a limited number of worldviews or mental frameworks, and they only ever think in terms of those frameworks. Indeed, they are incapable of thinking in any other fashion, nor are they aware that their mental processes have been affected in any way. They are rarely exposed to any different worldviews, and when confronted with such, the response is to automatically reject them, and often to vilify the people who hold different worldviews. Which is not to say people are stupid or evil because they are constrained by their worldviews - in my experience the phenomenon affects people universally, regardless of education, nationality, wealth, intelligence, political affiliation, or any other factor.

When I discovered at such a young age that this was as true of myself as anyone else, I was mad. It felt like other people were doing my thinking for me, and I didn't care for that one bit. It felt like I had been lied to, and that made me more angry. And I knew my opinions and beliefs that I had long held were not really my own, and that made me feel like a hypocrite. Compounding such feelings was an entirely normal adolescent belief that all other people are idiots, a belief that has moderated somewhat with advancing age. If all other people are stupid, I thought, why the hell should I be letting them tell me what to think? I determined that I would rid myself of all my preconcieved notions, my mental constructs. I would question everything, I would take nothing at face value, I would be perpetually sceptical, I would seek out as many and as varied viewpoints as possible on as many subjects as I could. I would stretch my brain, cramming it with as much knowledge and learning as I could. I would break down as many of my mental frameworks as I could, until finally I percieved the world clearly, with no filters at all. I would purge myself of all preconceptions, all preexisting mental constructs. Then I could begin learning the objective truth about an objective reality. That would allow me to use my powers of logic and reason to build a new framework, one that would allow me to interact with the world far more successfully than other people.

I have not succeeded in this task.

Parts of the worldview with which I was raised remain, and they are predominantly Judeo-Christian, Western, egalitarian (though not necessarily democratic), and scientific - that is to say what is currently termed 'conservative.' But clearly I am aware of those influences. I know when they are affecting my perception of the world, and influencing my opinions. And I have allowed them to remain deliberately. I reached a point where I could be objective enough that, though not fully objective, I could evaluate other worldviews on their own merits, not my emotions or automatic responses. I could evaluate them on how well they related to objective reality, how often they resulted in successful outcomes, how they accorded with science, natural law and those aspects of morality common across a broad range of cultures. My analyses ultimately led me to the conclusion that the Western 'conservative' tradition was a far more accurate reflection of reality, and a superior worldview, than any other (If this causes you some mental disconnect, I would humbly submit that George Bush is not in fact a conservative. I don't know what you would call him, but he is not really a conservative). Which is not to say that it is perfect - far from it. But some of its more grievous flaws, such as sexism and racism have recently been done away with. Other worldviews and political systems are far more grievously flawed, be it socialism, Communism, Radical Islamism, Marxism, liberalism, Maoism, Confucianism, anarchism or what have you. If you want a more detailed explanation of how I came to that conclusion, keep reading this blog, because that's what it is about.

But that perspective without the tools to investigate and express it wouldn't be that helpful. Years of education and training as a historian have taught me some very valuable skills for the task at hand. For example, how to read and analyze text, mine it for the relevant information and properly interpret it is central to being a good historian. I have learned how to analyze a document for its veracity, to investigate and determine an author's motives and biases and to take them into account. This is essential when one considers the overt partisanship of most contemporary political commentators. From courses in economics and historical statistics I learned how to gather, analyze and correctly interpret statistics, a skill which will come in highly useful. To be a good historian requires a passing familiarity with a huge number of other disciplines - anthropology, archaeology, sociology, economics, psychology, forensics, linguistics, physics, chemistry, engineering, and cartography for starters. Finally, none of the problems which confront the modern are really new. Most of them have roots which go back centuries. As an historian, I have knowledge of that background, which gives me an advantage in grasping the problems at hand, and in some cases finding solutions.

So what am I trying to achieve here?
To explicate the truth about the many issues that confront society today - not a truth which will advance my political agenda, or which is expedient for advancing my worldview, but an absolute truth. There has to be a caveat here, however. The world is an extraordinarily complicated place and it is quite possible for two (or even more) truths to be true at the same time - or rather, under remarkably similar but crucially differing circumstances. This is NOT an excuse for moral relativism, which is one of the things this website is dedicated to opposing. If I am right, and if I do my job properly in laying out the truth and backing it up with verifiable evidence, then the conclusions I've drawn should be obvious to any rational person. To do this requires considerably more research, longer writing time and more editing that a normal blog, so posting will be less frequent

What, exactly do I believe in?
Personal Responsibility.
A fundamental right to self-defense, and therefore access to the tools thereof.
Capitalism. America's welfare class has a higher standard of living today than the middle class did in 1850. But it makes a lousy political system.
Political thought should have ended with Thomas Jefferson. Certainly it should have stopped before Marx.
That at some point there must be a showdown between the West and Islam, and that we cannot lose that war militarily, but only through a lack of national will. I would prefer we did not capitulate.
That at some point there must be a showdown between Western capitalist democracy, and Maoist socialism. See above.
That the greatest good of society is the maximum liberty and freedom of choice for every individual.

What am I opposed to?
For Starters:
Political Correctness. This is literally Orwellian Newspeak, an attempt to make all undesirable thought, all thought contrary to liberal values, impossible to express and ultimately even concieve of. Sound radical? It's the subject of a shortly upcoming post.
Moral Relativism. Not so much an inability to recognize right from wrong, as a belief that there are no such absolutes. However, I am not a complete moral absolutist either. In such a complex world, there are bound to be some grey areas.
The cult of helplessness and the welfare state. This is in conjunction with personal responsibility, above.
The constant increase of government power. I do not mean the NSA's gathering of phone records, either. Take, for example, the Kelo vs. New London decision, which allows state and municipal governments to confiscate ANY property if they believe it will increase their tax revenue!
Defeatism in the War on Terror. I'm open to suggestions for improvement, but running away is not the answer.
Collectivism and groupthink.

About the name:
Publius was Alexander Hamilton's pseudonym when he wrote the Federalist Papers. As such, he was one of the primary architects of the political theories and form of government I so admire, and would like America to rediscover. Cicero, of course, was the famous Roman orator and lawyer who opposed the rise of both Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus. He used his formidable skills of oratory, rhetoric and reason to prevent the destruction of the republic he so loved, knowing all the while his efforts would likely be futile.

Why am I doing this?
The partisanship and ideological hackery of American and Western policy making and public debate has unsettled me for a long time. But when I recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm, and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, I discovered how close to that dystopian future our society has already become. I was terrified. It was that which finally motivated me to begin writing. The continual erosion of our rights, freedoms and liberty must be arrested, and reversed. To do that, it is imperative that we re-adopt some traditional Western and American values like personal responsibility, freedom of thought and speech, self-reliance, justice, integrity and moral certitude. The only alternative to this. . . . well, George Orwell put it best in 1984:

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."

2006-07-22T18:14:00.000-07:00

Waldorf Chicken Salad

Allow me to preface this by saying I HATE mayonnaise. But the stuff I make myself is pretty good.

I also HATE waldorf salad. Apples and Mayonnaise is f*cked up. It probably doesn't help that the first time I ever tasted it was in the St. Andrews dining hall (lousy chef).

I further HATE celery. Also, nuts in other food are also f*cked up.

That said, this chicken salad is very delicious, and even good for you.

2 cooked chicken breast halves, diced
1/2 cup diced mild onion like red or vidalia
1/2 cup diced celery
1/3 cup diced bell pepper, red, yellow, orange, green, your choice
1 medium apple, diced.
1/3 cup walnuts, chopped
1/2 tsp salt.
3 grinds fresh black pepper
1 tsp dill.
Enough mayonnaise to hold the other ingredients together (at least 1/2 cup). If you can stomach store-bought, that'd be fine.

Mix all of the above ingredients together in a large bowl with a big plastic spatula. You've used enough mayo when the mixture clings to itself, instead of crumbling and falling all over. Serve on any bread you like, including pita. Although if you insist on white store-bought, I insist you at least toast it lightly first.

2006-07-18T16:14:00.000-07:00

Guantanamo, Geneva and the Laws of War

The treatment of terrorists held at the United States base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been a heated issue in the national debate for some time. Recently it has been brought to the fore again by the Supreme Court's recent decision that the Bush Administration overstepped its authority in holding those prisoners without trial. It seems to me that it is time that someone addressed this issue on its first principles.

There are four basic principles which must be addressed:

1. What are the relevant sections of international law affecting the Guantanamo prisoners' status, and what do they REALLY say?

2. What is the status of the prisoners at Guantanamo under those international laws?

3. How do we define a terrorist?

4. Once an individual is determined to be a terrorist, what rights, if any, do they have?

The primary relevant document is Geneva Convention III, adopted in 1949, and more specifically Article 4, Section 2:

"1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
- that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (1)

So there are four conditions which Iraqi and Afghani insurgents must meet in order to qualify for prisoner-of-war status. First, they must be commanded by a person who will take responsibility for their actions. While Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and the like frequently claim responsibility for acts of terror carried out by their subordinates, "responsibility" should be understood in this context in the military sense of officers giving specific orders that their subordinates are bound to carry out. This is not the case for terrorist cells, which must by their nature generally operate independently, attacking targets of opportunity by means of their own choosing.
Secondly, to qualify as prisoners of war, combatants must use a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." The purpose here is to be able to differentiate between combatants and civilians, in order to prevent civilians being killed unnecessarily. Essentially, it means combatants ought to fight in uniforms, but it is worded the way it is to allow for guerillas or insurrectionary fighters who may not have access to uniforms. Instead, they might use a red armband, for example, or a distinctive headgear. In Vietnam, it was decided that the 'black pajamas' worn by the Viet Cong qualified, even though they were identical to the normal civilian dress. Here the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan fail entirely, making no attempt to differentiate themselves from the civilian populace. Indeed, they deliberately seek to shelter within the civilian populace as an operational method, and were civilian dress as a matter of course. There is one caveat to this arguement, however, which comes from Paragraph Three of Protocol I, a 1977 amendment to the Third Geneva Convention, which states:
"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly (emphasis mine)." (2)

Which brings us to the third condition which the insurgents must meet in order to qualify for POW status, that of bearing their arms openly. Here the insurgents sometimes qualify, and sometimes do not depending on the tactic they use. Sniping and machine-gun fire, as long as it's not directed against civilians, do qualify under this provision. Car bombs, suicide bombers and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) by definition do not qualify as "bearing arms openly," not least because they depend on concealment for effectiveness.
That brings us finally to the fourth condition which Islamic militants must abide by in order to qualify as POWs: they must fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war themselves. A complete discourse on the laws of war would fill volumes (and has), but one example will suffice here: You may not deliberately target civilians.* Insurgents in Iraq do this on a regular basis, using the car bombs, suicide bombers and IEDs mentioned above as well as other means. These are violations of the fourth clause quoted above, and disqualify their perpetrators from POW status. However, an insurgent who only engages American or Iraqi security forces using the conventional weapons of war, rifles, machine guns, rockets, mortars, etc. falls under the Geneva Convention protocols and must be treated as a prisoner of war.

It is clear then that what we have are two different categories of individuals being captured in the theatre of operations. An individual who fights American or coalition military forces in open combat using the normal weapons of war qualifies as a combatant, even though he may not be wearing a set uniform. He is an insurgent, and if captured must be treated as a prisoner in accordance with the laws of war. They may not be forcibly interrogated or summarily executed. On the other hand are individuals who use car bombs, IEDs and suicide bombers and target civilians. Individuals, not in uniform, found in possession of the materials necessary to make such devices may also be fairly considered members of this group. This second group is in violation of the Geneva Convention, and do not qualify for POW status. As such, they have no standing in international law and we can do whatever we please with them. As a matter of reality, there is going to be a great deal, indeed probably near-universal, crossover between those two groups. Captured individuals may only be treated according to what evidence can be proved against them. If we capture a car bomber or suicide bomber (good luck with that, boys), clearly they qualify as terrorists. If we capture a man with an AK-47 on his shoulder, we must assume that his targets were soldiers, not civilians, and treat him accordingly as a POW.

So how do we define a terrorist? I start from the first principle that the only just basis for judging an individual is his or her actions. An individual's religion, race, political beliefs, nationality or any other criteria , even speech that supports, promotes or encourages terrorism cannot make an individual a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who uses deadly attacks deliberately targeted at civilians in order to create fear, intimidation and terror, as a means of coercion to achieve a desired political, military or religious end which the terrorist knows cannot be achieved by military force, even unconventional military force. In other words, terrorists murder innocent people in order to frighten them into giving in to their demands.
Now that we have defined a terrorist, what rights does a terrorist have? In order to be able to carry out such actions that will knowingly result in the death, injury and loss of innocent people, an individual must be fundamentally lacking in empathy. Empathy is the ability of individuals to relate to other human beings, to understand that they too have feelings like one's own. This is a fundamental quality of human beings, one absolutely necessary to function in society. In order to be able to carry out acts of violence which will result in such great human suffering, a terrorist's feeling of empathy must, by definition, be absent or non-functioning. As such, terrorists are not in fact fully human (this argument is also true of rapists). Ergo, terrorists have no human rights whatsoever, and we may do whatever we wish with them.
Indeed, the only reason not to execute terrorists outright is precisely so that we may interrogate them in order to prevent future atrocities. While we're on that topic, now would be a good time to correct a mistruth in the mainstream media, which has been fond of tossing around the word "torture" in recent months. This is an inaccurate description of the interrogation process used at Guantanamo, and is intended to conjure up images of the rack, glowing metal brands and electrocution as part of the mainstream media's deliberate attempt to undermine the Bush Administration. Such forms of torture are no longer used in interrogations not least because they are unproductive. A more accurate term might be "forcible interrogations" - semantics, yes, but also a key distinction. Modern forms of interrogation include techniques like food deprivation, dehydration, sensory deprivation and circadian rhythm interruption. Of a surety, these are uncomfortable and unpleasant for the interogee, but the purpose is to confuse and disorient him to the point where he doesn't really know where he is or what he's doing, and so tells the interrogator what he needs to know without really being aware of what he's doing. Understand that the people being subjected to these tactics truly, viciously hate the United States, and will resist to the utmost. They cannot be bribed, coerced or reasoned with (3). Disorienting them in this way is the only way of making them talk.
All of that having been said, I am uncomfortable with the fact that there is no legal process to determine who is sent to Guantanamo. Some sort of at least reasonably transparent legal mechanism to determine the status of prisoners in the war on terror is needed, preferably following the guidelines I have laid out above. Once individuals are fairly determined to be terrorists, I do not particularly care what happens to them. Let's send them to Guantanamo, interrogate them for everything we can get out of them, and then summarily execute them, partly so that they can never be set free to menace the world again, and partly as a deterrent. But if Congress and the Supreme Court are no longer going to allow us to interrogate them and insist they recieve civilian trials or be set free, I see no reason for the U.S. military to continue taking any terrorists prisoner. It would be better to line them up and shoot them, again partly because they are too dangerous to be allowed to live, and partly as a deterrent. Granted, they are willing to die anyway, but getting baskets of their friends' heads with pieces of bacon stuffed in their mouths may cause a few to rethink their decision.**

1. Wikisource, The Third Geneva Convention, Article Four. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

2. Wikipedia (the most useful bloody thing ever), Protocol I, Article 44.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

3. For example, witness how the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay behave towards their captors. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060731-1450-guantanamo-prisonerattacks.html

*Despite what the mainstream media apparently believes, it IS clear under the Geneva Conventions that avoiding civilian casualties is impossible in wartime, and in fact using civilians as shields is a serious violation. So right now, Israel is entirely in the clear in its bombing and shelling of Lebanon, but Hezbollah should be roundly condemned for storing their war materials in civilian areas.

** If that seems religiously intolerant to you, please note that I did not call for all Muslims to be forced to eat pork, and indeed I would be outraged by such a suggestion. I only called for individuals who use that religion as an excuse for murder to recieve such treatment. If they believe that dying in jihad will secure them a place in Paradise with 72 virgins, then they must be dissuaded from that belief and persuaded instead that they're going to Hell. I believe terrorists go straight to Hell anyway, so I suffer from no compunction about condemning their immortal souls.

2006-07-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

Rabbits Are Not Chickens
or,
How (not) to fry Flopsy Bunny

All right, so this completely off-topic for this blog, but I'm whoring for page hits. Besides, if I don't amuse you, you won't keep coming, and then how will I carry out my nefarious plan to turn everyone into eeeevill conservatives muwahahaha!

Ahem. Sorry about that. Anyway, this story took place while I was in Scotland earning my Master's degree.

Today I fulfilled a life-long (or nearly so) dream - to eat a rabbit, and my first wild game in the process. I was on my way to the grocery store to buy fixins for lamb ragu, and on the way past the butcher shop I noticed that they had three rabbits. Plans for lamb ragu were immediately scrapped. Fortunately, no alterations to the shopping list were required beyond the procurement of an inexpensive but nice bottle of Spanish red wine, and the rabbit for the lamb, on the way home. I was surprised at how heavy a rabbit is when the butcher handed him over. Also, one rabbit costs L 1.80 - a small chicken costs L 2.20 or so; quite a good deal, really. I remarked on both subjects to the butcher, who agreed. I was to discover, however, that there was an ulterior reason for the weightiness of the little beast when I began to cook this evening. Turns out the rabbit hadn't been completely gutted.

Gross. I just got used to sticking my hand inside a chicken. Now I have to deal with this?

Blissfully, the stomach and intestines and other really nasty bits had been removed. Left was what appeared to be a liver. It certainly looked like a liver, except that it was HUGE. Noticeably larger than a golf ball. Apparently rabbits are alcoholics, or at least this one was. Then again, if I were designed to be a single-serving snack food for every carnivorous critter on the planet, with an inherently nervous disposition, I'd probably be a heavy drinker too. I got the liver scraped out fairly easily, and cracked the ribcage open. Whereupon I discovered the diaphragm, heart, and lungs still in place. And the windpipe and aorta. And possibly another artery.Minor nausea resulted. Nasty, especially the lungs, which were surprisingly small, only about the size of the last joint of my thumb. Of course, they were deflated, the bunny being dead. Also, a rabbit's heart/lung area and ribs are essentially right underneath its chin; I had thought they were further back between and behind its front legs. Much wielding of a paring knife and scraping with a spoon was employed to finish cleaning things out. Hopefully, next time I'll be able to suck it up and at least get the liver out by hand. Anyway, that done I could proceed onto the portioning phase.

A note about rabbit bone structure: These things are MUCH more sturdily built than domestic chickens, especially their spines and ribcages. I can crack through a chicken with little difficulty using a chef's knife, but I noticeably dulled my knife on the rabbit with little result. I'm kind of pissed about that. Oh well. Eventually I got it cut into seven portions. On to the cooking phase. The recipe was for coniglio cacciatore (rabbit hunter-style), hence why the ingredients could be largely the same as for lamb ragu. I began by dredging the pieces in flour (I forgot to season the pieces with salt and pepper first. Whoops.) I then browned them over medium-high heat in a combination of extra-virgin olive oil and butter, about two tablespoons of each. The result was a most fantastically appetizing aroma. I'd read that frying rabbit smells mind-blowingly delicious, and I can say it's absolutely true. Don't ask me why it's better than frying chicken. The olive oil and butter were part of it, but it was more than that. Anyway, once I got all the pieces browned (that took two batches), I removed them to a plate. In the meantime I had sliced
into thin strips one medium red onion and a piece of a tiny one. Into the pot they went, along with a little more oil (the rest had disappeared). I added salt, pepper, thyme and rosemary, about half a teaspoon each of the herbs. I sliced three cloves of garlic thinly, and in they went. I sauteed those a little while, then dumped in a whole can of peeled Roma tomatoes with their juice. I broke up the whole tomatoes with my tongs, scraped the tasty bits off the bottom. and allowed the melange to simmer for a little while. Next I added a few sprinkles of red pepper flakes, and poured maybe a 1/4 cup of the red wine, then returned the rabbit to the pot. Covered, I allowed my cacciatore to simmer whilst I
boiled some pasta water, turning the rabbit pieces once. Once the pasta went in, I took the lid off the rabbit so the sauce could reduce. Amazingly, the pasta and cacciatore were done at exactly the same time, so I drizzled a little olive oil on the pasta, tossed to coat, and plated several of the rabbit pieces alongside, covered in the nice, chunky tomato and onion sauce, to which I had added a substantial quantity of chiffonaded fresh basil (I managed to keep basil plant alive this time), stirred through off the heat. I tossed the leftovers in the freezer, took the plate off to my room, and enjoyed with a glass of the wine while I watched Pirates of the Carribean.

Life can get better than that. But not for me, at least not so far. Yummy.

Thoughts on cooked rabbit: People who say rabbit tastes like chicken are not too far off, but enough that that's not quite true. In colour and the visual texture of the cooked meat, they are quite similar. But as soon as you bite in, the difference is immediately obvious. Rabbit is much tougher than domestic chickens, both in the muscle fibers themselves and due to the significantly higher amounts of connective tissue. They are, after all, designed
to run for a living, not stand around eating. It was not unpleasantly tough, however; just chewier, than chicken - about the same as pork, I'd say. In fact I ended up eating the pasta first, then abandoning the knife and fork and eating the rabbit with my hands - not that I
mind, of course.

Which do I prefer? For many applications, the chicken - it's easier to get, more versatile, and easier to eat. The tenderness factor is significant if you're having company. Not polite to eat tomatoey rabbit with other people around. That being said, I would never turn my nose up at a rabbit, and hopefully in the relatively near future, I'll be able to get it for the
cost of a .22 long rifle or 20 gauge shotgun shell (Yes, I know there's hidden costs there. I'd be paying them anyway). It clearly requires tenderizing cooking methods, which is why it's popular in stew, fricasee, and pies. Cacciatore is technically a braise, but I didn't have it in the pot long enough for it to tenderize, just get cooked through thoroughly. I may have to try some of these methods in the future. That being said, based on the aromatic evidence, I think pan-fried rabbit must be one of the highest pinnacles of culinary excellence one could attain, whether it's "chewy" or not. Besides, you're supposed to eat fried stuff with your hands. My concern here is getting it cooked through thoroughly without doing irreparable harm to the crust or using excessive amounts of fat. So I'll either have to wait until I can get my handling time down significantly in the dismantling stage (less time in the germ-growth temperature zone) or I bag my own and I'm comfortable with the way it's been treated since it was killed.

And now you know more than you ever wanted to about rabbit cuisine.

2006-07-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

A Declaration of Intent.

This is not your ordinary blog.

Having spent some years now exploring the various political commentaries available on the Internet, it occurs to me that conventional blogs have some serious problems which limit their effectiveness as tools for political discussion and change. First, they typically consist of the author's opinions, their personal take on the topic at hand, and as such are heavily colored by that author's biases. The normal blogosphere defense against this criticism is that bloggers are no more biased than conventional journalists, and that at least bloggers do not claim misleadingly to be objective. Their bias is obvious and up front, so the reader may take it into account. This is, I think, true, and the admission is laudable honesty on their part. However, it does not change two essential facts: bloggers will choose stories, facts and data that reflect and support their worldview, their political agenda, their biases, while ignoring or discrediting any contradictory evidence, even if that evidence is verifiably true. This results inevitably in a skewed, and to greater or lesser degree, literally false interpretation of reality. Secondly, it leaves bloggers painfully vulnerable to criticism by opponents at the opposite end of the political spectrum, who can use that ignored evidence against them. The result is that bloggers have a major creditability issue with those who disagree with them, or are unaffiliated politically.
This problem is compounded by a lack of rigour in citing evidence. While bloggers are adamant about their peculiar form of citation, known as "trackback," this often enough consists of a single hyperlink to whatever news story, or even other blog post, inspired the primary topic of their post. Additional relevant data incorporated into their arguments goes uncited. For example, Markos Zuniga, the author of DailyKos, knows that the Bush Administration is corrupt, and repeats the accusation as often as possible. But where is the proof of the Bush Administration's perfidy? What sources does he cite when he makes this oft-repeated accusation? Many liberal bloggers know that the war in Iraq is illegal, and repeat that every chance they get. But do they explain how it is illegal, under what authority, according to what international conventions? Kim du Toit knows that global warming is not a problem, that it is an anti-capitalist plot by a leftist academic establishment. But what arguments does he marshal against the increasingly overwhelming evidence of shrinking icefields, an accelerating rise in average temperatures around the globe, and a measurable increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide? The answer to all of these questions is None. Bloggers simply do not address these 'facts,' as they percieve them. They are instead articles of faith. This is, quite frankly, not good enough. The result is a further loss of creditablity, except with individuals who already share the worldview of the author, who already accept those articles of faith. The result is that blogs, as they stand now, largely appeal only to those of the same political bent as their authors. This is no doubt very satisfying for those involved - to discover and know that there are like-minded people who agree with you is comforting to the soul and satiating for the ego. But if I were to send an apathetic or politically non-aligned person (i.e. the average American) to DailyKos, they would see it (I hope!) for the paranoid conspiracy-theory ranting it is. If I sent the same person to The Other Side of Kim du Toit, they would be turned off by the apparent penchant for violence and a near-sexual gun fetish. Ultimately, blogs have limited power to persuade and influence people to their point of view.

This is a problem, because the dangers confronting America, Western civilisation, and the world are far too dire to be left festering while commentators and policymakers at both ends of the political spectrum argue over their incompatible worldviews. In the next fifty years or so, the world is going to make a choice between three mutually incompatible social systems:
Socialism, ranging from the relatively mild European form, to a near totalitarian form such as that practiced in China or Cuba;
Radical Islam, which in spite of the war on terror is growing, particularly in Europe;
and
Western-style democracy, in which the greatest degree of liberty for each sovereign individual is considered the goal of society and the greatest possible good.

Oddly, it is the first two, socialism and radical Islam, which are currently on the rise. Communist China is rapidly becoming the world's second superpower, and is already an economic powerhouse. With a population of over a billion people, it is only a matter of time until China begins to assert itself and attempt to spread its own social system globally, first in eastern Asia and the South Pacific, and then to Africa. Do not be mistaken - China may have adopted capitalism as an economic system, but it is still far from being a free and democratic country. Western notions of individual liberty and rights such as freedom of speech and religion and due process of law are virtually unknown there. Even the Internet is heavily censored and monitored by the state, and people who dare to speak out against the government continue to be 'disappeared.' I personally am not willing to accept the replacement of Western traditions of freedom and democracy with such a system.
Meanwhile, in Europe and even here in the United States, a creeping form of socialism often called the 'nanny-state' continues to grow in power and moral authority. This is a form of government based, essentially, on the idea that the government, on behalf of society, has an obligation to care for anyone who is unwilling or unable to fend for themselves. This manifests itself in government-run national health care plans, enormous welfare spending, and high levels of unemployment, combined with poor economic growth as a result of the higher tax burden necessary to support such spending. The result of such powerful disincentives to individual initiative and achievement is a fundamental enervation of European society. Worse, the same political groups responsible for the 'nanny-state' ascribe to a moral relativism which enables them to declare radical Muslims a persecuted, and therefore a protected, class. This makes fighting the war on terror a near impossibility for Europe. Perhaps you remember seeing on the news in fall of 2005 how every night for a month, all over France, and then all over Europe as far away as Moscow, hundreds and thousands of cars were torched each night. What the mainstream media never told you was that this vandalism was carried out by disaffected Muslim youths, that it took place during the month of Ramadan, and that there were explicit links between the organizers and Al-Qaeda. Throughout Europe, young women are assaulted, even raped, by Muslim men, because they are not dressed according to the laws of Shari'a, but no one is arrested, much less convicted. In France, young Muslim women living in France's Islamic ghettos are afraid to leave their homes without a veil, while Muslims demand the institution of Shari'a. Even more worrisome, the birth rates of the indigenous populations in most European countries are barely at the replacement level, if not lower. In almost every major European country, the fastest growing population segment are Muslims, the children of immigrants who have never been assimilated. Unless Europe manages to yank itself out of its malaise soon, in twenty-five years there may not be a Europe as we recognize it, only a Muslim theocratic state.
Meanwhile, the fellow-travellers in this country of the moral relativists who have brought Europe to such a state continue to undermine the attempt by the American-led coalition forces to fight radical Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. A continually defeatist press refuses to report on any positive developments in Iraq or Afghanistan, trying as hard as they can to convince the American public that we cannot win the war on terror, and that it was a mistake to even try. At the same time, colleges and universities and Hollywood (seen "Jarhead?") systematically discourage young Americans from joining the military. Don't get me wrong - I am painfully aware that many mistakes were made in the invasion of Iraq, some of them serious, and the Bush Administration ought to be called to account on them. But I would point out to you one humble piece of evidence: No American civilians, and no American military members save those engaged in the Iraqi and Afghani theatres of operations, have been attacked or killed by Al-Qaeda in the nearly five years since September 11th, which makes it the longest such time since Al-Qaeda began their jihad in 1993 with the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center. Messy as it is, and Lord knows there is room for improvement, Bush's foreign policy does in fact work. What I do not understand is the attitude that because the Bush Administration made mistakes it follows that the war on terror, or even the war in Iraq, was a mistake, and that the appropriate response is to quite literally give up and come home.

As radical as it may sound, it is Western-style democracy which is currently under threat, both abroad and from domestic groups that have given up on the ideas of individual liberty and personal responsibility as just too hard, and whose misplaced guilt and moral relativism leads them to appease radical Muslim terrorists and undermine the very necessary war on terrorism. Hence the urgency of a new form of political commentary, a new school of political thought, in order to reinvigorate that national will. During World War Two, tens of millions of Americans interrupted their lives to fight, and the entire nation bent its will to the war effort to destroy fascism. Today the threat seems smaller, I know. But it is not. After Afghanistan and Iraq are pacified, new threats may emerge, from Syria or Iran. If those are defeated, new theatres may emerge in Pakistan, India, or Indonesia. The war on terror, if it is fought to a successful completion by the West, will probably dominate most of my lifetime, and span much of the globe. Militarily, we are entirely capable of winning the war on terror. What we lack currently is the national will to do so. What we need is the spirit of that "Greatest Generation" who defeated the Nazis and the Japanese, who believed so strongly in the rightness of the traditions of freedom, liberty and democracy we once held so dear, and who so hated the injustice of tyranny and conquest that they were willing to fight and die for them. To find and rekindle that spirit is the goal of this website. It is a large and lofty goal, I know, and some would say it is impossible. Personally, I have never felt that 'impossible' was a good reason not to try. Indeed, it is possibly the best motivation in the world.