Cassandra over at Villainous Company has a wonderful piece:

Winter Soldier II: The Inconvenient Truths Americans Won’t Hear from the Media

While she makes some excellent points on the issue, what caught my attention was a point she made about life, and ones attitude toward the same:

I’ve never seen any point in being Edgy. Life is way too full of hard edges. I have very little use for anger - the only way to stay furious, it seems to me, is to adamantly refuse to see anyone else’s side but your own. Once you break down and admit you’re not the only person on the planet who ever manages to think of a plausible point, it becomes difficult to maintain a truly self-righteous wad of indignation.

Well worth the read!

The Business and Media Institute has a report on a recent speach by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright (once seen dancing with North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, as he whispered into her ear that he wasn’t developing nukes)…

Quoth Albright:

Albright’s message centered on the need for equality – not just domestically, but also on a global scale.

“If we were all rich, that would be very nice,” Albright said. “If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same. What the problem is now is the poor know what the rich have as a result of information technology and the spread, generally, of knowledge.  And, it creates a whole new host of problems in terms of disquiet and anger.”

I just don’t know what to say to that.  Let’s hear the money line again:

If we were all poor, it would be too bad, but we would be the same.

Wow.  And this woman was in charge of Foreign Policy for the US.

Oh, and who is she supporting for President?

 “I know Hillary Clinton very well and she is strong and has lot of resolve and I think would be a great commander-in-chief,” Albright said.

Yeah.

Oh, and one more thing, from her bio on Wikipedia:

She and her parents fled …when the Communists assumed power over Czechoslovakia, moving to the United States of America in 1948.

I wonder how her father would feel today, knowing that he risked everything to get his family out of the Communist path, only to have his daughter become the very thing he feared?

I had hope that Benazir Bhutto would prove to be a moderating influence on Pakistan, and would come to some kind of power sharing agreement with President Musharraf, to combat the Islamic Fundamentalists in the nation, and provide a beacon of hope to the Muslim world.  Sadly, that will never come to pass.  I had considered what, exactly, to say on this, and found a link from LGF to a piece by Pamela Bone in the Australian that said it all:

Bhutto was murdered because to her enemies she was Westernised, a traitor to her culture and an American stooge. She was murdered because she had vowed to bring secularism and democracy to Pakistan. She was murdered because she was all these things, and a woman.

“I know I am a symbol of what the so-called jihadists, Taliban and al-Qa’ida, most fear,” she wrote in her autobiography, Daughter of the East. “I am a female political leader fighting to bring modernity, communication, education and technology to Pakistan.”

Yes, fear is the right word. The fear of women, of women’s freedom, and most of all, of women’s sexuality, runs through Islamism. It is a large part of Islamist hatred of the West. “The issue of women is not marginal,” writes the Dutch scholar Ian Buruma. “It lies at the heart of Islamic occidentalism (anti-Westernism).”

Al-Qa’ida has made it perfectly clear that its aim is an Islamic caliphate, first in all nominally Muslim countries and ultimately in the whole world. The jihadis would, if they could, impose the same rampant misogyny on women worldwide as was, and still is to a large extent, imposed on the women of Afghanistan.

Could the murder of Bhutto be enough to wake up Western women to the fact that the war being waged by the Islamists is very much about them? Could the modern Left be persuaded that the people who killed Bhutto are the ones we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places across the world? Can we, in our niceness, stop telling ourselves they are justified in their hatred of us?

It’s a great piece, and I recommend reading the whole thing.  The one mistake she makes is:

They can’t win. No one, apart from extremists like themselves, wants the kind of society they envisage. But they could, if the West fails in its determination, win enough to make life very unpleasant for millions of women for a generation or more.

They most certainly CAN win, for several generations, over a great swath of the globe.  It doesn’t matter what people want, if they aren’t going to stand up and fight.

The West as a whole has already failed to confront this evil.  Only the United States is standing against the tide today, despite the best effirts of the Democrat Party, and the American left in general, who are doing their best to beak our will as well. 

It is curious that the very people that claim to support Womens Rights, and Gay Rights, also support the very people that want to kill all the Gays, and make all women slaves.

I believe that one reason for my decline in posting over the last few months, besides time constraints due to business, is that so many things that I want to say, have already been said, and far more eloquently, by others.  Case in point is a Two-fer from Big Lizards last week:

“The Courage to Do Nothing”

And here’s a nice round-up of forbidden knowledge from the Republicans in the Senate, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK, 100%), ranking member (and former chairman) of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW). Inhofe is a national treasure, one of the few Republicans not only willing to stand up against the greedy socialists at the UN (many Republicans do that), but also willing to put in the time to educate himself on the actual science involved.

This makes Inhofe a much more potent danger to the regime of so-called “anthropogenic (man-made) global climate change” than his colleagues. Hardly any other senator or representative, on either side the aisle, is willing to go so far as actually learning something about what he’s talking about.

In the meanwhile, my brother sends me a link to another page of the Senate EPW Republican minority website, in which Inhofe finally nails the climatistas: He catches them confessing the real reason for all the hoopla about globaloney. This is a true “cognition” moment when all the pieces abruptly fall into place:

1. A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations….”
2. “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

Yes. Now you understand why I have consistently referred to the climatistas as “socialists”: Because they are.

Watermelons.  Green on the outside, Red on the inside.  You will find a wealth of information in this piece on the fraud of man made Global Warming, and political (instead of Scientific) process behind it.

The other piece echos somewhat the Robert Kaplan piece from my previous post:

The Men on the Wall

Since the US military is the only entity capable of policing the world, why shouldn’t Japan totally rely upon them? That is how my online correspondent sees the situation: Japan pays enough to buy its protection, so what are Americans complaining about?

I told Asean that paying others to protect your own country is a sure way to lose face. He shrugged; most Japanese think merely losing respect is a cheap price to pay for never having to fight. Japan suffered so much from the last war — in which Japan was the imperialist aggressor — that many Japanese simply refuse to fight again, ever… no matter what the provocation. They won’t to fight even to protect their own interests, land, or culture; they are content to outsource national defense in a way that Americans cannot even imagine.

Is this a position worthy of a once-proud nation of Samurai warriors? How can they face their ancestors, who would have fought bravely and died rather than surrender?

Aside from the craven and disgusting nature of this attitude, their strategy of self defense by proxy is doomed to fail. It has several problems:

• Refusing to fight does not let you avoid war; rather, it invites war.
• Mercenaries are not loyal to you; they always have their own agenda.
• Americans cannot be everywhere; we’re not omnipotent: It’s impossible for the United States to fully protect Japan even if we wanted.
• Finally, the most likely reason outsourcing national defense will fail is the “men on the wall” syndrome: Just like the hobbits of the Shire, the Japanese have not fought a war for a long, long time. They have forgotten how to fight, and even that there is any need to fight.

Lot’s of good food for thought in both.  And, sadly, a great deal of truth…

Indebted to Younghusband at Coming Anarchy for pointing out this piece by Robert Kaplan in a recent issue of the American Interest:

Cut One:

It is obvious that a military can only fight well on behalf of a society in which it believes, and that a society which believes little is worth fighting for cannot, in the end, field an effective military. Obvious as this is, we seem to have forgotten it.

Cut Two:

When pleasure and convenience become values in and of themselves, false ends displace necessary means. It is as Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz said: While a good society should certainly never want to go to war, it must always be prepared to do so. But a society will not fight for what it believes, if all it believes is that it should never have to fight.

Cut Three:

“Decadence” is the essential condition of “a society which believes it has evolved to the point where it will never have to go to war.” By eliminating war as a possibility, “it has nothing left to fight and sacrifice for, and thus no longer wants to make a difference.”

There is a lot more, and some deep analysis.  Time well spent.

From the mouth of the enemy himself, comes this report from Al-Jazeera:

 Hundreds of protesters have marched through the Sudanese capital Khartoum demanding death for a British school teacher convicted of insulting Islam.

The protesters chanted “no one lives who insults the prophet”, a day after Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation for allowing her class to named a teddy bear Mohammad.

They waved green Islamic flags, held up ceremonial swords and chanted religious and nationalist slogans as they took to the streets after Friday prayers.

The naming of a toy animal after Islam’s most revered prophet has sparked great controversy in the African nation.

Can we PLEASE now move beyond the rediculous idea that the Islamists (or Salafists, or Wahabbis, or Muslim Fundamentalists, or Islamokazes, or whatever you want to call them) are somehow reasonable people, that we just need to learn to get along with?

Keep in mind, that in another part of Sudan, Muslims are enslaving and killing Christians, becuase their religion (of peace) allows them to.

From GOP.Gov:

Today, House Republicans offered a resolution censuring Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-CA) for accusing our troops of “blow[ing] up innocent people” and suggesting the President finds “amusement” in the injuries and deaths of our troops. Watch Rep. Stark’s comment in full here.

The censure resolution states:

“Resolved, that the Member from California, Mr. Stark, by his despicable conduct, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House and merits the censure of the House for the same.”

But today, 196 House Democrats voted to kill the resolution censuring Rep. Stark. (Vote #986, 10/23/07)

Disgusting.  Even the San Francisco Chronicle thought Stark was out of line:

“A new low point … The Ugly Moment of the Week goes to Rep. Pete Stark, the Fremont Democrat who has made a career out of minimalist accomplishment and optimal bombast.”

But my point here is to note which Washington State Congress-critters voted to Censure Stark:

-Hastings

-McMorris-Rodgers

-Reichert

And those that REFUSED to censure his remarks:

-Baird - disappointing, thought not really surprising, after the beating he took over his comments that Iraq was turning around.

-Dicks - even more disappointing.  Several US Navy installations in his district.

-Inslee - Sub Base Bangor, and Naval Undersea Warfare Center in his district.

-Larsen - Has Naval Station Everett and NAS Whidby Island in his district.

-McDermott - I am only surprised that it was Stark making the slur, not McDermott.

-Smith - This is the guy with Fort Lewis and McChord AFB in his district.

Note that the Washinton State Reps voted by strict Party line.

I’ll say it again - Disgusting.  And the constituents of those voting against censure should remember these D’s supported Stark’s slurs next election cycle.

I had never heard of State Rep. Chirs Hurst, Democrat from Enumclaw, until this morning, when I ran across an opinion piece he wrote in the News Tribune.  Not too surprsing, since I am not one of his constituents, and from glancing at his bio, he seems to be a pretty solid guy - by which I mean I doubt someone with his background would be prone to making silly airhead statements, like so many of his party bretheren do.

His piece in the News Tribune did not disappoint.  In fact, I felt compelled to post this, and state is public, for all to see, that I AGREE with him.

Using high-paid mercenaries insults American troops

How would you feel if you showed up to work and your boss hired someone who was paid 10 times your salary to do similar work? Then the next day you found that your new co-worker started killing customers, and the rules for you and him were different. He just gets sent home.

This is the very question many of our soldiers are asking as it relates to contracting out military functions to firms like Blackwater USA.

I have wondered about the massive number of mercenaries employed in this conflict.  I am not opposed to the use of Mercenaries, or Private Security Firms, or whatever euphmism they might prefer.  I think that there is a time and a place for employing such forces, when the use of a nations military is not appropriate, or politically possible, to accomplish a necessary goal.

What I AM opposed to is the use of these forces in the same theater of operations, doing fundamentally the same jobs, as our active duty forces.  Indeed, as Rep. Hurst points out, employing these mercenary forces cheapens the sacrifice of our professional military, and demeans them.

Looking at human history and the associated military conflicts, mercenaries and privateers are nothing new. However, from a historical perspective, it should also be noted that there is a direct correlation between the use of mercenaries and the decline of a civilization.

Historically (Wikepedia has a nice piece on this), mercenaries have been employed for numerous reasons.  Since in most ancient cultures, the vast majority of citizens were farmers, and a professional military was an expensive luxury, Mercenaries formed a sizable percentage of the armies of Pharoah, Xerxes, and most other rulers, when needed.  Mercenaries have existed in most cultures and countries, in one form or another. 

In our own history, the Hessian soliders that George Washington defeated at Trenton NJ (after crossing the Delware), were Mercenaries, in the service of England.  The Continental Congress, with only 31 ships, issued Letters of Marque to Privateers, authorizing them to attack British shipping.  Indeed, to this day,  Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

The use of private “soldiers” in combat zones degrades the image and morale of our troops. Using our hard-earned tax dollars to pay them is an insult and slap in the face to those serving in our military who took an oath to defend our constitutional freedoms.

This is not a desperate war of national defense - it is a war to liberate a people.  There is no excuse for the use of Mercenaries in these circumstances.  If the American people are not willing to shoulder the burden to do what needs to be done, then the use of Mercenaries not only demeans our soldiers, but their mission as well.  And it is an indictment of our people, that we are comfortable with the suffering of others, just as long as we have our HD TV, and the newest IPod, and get to play WoW or the newest versin of Halo.

It is morally imperative that we stop using mercenaries and only use military personnel who have actually taken an oath to defend our Constitution. Furthermore, no contractor of any kind should be paid more than an American soldier serving in combat.

Supporting our troops begins with not demeaning them. They shouldn’t be forced to work alongside mercenaries and be insulted by the wages paid to these people who have no sworn allegiance or moral obligation, as our soldiers do.

Indeed, I support universal conscription for all support functions of the Military (and go ahead and rool in the Peace Corps and Public Health Service, if you like).  No one appreciates something that they haven’t worked for.  And while Freedom isn’t Free, far too many of our fellows get a free ride, due to the blood, sweat, and tears of those who hear the call, and serve not only the nation, but their brothers and sisters in other lands as well.

  State Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, has a son serving his third Army deployment in Iraq; a nephew was killed there.

The Editorial Cartoon in the Tacoma News Tribune today was a fairly simple affair - Black, with a mother and child at a gravesite.  The child clutching a flag, the mother with a tri-fold burial flag in her arm.

The caption was “A prayer for the day when we don’t have new names to mourn…”

All in all, a wonderful piece, highlighting the sacrifice of not only our servicemen, but their families. 

But also thought provoking.

Because, in the final analysis, the only nation that has no new names to mourn, is a nation that has passed from history.

And the people of that nation would be dead, or enslaved, and have many, many more names to mourn.

So while our memory of the fallen should be respectful, and we should remain aware and cognizant of their sacrifice (and that of their families), we should also honor them for their deeds, and rejoice that our nation can produce men and women who are willing to stand on the wall for the rest of us, and throw themselves in harms way, to protect our people, and our way of life.

A moment of silence, for the fallen.