Yesterday, I discussed how the United States is powerful, but it is not expressing strength.  Our enemies call us a "paper tiger" because they believe that once we have some reverses, we will run from the battle field.

And unfortunately, this is very true about certain parts of our nation.  Unless we can rediscover endurance, the fate of our nation is grim.

In examining this issue, I have been looking back at the things that generated endurance of pain, misery, and privation through the ages.  I think that the key to this is that people will endure much for a future that they truly desire.  Examples abound.  Our ancestors went into the wilderness and fought weather, disease, and indigenous people for a future of a home of their own.  Hispanics today endure much for the same reason when they cross the border.  Religion is one of the keys to endurance as we see in Iraq, in the crusades, and in many other places and times.  But the foundation of that is still the future (even though it is after death).

So, what do we see in the future?  Well, there is the one about a new type I-pod, and a nice house with pillars instead of the 4 bedroom ranch we have today.  "Religion is a fraud" we are told.  "We don't need it".  "It is just myths".  And on we go, families shrinking, foreign policy aimed at keeping what we have.  No goals, no hope, no future other than the one we already have.  We are fat, lazy, and, yes, weak.  And when your only goal is to keep your creature comforts, if you sacrifice and endure pain and loss to keep those comforts, you have lost them anyway.

But there is strength in the country still.  We see it in our people who work to go to college to improve themselves.  We see it in the evangelicals who still believe and still want that future.  We see it in entrepreneurs who want to build something that will last through time.  Flatly, we see it in the conservative movement.

Bill O'Reilly talks about the culture war.  And this is the foundation of that war.  It is a battle of people who have it all except for a reason to live and a reason to try.  Against them are the people who believe in the promise of this nation, who believe in a higher power and a destiny. 

Who will win?  I have not idea.  What I do know is that in this battle, if our side loses, our nation will be extinct in just a few decades.  This is not about this election or that candidate.  This is about the continuation of our way of life.

1. pow·er (pour) NOUN: Force exerted or capable of being exerted; might.
2. en·dur·ance (n-drns, -dyr-) NOUN: The act, quality, or power of withstanding hardship or stress: A marathon tests a runner's endurance. The state or fact of persevering.
3. strength (strngkth, strngth, strnth) NOUN: The state, property, or quality of being strong. The power to resist attack; impregnability. The power to resist strain or stress; durability. The ability to maintain a moral or intellectual position firmly. Capacity or potential for effective action.

In the world today, America is often called a "Paper Tiger" and called weak.  However, that is impossible, isn't it?  After all, we have the ability to defeat any army and to do what we want wherever we choose to go.  We are the most powerful nation on earth!

I fear that the characterization of our nation as weak is not entirely wrong.  As a nation, we seem to lack strength.  What we can demonstrate is power.  But true strength is a combination of power and endurance.  What our enemies tell us and tell each other is that if you bloody our noses, we will go home with our tails between our legs.  We have the power to destroy any enemy, but not the will to endure losses (both financial and human) to achieve a goal. 

The enemy saw this in Lebanon where we had the power to take a place, defeat all attackers and stabilize the area.  However, when our soldiers were killed in the barracks, we left.  In Somalia, we had the power to defeat the warlords, but not the will once Blackhawk was down.  Even in our great "victory" in Bosnia, we had the power to defeat any of the armies, but in fear of losses, we restricted our fighting to air bombardment and allowed ethnic cleansing to proceed.  Yes, there is a kind of peace there, but it is the peace of the grave for anyone who did not belong to the powers in each ethnic enclave and did not choose to leave.

Now we are in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our enemies do lack our power, but the have endurance.  In Islam has been battling against Western civilization for over a thousand years.  They are willing to kill their children and turn their own cities into tombs to fight us.  In the USA, if the war is not over in 100 days, it is a quagmire and we must plan an exit strategy.

I blame this mainly on the media, but also on our own leaders.  We seem to be unwilling to stress (as Bush did at the start) that this will be a long war.  It will not be ended in a day, a year, or probably not even a decade.

But it was not always thus.  During WWII, I have never heard questions about "what is our exit strategy".  Our only strategy was to win.  I mean, what is an "Exit Strategy"?  It is simply a plan for when and how we run away from the fight.  Even asking that question gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

I think that the war on Terror is one we must win or we must pull back and perhaps die as a culture.  Unfortunately, it will take a nations strength to have victory.  I see that strength in this administration, but I fear that our nation as a whole is lacking in this attribute. 

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu

I read a lot of the blogs here and a number of the columnists.  What I have come to see is a lot of depression and anger about what our congresscritters and President have done.  We have not solved the problems they were asked to solve and they have spent money like drunken sailors.

But wait, if I can see this, why can't our leadership?  If it is ubiquitous on this board, why is it hidden to our leaders?  Are we just so smart and they so dumb?  Now, I have met some of our leaders and there are dumb ones there, but there are smart ones as well.

I think that the real issue is that our leadership is blinded by tactics because the strategy is hard.  And limited in strategy because we have picked the wrong objectives.  There are both strategic objectives and tactical ones.  Most of the objectives I hear are tactical objectives.  When I hear about a strategic objective, it is one that is important to the party but not to the people.

What is the difference between Strategy and Tactics and what is the difference between those and objectives?  Strategy is immutable; it is a Big Picture look at a problem that focuses upon the entire forest and not individual trees.  Tactics present a Small Picture perspective where individual trees are in focus but the Big Picture of the forest is not. Just as your eyes have to look up from this page to refocus on the larger room you’re reading it in, so strategy and tactics require a different focus.  Finally objectives go to what you want to achieve. 

Lets look at examples.  A strategic objective might be "to defend our nation from uncontrolled immigration."  The strategy might be to make the economic worth of immigrating illegally be low enough to dissuade people from taking the risk.  Finally, there are various tactics.  Increase the risk of being caught by defending.  Increase the cost of illegal immigrants higher by fining employers.

But what do we see?  I think that the Republican and Democrat Strategic objective (such as it is) is to elect a majority and maintain that majority.  Unfortunately, in my mind, that is a tactic at best.  I don't care if Democrats fix the immigration mess.  I just want it fixed.  And you know what?  In blogs and articles, we are told we have to vote for Republicans because they are "our team" and Dems are the enemy.  That is all assuming the objective of a majority.  I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT OBJECTIVE.  I will accept a Democrat solution or a third party solution.  And if Republicans will not set that objective, then they are not my party.

When I look at the campaigns, do I see strategy?  nope.  I see just tactics.  Hit them with this accusation, jab them with that.  Show that I am a family man, a Christian, a businessman.  Objectives?  Nope.

People look back to 94 and ask why Newt got us into power.  The Contract with America was all about objectives.  If we can find objectives, enunciate those objectives, and create strategies and tactics to achieve them, we will be the majority.  If we do not, we do not deserve to be the majority.

pun·ish (pnsh) VERB: pun·ished , pun·ish·ing , pun·ish·es VERB: tr.
1.  To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2.  To inflict a penalty for (an offense).

This entry in my Blog was started as a response to a poster on the site saying "why should the children be punished for what their parents have done."  The subject was welfare.  After all, it was the parents who were lazy and drugged out, so why should the kids "be punished".

This is one of the most offensive tropes to me in libspeak.  And it is very simple and very wrong.  Punishment is an intentional act done to someone for recognized bad behavior.  Consequences are the natural results of our actions.  Negative consequences are not the same as punishment.  If I do not choose to protect someone from the results of their own actions or from the actions of their families, I am in no way punishing them.  People who die in airplane crashes are not being punished, they are dying from the consequence of being on a crashing airplane.  No sin, no intent, no nothing.

Lets use a couple more examples.  If I hold a bowling ball over my head and then let it go, is my concussion "punishment" for this crime?  If a person holds me up with a knife and I defend my self with a gun and kill them, were they "punished" for theft with a death sentence?  In both cases, no.  In both cases, the result was a consequence of their action and not a punishment for that action.  Even further, if I pour a bottle of bleach into a bottle of vinegar, does the chlorine gas punish me?

I believe in fair and just punishment of crimes.  Without that, we cannot deter crime.  We cannot stop all negative consequences from happening.  They are so ubiquitous and in many cases unrealized until long after the event.  Any attempt is doomed to failure.  I also don't feel that it is my responsibility to protect all of the people in the world for the consequences of their intentional actions. 

I think this is one of the differences between Liberals and Conservatives.  Liberals want us protected from the consequences of our actions and from the consequences of others acts from cradle to grave by big mommy government.  Look at the out of control tort system and airbags, FDA, etc.

Conservatives, on the other hand, recognize that there are consequences and accept the risk of negative consequences in exchange for freedom and the possibility of benefiting from positive consequences.

From The Opinion Journal today

A View From Iraq
Our item yesterday in which we reaffirmed our support for the liberation of Iraq brought some very interesting reader comments. This is from an American there who asks not to be named:

There's been a lot of discussion back home about the course of the war, the righteousness of our involvement, the clarity of our execution, and what to do about the predicament in which we currently find ourselves. I just wanted to send you my firsthand account of what's happening here.

First, a little bit about me: I'm stationed slightly northwest of Baghdad in a mixed Sunni/Shia area. I'm a sergeant in the U.S. Army on a human intelligence collection team. I interact with Iraqis on a daily basis and I help put together the intel picture for our area of operations. I have contacts with friends, who are also in my job, in every are of operations in the Fourth Infantry Division footprint, and through our crosstalk I'd say I have a pretty d*mn good idea of what's going on in and around Baghdad on a micro and intermediary level.

I wrote heavily in favor of this war before I enlisted myself, and I still maintain that going into Iraq was not only the necessary thing to do, but the right thing to do as well.

There have been distinct failures of policy in Iraq. The vast majority of them fall under the category "failure to adapt." Basically U.S. policies have been several steps behind the changing conditions ever since we came into the country. I believe this is (in part) due to our plainly obvious desire to extricate ourselves from Iraq. I know President Bush is preaching "stay the course," but we came over here with a goal of handing over our battlespace to the Iraqis by the end of our tour here.

This breakneck pace with which we're trying to push the responsibility for governing and securing Iraq is irresponsible and suicidal. It's like throwing a brick on a house of cards and hoping it holds up. The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)--a joint term referring to Iraqi army and Iraqi police--are so rife with corruption, insurgent sympathies and Shia militia members that they have zero effectiveness. Two Iraqi police brigades in Baghdad have been disbanded recently, and the general sentiment in our field is "Why stop there?" I can't tell you how many roadside bombs have been detonated against American forces within sight of ISF checkpoints. Faith in the Iraqi army is only slightly more justified than faith in the police--but even there, the problems of tribal loyalties, desertion, insufficient training, low morale and a failure to properly indoctrinate their soldiers results in a substandard, ineffective military. A lot of the problems are directly related to Arab culture, which traditionally doesn't see nepotism and graft as serious sins. Changing that is going to require a lot more than "benchmarks."

In Shia areas, the militias hold the real control of the city. They have infiltrated, co-opted or intimidated into submission the local police. They are expanding their territories, restricting freedom of movement for Sunnis, forcing mass migrations, spiking ethnic tensions, not to mention the murderous checkpoints, all while U.S. forces do . . . nothing.

For the first six months I was in country, sectarian violence was classified as an "Iraqi on Iraqi" crime. Division didn't want to hear about it. And, in a sense I can understand why. Because division realized that which the Iraqi people have come to realize: The American forces cannot protect them. We are too few in number and our mission is "stability and support." The problem is that there's nothing to give stability and support to. We hollowed out the Baathist regime, and we hastily set up this provisional government, thrusting political responsibility on a host of unknowns, each with his own political agenda, most funded by Iran, and we're seeing the results.

In Germany after World War II, we controlled our sector with approximately 500,000 troops, directly administering the area for 10 years while we rebuilt the country and rebuilt the social and political infrastructure needed to run it. In Iraq, we've got one-third that number of troops dealing with three times the population on a much faster timetable, and we're attempting to unify three distinct ethnic groups with no national interest and at least three outside influences (Saudi Arabian Wahhabists, Iranian mullahs and Syrian Baathists) each eagerly funding various groups in an attempt to see us fail. And we are.

If we continue on as is in Iraq, we will leave here (sooner or later) with a fractured state, a Rwanda-waiting-to-happen. "Stay the course" and refusing to admit that we're screwing things up is already killing a lot of people needlessly. Following through with such inane nonstrategy is going to be the death knell for hundreds of thousands of Sunnis.

We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we're backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the 21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000 American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that's fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. Reassure the Iraqi people that we're going to provide them security and then follow through. Disarm the nation: Sunnis, Shias, militia groups, everyone. Issue national ID cards to everyone and control the movement of the population.

If these three things are done, you can actually start the Iraqi economy again. Once people have a sense of security, they'll be able to leave their houses to go to work. Tell your American commanders that it's OK to pass up bad news--because part of the problem is that these issues are not reaching above the battalion or brigade level due to the can-do, make-it-happen culture indoctrinated into our U.S. officers. While the attitude is admirable, it also creates barriers to recognizing and dealing with on-the-ground realities.

James, there's a lot more to this than I've written here. The short of it is, the situation is salvageable, but not with "stay the course" and certainly not with cut and run. However, the commitment required to save it is something I doubt the American public is willing to swallow. I just don't see the current administration with the political capital remaining in order to properly motivate and convince the American public (or the West in general) of the necessity of these actions.

At the same time, failure in Iraq would be worse than a dozen Somalias, and would render us as impotent and emasculated as we were in the days after Vietnam. There is a global cultural-ideological struggle being waged, and abdication from Iraq is tantamount to concession. 

One of the interesting things in the 2008 election is the liberal candidates who are being floated.  It is interesting because I think that neither have a chance of willing.  I can say the same for the Republican "favorites" Guiliani and McCain.  Where are these folks heads?

So, why do I say that they cannot be elected.  I guess I would be wrong if it came down to McCain vs Hillary or some other combination, but I just don't think that can happen.  The Republican "favorites" are out of the mainstream of Republican politics.  The religious conservatives know that McCain hates them and Rudy is just too New York liberal in most of his positions to get the nomination.

On the Democrat side it is slightly different.  Hillary does have the name, but her stated policies fly in the face of her primary voters.  She is against gay marriage and in favor of the war.  She will be destroyed in those campaigns.  Barack has a better chance, but he is too young to get a lot of traction.

No, the real nominees will be some lightly known people (or perhaps Gore again).

On this subject, I will say that I believe it impossible for either a Democrat woman or minority candidate to be elected at this time.  And this is simply for statistical reasons.  I could be wrong, but here is how I see it.

The electorate is pretty well split with 40% liberal, 40% conservative, and 20% bi-political.  Of those bi-politicals, they lean in about equal numbers each way as well.  Thus, to win the election you need to pull the majority of those tweeners without losing any of your base.

Looking at the electorate again, we can see that people who would be swayed by the race or sex of the candidate are most likely already Democrats.  Therefore, a generic candidate who's only extra qualification is their minority status will not gather any Republican votes.  In fact, since there are bigots a plenty in the Democrat party, any minority candidate will keep some of their voters home or chase them away to the Republican party.  Even if this is only 1% of the voters, it is enough to sway the election.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were to run a minority candidate, they too would lose their bigots.  However, they would also pull a fair portion of the minority status voters from the Democrat party.  I believe that this would wildly offset the losses, because the bigots of the Republican party would just not vote, rather than vote Democrat.

So that is my rationale.  I believe that a woman or minority will be elected some day.  I believe that it will be someone who is like Condy.  A smart, attractive, well spoken REPUBLICAN.  Of course, once that has happened, unless the administration is a total disaster, it will no longer be worthy of notice and it will no longer be a major factor in elections.  However, in my opinion, the first can only come from the Republican side.

 As I said, I am going to look today at Hillary's public positions and provide my commentary.

First, I would comment that her foreign policy and cultural positions make her totally unacceptable to the Moveon crowd.  In fact, with some notable exceptions, these positions sound pretty much like those of George Bush!

Where she leaves old George is that he wants to cut taxes to increase revenue and she wants to raise taxes for the same reason.  With so many proofs that the cuts do work, that is pure political pandering.  But it is understandable.  After all, she wants to put 1/7 of the total economy under government control (Univ Health) and that is going to cost huge piles of cash.

I do see her positions as a big government ideologue, but I don't see George or our Congress shrinking it.  We have been spending like drunken sailors.

I am flabbergasted and amused with two of Hillary's positions.  First, she doesn't want to send more agents to the Mexican border but she wants to increase the Canadian border staff by 10,000.  Huh?  Second, she wants us to sponsor schools throughout the Muslim world (I assume we will make attendance mandatory in some manner?)

I hate her amnesty plans, but they sound again like George, so what choice is that?

Finally, her environmentalism is, to me, a crock.  When 98 Senators opposed Kyoto when it was written, does anyone think it will be passed now when even the signatories are failing the goals?  Release oil from the reserves?  That just masks supply and demand and when they are gone, they are gone.  Then what do you do if war cuts off supply?  Hydrogen cars....  Don't get me started.  But that is Bush too.

In summary, Hillary sounds like George Bush except that she wants the government in areas he doesn't.  Gosh, maybe the Republicans can run her when the Move on folks chase her out of the party.    JUST KIDDING!!!!!!

I asked a question of a liberal co-worker. She is a big fan of Hillary Clinton and I asked her “why Hillary?” I mean, there are a lot of other Dems who seem to share her opinions, she is not an electric speaker, is not experienced in management, and, to me has little to recommend her other than her marriage to WJC.

Her answer was that she approves of Hillary’s stance on the important issues of the day. It appears to her that Hillary cares about people and families and that makes her a truly attractive candidate.  I think that it is obvious when you read below, that she has no chance of being nominated if these issues come generally to light within the Democrat party.  So, without further ado, I would like to list some of the public positions of this "remarkable" woman. 

1. Domestic
1. It takes a village to raise a child.  In a global age, it is up to government to provide that village.
2. Most proud of the “Adoption and Safe Families Act” of 1997.
3. Provide Universal Health Care.
4. Balance the budget by eliminating the tax cuts, and if needed by raising taxes.
5. Generally against private ownership of guns.
6. For increase to minimum wage.
7. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
2. Terrorism
1. We need to improve controls on our transportation infrastructure to combat terrorism.
2. We need to fund foreign schools to compete with Madrassas.
3. Cultural
1. Abstinence, education, and birth control as a solution to abortion.
2. Opposition to Gay Marriage, support of civil unions.
3. Supports Defense of Marriage act.
4. Supports private prayer in school and use of religious speech by students, but not mandatory prayer or religious speech by teachers or administrators.
5. For a flag burning amendment.
6. Against selling violent video games to children.
4. Foreign Policy
1. We need to intervene militarily in foreign lands for humanitarian reasons.  Preferably under the control of Nato or the UN, but without them if needed.  Places mentioned are Darfur, Sudan, Kosovo, Rwanda, and East Timor.
2. The invasion of Iraq was a decision that relied on information that she saw while in the Whitehouse with Bill, there were no lies about WMD.
3. The invasion was the right decision. However, GB should have let inspections and negotiations continue longer.
4. We need to pressure the Iraqi government more to obtain reforms and take responsibility for their own country.
5. Supports Israel against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.
6. Favors the Israeli defense wall.
7. The UN is crucial and must be reformed and strengthened, but not abandoned.
5. Immigration
1. We need to add as many as 10,000 additional border control agents on our Canadian border. (emphasis mine)
2. Create a guest worker program and track those workers continually while in the country.
3. Punish employers who hire illegals.
4. Provide an amnesty path for illegals wanting to become citizens.
6. Environment
1. Release oil from the reserves.
2. Produce more hydrogen cars.
3. Ratify Kyoto.

Commentary in my next posting.

Back at the dawn of time when I was in college, I took a large number of science courses.  In one of my biology classes, I was introduced the the concept of organic competition.

Organic competition is when diverse organisms compete for living space against each other.  In this competition there are 5 main drivers:  1)  propagation rate; 2)  tolerance for conditions; 3) predators; 4) existing organisms in the ecosphere; and 5)  natural barriers.  Propagation rate is simple, that is how fast the organism breeds and grows.  Tolerance for conditions considers how sensitive to heat, cold, drought, etc. the lifeform is.  "Predators" questions whether there is something that eats this thing, and existing organisms is, I think, obvious.  It is what is living in the biological niche that this thing wants to inhabit.  Finally, natural barriers are oceans, rivers, and mountains.

I would note that no where in this list is anything that values one organism over another.  It does not matter if this one is prettier, more valuable to man, or whether one is evil and the other is good.  In fact, all of these things are values assigned by man and not inherent in the creature. 

What brought this up was a conversation with a co-worker.  We were discussing immigration and what I consider an invasion of our nation by illegals from the south.  Her comment was that it was hypocritical of me to want to defend our territory when we took it from someone else in the first place.  I said that was irrelevant and I still believe it is.  Am I hypocritical when I help my grass defend itself from crabgrass even though the Kentucky bluegrass was placed down where prairie grasses once lived?  No.  Even the question is ridiculous.

The movement of populations in the history of the world follow this organic competition model.  At the beginning of this nation, we were the aggressive organism.  We spread rapidly from our beginnings on the east coast into all areas of the nation, from the freezing north to the desert south and overcame all natural barriers.  We defeated the various animal and human predators and displaced the existing organisms.  Whether this was right and proper or evil and wrong is a discussion for history.  Where we are is, after all, where we are, regardless of how we got here.

But, in the last 80 years since the Mexican war, our growth has slowed as has the growth of the so-called "Western Democracies" in Europe.  In Europe, the birthrate is below replacement in many areas.  We have eliminated most natural predators, and man has learned how to live in all climates.  So, now, the only things that stop the spread of more aggressively growing populations is human predators and natural barriers.  Note, when I say "predators" I am not talking about violence and killing.  Yes, in the natural world, that is the only option.  However once this competition comes into the human realm, we have many options of removing the invader, isolating them, or even incorporating them into our social ecology.

The most important thing here is, to me, obvious.  If we do not generate the barriers and provide the predators, the rapidly growing third world populations will gradually replace us and our way of life.  This will happen more quickly in Europe since they have a worse birthrate than we do and more potential immigrants.  However, it will happen here.  In my opinion, in the next century one of two things will happen.  Either the Western Democracies will wake up and, through creation of barriers and through aggressive assimilation they will defend their habitat or they will be replaced.

Please consider.  During this entire posting, I have not stated or considered whether the invading populace is better or worse than the population being replaced any more than organic competition considers the "worth" of the species in conflict.  I personally tend to like the existing population here for purely selfish reasons.  It is my country, my tradition, and my way of life.  This gives me the drive to want to compete, but not the assurance that I will win.

It is amazing to me, that things like this are so obvious in my own mind, but foreign to others.  I am told that wanting to defend myself is racist, sexist, nationalistic, etc.  Maybe it is.  However, any organism that does not defend itself when faced with extinction will not endure very long.  And with the good that our way of life has done the world, I would consider it a great loss for us to depart the scene.

CON-SER-VA-TIVE (kn-sûrv-tv) ADJECTIVE:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

LIB-ER-AL (lbr-l, lbrl) ADJECTIVE: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Today, I am a conservative.  In another time and place, I probably would be a liberal. 

A lot of talking is done by people who use the language but do not understand it.  I am told "Conservatives believe this" and "Liberals believe that."  However, the core of the belief systems is seldom considered.  At the start of this essay is the dictionary definition of the two words, and I think that they do both describe and explain the core of what is going on today in politics.

Liberals are experimenters and people who want change any time a problem occurs.  The old, established ways are, almost by definition, suspect while the new "advanced" ideas need to be implemented.  Conservatives are people who say "go slow" and demand proof that the new ideas will work better than the current ones before making changes.

As I said in my posts Castles In The Air and Castles In the Air (Part Deux), the liberal side of the aisle is made up of theorists and activists.  They see something wrong, demand something be done, make up a theory, and the implement it.  Unfortunately, theories don't always work and many have negative impacts. 

Changing reading from phonics to "whole word" is an example of this.  In an effort to create better readers, a theory was created that people actually read whole words and not letters.  Thus if I type "can yuo raed tihs?", you can even though the words are all misspelled and phonetically ridiculous.  From here, the theory drove them to teaching just the words.  On the surface this is a good  idea and was pushed by liberals in the teaching industry.  What they did not understand is that it hurts your ability to learn new words or even to use the dictionary.  For a more complete look at this I have recommend a web page here.

The conservative side, if left alone would, indeed stagnate.  This is not good either.  With a pure conservative movement, we would still have slavery, gas lamps, and horse buggies.  However, with appropriate tension between the two sides, society can advance.  That said, I think we have gone too far in the positions of power toward the liberal side.  I also believe that the offices of government should be inhabited by conservative voices.  Why?  Because the theories and the new ideas impact real human beings.  If you come up with a "new" idea to solve a problem, and immediately implement it and it turns out badly, millions are harmed.  If you simply continue what you are doing now, no benefit is found, but no harm is done.

Look at the issues of today.

1. Religion - Liberals want new religions (to them) like Islam or Wicca, while conservatives stress that this is a Christian nation.
2. Stem Cells - "Great idea, run forward for the benefit" say the liberals, "Wait, look at the unintended consequences" I say.
3. Abortion - There were too many harmful abortions and lives damaged by unwanted children, so liberals pushed for unlimited abortion on demand.  Conservatives worry about the damage to the people who have had abortions and to the society from a devaluation of the value of human life.
4. Morality - Liberals immediately reject traditional morality by definition and try to create their own from whole cloth.  Conservatives use theirs as a bedrock of their belief system.
5. Race - Conservative: "What we have done is enough.  Now lets make it work."  Liberal:  "There still are problems.  What can we do now?".

As I said at the top, in the 50's, I would have been a liberal on many issues.  I believe in racial equality, and I believe in science and advancing the human condition.  However, the liberal victories of the 50's through the 70's have now gone so far that they have metastasized into a cancer in the body politic.  It is time to stop, reconsider the issues and consider the long term impact of the ideas of the liberal thinkers.

The theories of the men who live in Castles In The Air are valuable.  The reins on change for change sake are critical.  Liberal impetus will always come from the schools and the populace.  Conservative control needs to come from the governmental agencies.  Working the other way, there are no reins.  In fact, this was the purpose of the founders in making the Senate and the courts extremely stable.  They wanted those branches of government to be stable and to provide the "drag" in the system.  The House was to be the liberal engine. 

In summary, liberal control of the government is a disaster as is liberal control of the courts.  However, with Conservative government and courts and liberal thinkers in the general population, we can progress with care and intelligence to an unimaginable future.

 The internet Joke of the Day today was soooooo funny.  I just had to share it.

• Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California.
• White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.
• Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.
• Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.
• Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.
• Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the AmericanTerritory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon).
• Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels
• France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica.
• Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
• Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
• 85-years, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.
• Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
• Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
• Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
• Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals, violates their civil rights.
• Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.
• New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.
• Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.
• Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines.

Gag O Matic Joke Server

The turmoils of the present pass and are forgotten, but with a proper foundation, the future can be created.

The issue of women in the military has died down with the Democrats out of power, but with the possibility of them taking the House and possibly the Senate, this will return to view.  As such, I want to discuss why it is insanity to allow either gays or women in the military.

Now, first I would like to confess that I don't consider the armchair military to be true military men.  Yes, they enlist and serve and many die.  But at best they are specialists who work at a remove from the front lines.  They are pilots, computer programmers, supply specialists, etc.  In these positions, most of my concerns do not apply.

No, what I am talking about is the grunt on the ground with mud in his boots or the sailor who is on a ship that could turn into a raging inferno at a moments notice while it is thousands of miles from help.  With all due respect to the other people, these are the true warriors.

We first should discuss what it is that makes up a unit of warriors.  Most of the readers of Internet Blogs have never participated in basic training or dealt much with the units at the point of the spear.  I am talking about Army and Marines along with Seals, Search & Rescue, and other intense combat units.  Special actions are taken to turn your normal long-haired "mamma's boy" into a member of an elite unit able and eager to do what is necessary to win in combat.

While parts of it are bogus in the extreme, a recent film "Heartbreak Ridge" is a good case study of this mindset.

In basic training, the military breaks down everything that makes you special or unique.  All ties to people outside your unit are deemphasized.  They cut off your hair, force you to wear baggy and ugly clothing.  No free time is given.  You eat, sleep, and shower with your unit.  Everyone but your unit is your enemy.  You are ridiculed and insulted.  In the old days, you were hit and slapped at times.

Once you are broken down to the bottom, and you are sure that you have no one or nothing but your unit, the military begins to rebuild you in the new image of a warrior.  Praise (but only to the unit), promotion, and perks are added back in, but again on a unit level.  If one person fails, the whole unit is punished.  The purpose of this is to rebuild these people into a tight group who will follow orders and support each other in the most intense form of human endeavor.  The intent is to make them all closer than brothers.  This is the origin of the "band of brothers".  In many cases, these units go from basic training, to advanced training and then into combat with the same units.  In fact, if possible, this is the desired result of training.  A new ready to fight platoon.

Why would you do such a thing to normal people?  When you want people to be willing to trust others with their lives and to be willing to die on orders to achieve their mission and save their buddies.  THIS IS NOT A NORMAL HUMAN CONDITION.  Only training of this type can create this mental focus.  And anything that breaks up this cohesion will destroy the unit.  This is a major reason that armies weaken and the reason that our armies have tended to be more effective than many of our opponents.

So, why are gays and women anathema to this?  It should be obvious.  You want brothers, not lovers.  After life threatening experiences, it is well known and accepted that people have a psychological reaction called "reaffirmation of life".  This drives people to seek sex and intimacy.  If a person you desire is in your unit, it is extremely likely that you will become lovers.  Once this happens, unit cohesion is broken.  Your Sgt orders you on a likely suicide mission, instead of his lover in order to protect him/her.  Your lover is in danger and you endanger the rest of the unit to save her.  You break up with your lover.  As everyone knows after a broken love affair, anger and revenge rise up.  Two of you love the same other and jealousy enters the unit.  Even the suspicion of any of these is as bad as the reality.

Can anyone doubt that this is a recipe for disaster?

Note, I am not saying women and gays cannot fight, cannot sacrifice, and have no honor.  I am not saying they are not worthy of service.  What I am saying is that on the tight battlefields of the Marines and Army and in many cases on shipboard, having ready availability of potential lovers in your unit will destroy the effectiveness of that unit.  And that, dear reader, is why gays and women should never be allowed in the ground combat units.

In the 30' through the 50's, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien wrote a series of books that encapsulated much that is now lost.  It described the highest ideals of the romanticized middle ages of honor and manhood.  It drew from Arthurian legend of the perfect knight who would love "pure and chaste from afar" and who would rather die than sully his honor.  But this concept of death with honor, or sacrifice is lost in the public world today.  It is seen in our soldiers, but not understood by the elites or the media.

Of all of the themes of the books, in the Lord Of The Rings constancy and sacrifice for others are one key theme and the other is honor.  I have probably read these books 40 to 50 times in my life and I must say that a number of these things ring through my soul today because of those books.

Recently, there was an excellent series of movies that captured the vision of these books but lost these themes.  Instead, themes of meaning to today replaced the older ones.  Peter Jackson said in interviews that he wanted to make the stories accessible to his modern audiences.  He commented that he could not understand many of the characters and so made changes needed to connect with us.  My contention is that the concepts of honor and manhood are foreign to him and to most of the liberal elites in Hollywierd.

In the place of constancy and sacrifice, we have fear, rationalization, and temporizing.  In the place of honor we have expediency.  In the place of a man who gave his word and would allow himself to die before failing that word, we have people who alter their behavior based on the needs of the moment, and relativism.

In the original books, there were four peoples who were great icons of good:

1. The hobbits who's character is exemplified by Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam.  These are a little people, but with strength of character and good will.
2. The wizards, primarily Gandalf who are angelic figures of pure good.
3. The elves Elrond and Galadriel who are unworldly and ancient, but share human characteristics.  They are absolutely honorable and have left their ancient homes for thousands of years, simply to right a wrong.  The only reason they are in middle earth is to fight the great enemy.
4. Finally, the men Strider/Aragorn along with Boromir, Faramir, Denathor, and Theoden.  These are people.  Normal humans with all of their fallibility.  However, they have learned from the elves and some are of the blood of Numenor (half elven).

In the movies, they captured the indomitable character of the hobbits well.  Throughout the books, their main characteristic is to never quit and to never accept the evil of the ring into their hearts.  This carried through in the movies and I have no quibble.  Nor do I have any problem with the wizards as they are angelic figures without much character development needed or possible.

No where I have problems is in three character interactions: 

1. Elrond/Arwen in their debate over her fate
2. Faramir/Frodo after meeting in Ithilean
3. and Gandalf/Theoden after the breaking of Saruman's spell.

In these three interactions, we see the difference between the traditional cultural values and those of today's elite.

With Elrond and Arwen, in the books, Arwen is promised to Aragorn but only if he becomes King of men.  She gave her hand in honor with the knowledge that she would accept the lot of the mortal (death).  With sorrow, her father accepted her choices.  Even at the end, the books said their parting was bitter.  But this does not imply angry.  It implies sorrowful as they knew their honorable paths would part them forever.

There was no trickery (as in the movie) to get Arwen to run to safety and no dream of children to bring her back.  Her honor and love were enough.  This is foreign to pop culture.  If you have a bad spell, get a divorce.  I don't like the choice I made of mate.  I'll make another.  Who cares of promises made.  If it feels right....  This is a selfish spirit that I see in postings on Town Hall and other places all of the time.

The second is even more powerfully wrong.  Faramir and Boromir are, in the books, opposites.  Boromir is modern man.  Shallow in thought, easy in honor.  He attempts to steal the ring for fame, glory, and power.  He is shown to be broken and shameful.  On the other hand, his brother Faramir is a throwback to the noble side of man.  In the book, he makes a comment that if he found a great weapon of the enemy lying on the ground he would reject it because the ends cannot justify the means.  When he later discovers Frodo's burden, he recognizes both that he had given his word (which cannot be broken for any reason) and restates that the use of evil for good can never work.  In the movie, he looks in greed at the ring and acts just like Boromir.  No honor, no faith.  He finally allows Frodo to leave, not in honor, but in despair for the losses to come and fear for the threat that the ring will draw.  Modern liberal thought cannot understand or come to terms with honorable men and women.

Finally, we come to Theoden and Gandalf.  In the books, once Theoden is freed of the evil spell, there is no question of whether to fight.  It is his land, harm has been done.  He must protect his people.  And when that is complete, he must honor the commitments he and his have made to Gondor, even if it costs him his life and the lives of all his people.  He notes that it is better to lie in honor under the ground than to hide in the hills in shame (note this same theme in the ghosts under the mountain.) 

On the other hand, in the movie, Theoden is worried and questioning.  Should he go?  Should he run?  Should he hide?  What about the deaths of his knights?  Should he simply withdraw?  Sound like people you know?  This truly sounds to me like the debates surrounding the War on Terror.  We have committed to the government in Iraq that we will support them.  Can we faithlessly abandon them along with Israel and other allies?  Or should we accept the pain and loss of lives and treasure to keep our commitments?

As I said at the top.  We have many people today that embody the ideals of honor and constancy that these books embody.  Many of them are in the military and more are conservatives in their lives.  However, this is one of the core divisions between the liberals and conservatives.  Some feel that life without honor is not worth living.  Others think that life is all there is and nothing is worth losing your life for.  I cannot say for you what is right.  However, with two societies, one with the first set of beliefs and another with the second, tell me who you would think would live and thrive and which would be destroyed by the first enemy to come along.

"In the final analysis, means and ends must cohere because the end is preexistent in the means, and ultimately destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends." —Martin Luther King, Jr., "A Christmas Sermon," Dec 24, 1967

I want to take a pause from Foley, Iraq, and the turmoils of the day as I often try to do in my Blog.  After all, none of these things will be very important in 50 years.  I want to talk about something that will be important in 50, 500, and 5000 years.

The scientific ability of the human race has badly outstripped it's moral compass.  That compass must be reset.  I spoke of a debate on what it is to be human and how that is core to today's major social issues.  But today, I want to talk from an entirely practical standpoint.

When discussing embryonic stem cell research, opponents bring up moral arguments to which the proponents never respond.  Instead, they point to the great potential of the cells and the possibilities of miracle cures.  "Look at these wonderful ends" they cry.  "Don't even talk to me about means."  "After all", they explain, "these embryos would be lost anyway because they are just leftovers from fertility clinics."

As nice as this fantasy is, increasingly, researchers suspect that fresh embryos, not previously frozen, are more likely to lead to successful cell lines.  This means that the lines need to be harvested for the purpose of the research and not taken from frozen embryos.  People going in for fertility treatments will not want to immediately give "unwanted" eggs away, because if the first treatment fails, they will want to use those other eggs and so will freeze them, eliminating their value.  After all, that was why multiple embryos were created in the first place.  Where does this all lead us?

Let us pretend, for a moment and for the sake of argument, that the ends are all the proponents say they are and more.  Use of these cells can cure every disease, and allow people to live hundreds of years.  A miracle cure for all.  Ok, but what about the means?

If these cures work, we will need thousands and tens of thousands of embryonic lines.  We need these because only so much material can be taken from each and their use is subject to the same restrictions as transplants in that one cell line is not valid for every blood and rejection profile.  Also, old embryos currently used in research get "stale" after just a few months and become less useful for research or use in cures.  The scientists tell us this when they demand that the President relax his restrictions on new stem cell lines.  If this is so, they will have to be replenished regularly. 

But we have these cures!  Lives depend on them.  What will need to be done?  First, we will need to set up huge biological factories with their only purpose being creation of embryos by the thousand, their destruction and mining for their valuable components.  Next, we will need to get those eggs or embryos.

But how?  After all, extraction of eggs is a surgical procedure with it's own risks and the medical treatment needed to extract multiple eggs is fraught with risks up to and including infertility and death.  So, obviously Bill Gates' wife and Hillary Clinton will not be the type of people who will give these eggs.  Nor, since we need tens of thousands a month, will the few volunteers be able to handle the load.  No, the result will be the purchase of eggs from women who need money badly for drugs, booze, or other needs enough to take the risks.  From women who's husbands want the money more than they want the wife.  From fathers who abuse their kids and just want the cash.  These people are more likely to be diseased and to have other health issues, thus increasing the likelihood of failure and the need for more donors.  Most important, they are more likely to be members of oppressed minorities.

This is what I see.  Huge volumes of poor and abused women of color, risking their lives and fertility to support an industry that benefits primarily upper and middle income white people.  After all, these cures will be expensive and with all expensive treatments, the lower income folks get what they are allowed to have.  You liberals who deride the bible thumpers for blocking this research, is this what you want to see?  The rich living long and healthy lives on the backs of the pain and death of the poor black women?  An industry aimed at creating mass quantities of life to just kill it off for people?  I thought you people wanted justice and equality for the poor and for us to go vegetarian so we would stop killing poor animals.

Ends and means.  As Martin said "and ultimately destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends".

Once again, the Republican party is embarrassed by it's representatives.  Once again, one of our senior members goes off the deep end and into scandal, crime, and shame.  What is wrong?  Is it something about being a Republican or is it something else?

In this post, I am going to try to explore this.  To me, the problems are three: Psychological, Biological, and political.  The first two of these are endemic to the human condition.  They do not respect political party, age or anything else.  To explain why it always seems to be a Republican, the most important is the last one, so I am going to take it in reverse order.

The Psychological is the simplest to describe and explain.  It is one of power.  You see this all over the place.  People get fame and power and gradually, the rules that apply to mortals no longer apply to them.  This is not a political thing.  You see the same with Democrats as with Republicans.  Mark Foley simply thought that the rules he was writing about exploited children did not apply to him.  Democrat examples abound from Barney Frank to Bill Clinton.

The second is more complex.  As I described in a previous post, what we do and how we behave is heavily driven by the needs of our primitive forbearers.  And it is different between the sexes.  In a primitive society, men are attracted to youth.  Consider some of the icons of "sexy" in this culture.  The school girl, the cheerleader, the baby sitter.  The reason for this is that a young mate will have a longer breeding period, and younger mothers have less problems (to a point) than more mature ones.  Getting your bride young gives a strong probability of having more healthy offspring.  Also, young brides tend to be more virginal.  This is important to make sure you are promoting your genetic line and not some one else's.  On the other hand, women are best rewarded by an older mate.  This mate would be more established, have more wealth, and more position.  This promotes the ability of that woman to support and protect her children.  Thus women tend to be drawn to older men in power.

Well what does this have to do with the situation at hand?  It was boys and a male Congresscritter.  The biological imperatives do not change when the object of lust does.  Male homosexuals ARE attracted to young boys.  This is one of the major tropes in the gay community.  If this man was not gay, he would have been Bill Clinton, chasing the young girls.  Note, I am not excusing this.  I am simply explaining that we have the two things going on.  First, the position of power that tells Foley that he does not have to follow the rules, then the biological pressures that tell him which rules to break.

As I said at the outset, the political dimension here is the most critical to the perception.  And that is because of who and what we are and what Republican's stand for.

Party politics goes to who the constituency is.  If Foley was a