Can we get a grip, please?

Many people think that the absence of war is the same thing as peace.

Many believe that if tanks aren’t rolling, rockets and bullets aren’t flying and planes aren't strafing, then things are good.

People and governments are often more interested in making a problem 'go away' than in rectifying the situation that caused the problem in the first place. Rather like an exasperated parent, they are more interested in 'quiet' than in 'justice'. But, ‘quiet’ is not ‘peace’. The establishment of ‘peace’ is not possible without ‘justice’.

Let us consider the instant case in the Middle East.

If Israel is forced to stop before Hezbollah is either destroyed or significantly degraded and things go back to the way they were before the current hostilities, who will claim that there is peace? "Well", some will say, "at least people aren’t dying". That news will come as a surprise to the victims of Hezbollah/Hamas killed in the past ten years.

By not addressing the underlying cause, by not ridding the world of Hezbollah, by not bringing "Justice” to those who have embarked on war, we encourage their behavior and only set the stage for another war later on. And wars have a nasty habit of getting worse with each iteration.

In this particular case, “Justice” can mean nothing other than this: Hezbollah is either destroyed or reduced to the point where they cannot injure or kill Israelis. Then, when “Justice” has been served, there will be a ‘quiet’ that will genuinely mean ‘peace’.

The ‘International Community’ won't help Israel. The U.N. is both unable and unwilling to enforce its own resolutions. Negotiations are impossible with terrorist gangs. Thus, Israel should be left alone to do what we all know is both necessary and long overdue.

To believe in any other possible resolution is to delude yourself.

Revisiting Semantics

Let us again discuss the question:

"Who needs an AK-47 to go hunting?"

The more I consider it, the more clever this contstruction appears. Of course for the purposes of our discussion, you can substitute the term "military-style semi-automatic rifle" for "AK-47".

The plain answer to the question, of course, is: no one.

Now, when given that answer, the average "gun control" advocate will say, "Correct. Therefore, AK-47s (et al.) should be banned."

The biggest problem, the sneakiest trick, in this question is the unspoken, but implicit assertion that hunting is the ONLY valid use of firearms. Thus, if any particular firearm is not needed for hunting, it is not needed, period.

This then brings us to the problem of the word "need".

Again, we have a sub-textual assertion: If you don't "need" a gun, you ought not have one.

This, in its turn, leads to the questions: "Who 'needs' a gun?" and "Who decides who 'needs' a gun?"

The average "gun control" advocate will steer well clear of the first question and instead focus on the second. He will tell you that the government is best suited to answer that question. And what does the average "gun control" advocate understand by the term: "government"? He understands: people like him - enforcing their will through bureaucratic, regulatory agencies which are mostly unaccountable to the citizenry.

Thus we see - at the end - that what is posited as a simple question is in reality a cunning - if invalid - argument for governmental regulation of firearms.

Fortunately, semantic and sophistic tricks work both ways.

When asked, "Who needs an AK-47 to go hunting?" the truest and best reply is, "Well, that depends on what you're hunting."

Peace!

I remember this guy who lived about five doors down from me in my dorm during my freshman year at Penn State. He was very proud of a large poster that sported a picture of Albert Einstein and had a bottom caption that read, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. –A. Einstein"

For about the next fifteen years I thought that was a very sage and incisive commentary on the folly of humanity in general and our politicians in particular.

Then, one day – out of the blue – I realized that, actually you can. You can simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Old Al, smart as he was, didn’t understand human nature.

Why had there not been a third world war right after the second? Why had Russia and we not come to blows? The A-bomb, that’s why.

The thought of the other side using that weapon was enough to get the self-preservation instinct to kick in on both sides. Result? Cooler heads prevailed for 50 years.

But for those cooler heads to be heard over the baying for blood that is part and parcel of human biology, each side had to be seen by the other as having the ability and the willingness to wage total war.

So, for fifty years, while we didn’t like each other, we tolerated each other because the alternative to not getting along - was death.

It was the willingness and ability to wage war that kept the peace. We prevented war by preparing for war.

It is this seeming contradiction that is at the heart of most human affairs. Human nature is the same whether we’re talking about a two-year-old or a nation-state.

A two-year-old will do as he pleases, regardless of what you say, until you demonstrate that you can make him stop. An anti-democratic government will violate treaties, abuse its populace and threaten its neighbors until it is made to stop. And much like the class clown who gets egged on by his classmates to disrupt the teacher, Iran and North Korea get tacit encouragement from some of their neighbors because they like seeing the teacher (the U.S.) discomfited.

From the 1930s in Britain to the U.N. today, "peace advocates" have done nothing but hasten – and worsen - war.

Today, those who demand that we use no force anywhere, ever, are only asking for bigger trouble down the line. When those who condemn Israel for doing whatever it takes to remove the threat of Hezbollah council “restraint” and cry “proportionality” they are only setting the scene for a bigger, bloodier clash.

Any fourth grader can tell you: The longer you refuse to defend yourself against a bully, the worse the bullying gets. Once you stand up to a bully, the bullying stops.

This is not only common sense, it is an innumerably repeated lesson of history.

Sadly, another facet of human nature is that from generation to generation, we rarely learn from our mistakes.

They've chosen...

Last year I said that the Israeli removal from Gaza was a challenge to the Palestinians and their supporters. The challenge was that having been given much of what they wanted, this would be the final opportunity for the Palestinians to demonstrate that they do want peace and are capable of living in a two-state situation next to Israel.

Well, the Palestinians have made their choice. With help from Syria and Iran, they have demonstrated conclusively, for all to see that they will never accept anything but the destruction of Israel.

Now, those whose first instinct is to blame Israel need to answer the question: How do you get along with people who will settle for nothing but your utter destruction?

The best that CNN/New York Times/NPR can come up with now is that the Israeli responses to acts of war upon them is: "disproportionate". Of course, they never bother to tell us what constitutes "proportionate".

Despite the avalanche of evidence to the contrary, there are still people in this country who believe that we can negotiate with, appease or co-opt the kind of people who run Al Qaeda/Hezbollah/Hamas. The behavior of these people can no longer be considered just obtuseness, it is arrant cowardice and verges upon treason.

What we should do is send a Marine Division over to help the Israelis and exact a bit of revenge against Hezbollah for 1983's Beirut barracks bombing.

This is your wake up call...

I see where Al Qaeda has posted video of their atrocious desecration of the bodies of two of our soldiers.

If you hate the President, fine. If you think our efforts in Iraq were/are a mistake, great.

BUT...

Anyone with even the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty MUST admit that the mindset of these people is such that no compromise with them is possible. Whether in Iraq or Indonesia - Bahrain or Borneo, it was inevitable that there would be a showdown between ourselves and these people.

Those who claim we should just retreat into fortress America and let the world tear itself apart without our input either don't know or wilfully ignore the lessons of the 1930s. We tried ignoring the world's problems before - and it only made it worse for us when we finally had to get involved.

This is war. It is already upon us. It is not the kind of war we've read about in our history books. It will require us to lower ourselves toward our enemy's level in order to win.

The great risk is that we will lower ourselves too far down to easily come back. That risk, like the struggle itself, is unavoidable.

My only hope today is that the bad guys hit us again - hard enough this time to shake us out of our complacent idiocy.

And when they do, I pray they hit the New York Times.

Ch...Ch...Ch...Ch...Chaaaaaanges...

First off, I've never played or been a fan of soccer/football. I don't know the rules and generally would rather watch the History Channel than a soccer match. However, I did see some exciting soccer during the recent World Cup and would not hesitate to watch more games.

With that said, some thoughts:

While I don't much care for the 'dramatic' style of Italian play, I have been to Italy several times and love the country. So, I was rooting for the boys in blue during the final. On the other hand, I have little regard for the nation of France these days, so I was rooting against the French team.

But then a funny thing happened.

The announcers mentioned that the French team was comprised of 'old men', who many consider 'over-the-hill'. Despite the fact that these 'old men' are all younger than I am, I began to root for them because they are considered too old to be able to compete. It began unconsciously at first; then I caught myself clapping and cheering when everyone else was groaning or booing. I did my best to keep it under control, but the fact was I was cheering for the 'old guys'.

I've read and been told that one never truly considers oneself 'old'. Regardless of your age, you always think you're the same person you've always been - the same person who ran around playing tag and then ran around chasing girls. It comes as a shock to find that others start treating you differently. At first you like the respect, but then you realize that it's your chronological status, not your intellect or abilities that are getting the respect.
It's not easy to admit that you can't do what you used to do, that time's no longer on your side and that, no, you won't live forever.

I recently read that they've developed a drug that can prevent the macular degeneration of the eyes that occurs naturally with age. I expect to see a flood of such preventative pharmaceuticals and medical treatments in the next twenty years. The baby-boomers will not go quietly into that good night. (While only 19 days removed from that generation, I steadfastly refuse to consider myself a ‘baby-boomer’)

Who knows, maybe I’ll be playing tag again in 50 years.

Here's an idea...

With the exception of those who support Italia, no one really likes the penalty kick finish to soccer/football games.

It's just so...so...unfulfilling to see a game end like that.

After discussions with my friend Spock, we have decided that games should be decided as follows:

1. After 90 minutes there should be ONE 15 minute overtime.
2. After that, the referees should exit the field and a sudden death, first goal wins free-for-all should ensue.

Now THAT would be exciting.

People you should know...

I have decided to start an occasional series on great Pennsylvanians.

Most will be people you've never heard of, because, what can I say about Ben Franklin, James Buchanan or Ben Rush that's not been said before?

Let's get started:

ROBERT E. LAWS

Rank and organization: Staff Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company G, 169th Infantry, 43d Infantry Division.

Place and date: Pangasinan Province, Luzon, Philippine Islands, 12 January 1945.

Entered service at: Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Born: Altoona, Pennsylvania

G.O. No.: 77, 10 September 1945.

Details of his service:

He led the assault squad when Company G attacked enemy hill positions. The enemy force, estimated to be a reinforced infantry company, was well supplied with machineguns, ammunition, grenades, and blocks of TNT and could be attacked only across a narrow ridge 70 yards long. At the end of this ridge an enemy pillbox and rifle positions were set in rising ground. Covered by his squad, S/Sgt Laws traversed the hogback through vicious enemy fire until close to the pillbox, where he hurled grenades at the fortification. Enemy grenades wounded him, but he persisted in his assault until one of his missiles found its mark and knocked out the pillbox. With more grenades, passed to him by members of his squad who had joined him, he led the attack on the entrenched riflemen. In the advance up the hill, he suffered additional wounds in both arms and legs, about the body and in the head, as grenades and TNT charges exploded near him. Three Japs rushed him with fixed bayonets, and he emptied the magazine of his machine pistol at them, killing 2. He closed in hand-to-hand combat with the third, seizing the Jap's rifle as he met the onslaught. The two fell to the ground and rolled some 50 or 60 feet down a bank. When the dust cleared the Jap lay dead and the valiant American was climbing up the hill with a large gash across the head. He was given first aid and evacuated from the area while his squad completed the destruction of the enemy position. S/Sgt. Laws' heroic actions provided great inspiration to his comrades, and his courageous determination, in the face of formidable odds and while suffering from multiple wounds, enabled them to secure an important objective with minimum casualties.

For these actions Sgt. Laws was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.


Taken from

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/Medal-of-Honor/Luzon.html

Pheewwww!

The U.N.'s conference on small arms has ended with a whimper. No final agreement or treaty came out of it.

Looking back on it now, I'm beginning to wonder what I was so worried about.

I mean, when has the U.N. ever accomplished anything?

If the U.N. can't come together to deal with Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein why did I worry they would weaken my gun rights?

Nevertheless, better to be safe than sorry, eh what?

It's still too much...

I see nothing but a solid chain of causation from the Clinton administration’s 1994 capitulation to blackmail - to the United Nations refusal to do its job - to the Democratic Party and the fourth estate’s efforts to hamstring and embarrass the commander-in-chief in a time of war - to the end result: a saber-rattling, nuclear-armed sociopath making demands from North Korea. And still, people like the senior senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, (someone who should know better) want us to negotiate. Dear God in heaven, when will we learn?! Apparently, no useful lessons were drawn from the mistakes of the 1930’s. Lord knows our President is doing a good job, but the good guys are badly outnumbered today.

Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave.

It's too much sometimes...

I take no pleasure in saying this, but:

I am firmly convinced that - short of a miracle - we will only truly begin to fight this war when the left shuts the hell up and gets out of the way. The only way that will happen is for us to get hit again. Sadly, I believe that we will have to lose at least 10,000 civilians for the left to sit down, shut up and let us win this war.

Once the people see that the left, through their hampering of our war effort, has caused the deaths of 10,000 civilians, the people of the United States will finally have the blinders ripped away and will demand that we do what we have to do to win – and it won’t be pretty. In 1945, despite a hopeless cause, only nuclear strikes (plural) stopped the fanatical Japanese and it may well be the case that similar measures will be needed to convince all of Islam to delouse itself of Islamo-fascist fanatics and those who create them.

U.S. v. Ned Lamont

I have been hearing a lot of yadda-yadda-yadda about the Lieberman-Lamont race in Connecticut.

At first I couldn’t understand why so many people were expending so much energy talking about one race. Then I noticed who was talking the loudest – the Kos/Atrios/Moveon/Sheehan-for-President crowd.

Then it began to make sense. The far left in this country is terrified – utterly terrified – that the people of the United States are going to repudiate - once again – their surrender-at-any-cost strategy for the war on terror. If Lieberman wins his primary in a state that the far left believes to be a safe-haven for them it will mean serious trouble for them and their message nationwide. However, a Democrat would still be in the Senate. What would be apocalyptic however would be for him to run as an Independent in the general election and win. Were he to do that, not only would it be a bitch-slap to their message, but it would be enormously damaging to the Democratic Party – the vehicle by which they expect to take power…and everyone would know who caused the damage. It might very well spell the end of their influence over the party.

Now that Zell Miller is gone, I cannot think of another Democrat that I’d consider voting for other than Joe L.

Go Joe!!!

Time to dig out the suitcase?

Despite my hopes and optimistic beliefs in mankind, I would be lying if I didn't admit that despite my best efforts and those of many liberty minded people, it looks like only a matter of time before the United States goes down the road that the United Kingdom has been traveling for many years now: the road of nanny-state prohibitionism. The Brits have banned handguns and all but banned long-guns. Knives and swords are about to be banned and shortly they will find themselves asking 'Nanny' for permission to keep a cricket bat in the basement. All this has happened despite the fact that the growth of the number of prohibited items has not been met by a concomitant decline in violence and crime. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred. But, since a government NEVER admits it was wrong, a failed policy will remain – forever and ever, Amen. Perhaps after they take away all the belts and shoe-laces, the British Isles will finally know tranquility, peace and harmony. It seems a foregone conclusion that the emotional, unreasonable and illogical course of action to which the UK is committed will be copied here.

Not me. I’m not going to go willingly into serfdom. The instant this country implements a firearms registry, or anything like that, I’m voting for the last time as an American - with my feet. I’ll find someplace where liberty is still cherished – or at least available for sale.

God save the Republic.

Ann Coulter's problem...

As I see it, the real problem with Ann Coulter is that by using the tone she does, she alienates many who actually hold the same opinions on things as she does - and that is a loss for our side.

It is a loss because Ann Coulter is one of the most incisive and analytically brilliant commentators around today. Unfortunately many people, myself included, often are laughing too hard (or fuming too hotly) to clearly see the points she's making.

Regardless of her tone, however, she deserves a place among the pantheon of heroes for asking the following question the other day:

"When is the New York Times going to uncover a secret Al Qaeda program?"

In that one sentence she exposed the overweaning pride and feckless nature of those who consider themselves smarter than everyone else.

While I can only take her in small doses, I do love her.

What's it all about?

Today, on the fourth of July, it behooves us to consider what those who broke away from Great Britain were trying to do. To that end, let us consider the following.

The founders were concerned with and by several things:

1. The abuses of power that occur when governments are not accountable to the people.

2. The abuses of power that occur when any faction – even if it be a majority - gains control of the government.

3. The abuses of power that occur when any branch of the government overreaches its purview.

They believed that all people - independent of their condition - have basic rights which cannot be violated. They also realized that if these rights were to be maintained certain responsibilities had to be met. The founders believed that an educated and ethical populace could rule itself successfully. Indeed, they believed that such an arrangement was the only truly just – and therefore legitimate - method of governance. These were new, untested and 'dangerous' notions to many in the 18th century.

The ideas embodied in the Declaration and Constitution are high ideals. It is the belief in these ideals rather than any geographical location that defines one as an ‘American’.

But belief is not enough. For our system to work, everyone must do their best to live up to the principles outlined in the founding documents. With that said, it is vital that we realize that high ideals are rarely embodied in people or institutions. Nevertheless, to abandon them as unattainable is the gravest sin which a rational human can commit.

Americans and their institutions are not infallible – by any stretch of the imagination. We have failed our ideals at every turn in our history: from allowing slavery into our constitution to using the power of government to conduct ‘witch hunts’ for communists during the 1950s. We fail ourselves and our ideals almost constantly. Nevertheless, it is our constant struggle against our fallible human nature which elevates us. It is the same for society as a whole as it is for any individual member of that society: If you are not trying to improve, you are retreating into the historical failures of the past.

Liberty, as understood by our forebears, was not a state but a process. As such, it is never complete.

When you look around the world today you see ‘advanced’ societies abandoning the ideals which we hold dear. Troublingly, here in the U.S. we too have retreated from many of the ideals we profess to hold dear.

Many people today no longer believe that people should be expected to live up to their responsibility to get along peacefully, so, to minimize the mayhem we must revoke the right to keep and bear arms.

Then, also, there are those who say that people are incapable of responsibly planning for retirement, so the government needs to take their money and do it for them.

On the other hand, some today say that opportunity is insufficient, that a right to pursue happiness is not enough – they say we must guarantee people a certain level of material wealth – that the poor have a right to an income from the government. But in order to enact this right we must necessarily diminish other rights like the right to keep what one earns and the right to pass on to one’s heirs what one has worked a lifetime to achieve.

If you believe that 'others' will handle your responsibilities, you will shortly find that these same others have taken your rights with them.

To retreat from freedom and liberty in order to gain security has never been a safe bet and it isn’t one now. Make no mistake, some of the trade-offs are for the better; but ours was a country that once strove for the best.