Category: Uncategorized

ST wonders about NATO:

I heard a Bush snippet on the radio this morning talking about how NATO was the greatest alliance in the history of man. Of course my BS detector went off immediately, but I was curious if off the top of your head what you would think the greatest military alliances of all time would be?

It depends on how you define greatest. If you define it as a percentage of the total military power available on the planet, I think you’d have to go with the Allies of WWII. The Soviet Union and the USA were the two greatest powers, with Britain a solid number four behind Nazi Germany.

If, on the other hand, you are thinking of the historical significance of the alliance in terms of the long term effects of the foe it defeated, it would be hard to count out NATO given the global reach of Communism from 1950 to 1989. A serious candidate, however, would be the Roman-Visigothic alliance that defeated the Attila-led Hunnish forces at Chalons in 451. Had the Huns not been defeated, the entire history of the world would likely have been very different as the West’s Greco-Roman heritage would have been swept away by the pagan Asiatic heritage of the Huns.

It is interesting to note how each of these three alliances have largely consisted of nominally Christian nations combining defensively against a violent, bloodthirsty, pagan or secular expansionary force. This points to a larger historical truth; Christianity has tended to spread by largely peaceful means while other ideologies expand by force and violence.

I don’t think NATO was the greatest alliance in the history of Man, and its lack of a signature battle or even conflict will likely reduce its stature in the eyes of future historians, but Bush’s description is certainly a reasonable one given the bounds of political rhetoric.

This assumes, of course, that the fall of the Soviet Union is not mere masquerade, a theory which is looking less and less likely as time goes by, but cannot be entirely dismissed.

From the Washington Times:

TOP STORIES

Bush, Chirac tell Syria to leave Lebanon

End of story for Hunter Thompson

Group justified by report on Soviet POWs

Virginia Senate panel kills House prayer measure

The time is now to start on your taxes

That last one sure sounds more like an editorial than a news story on the front page of the business section, doesn’t it? But while the legacy media – and I include the Washington Times – may harbor pretensions of objectivity, they reveal their true character on a daily basis to those who bother to pay attention.

It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that I am opposed to the Bush administration’s plan to reform Social Security, just as I am to the concept of school vouchers. Now, this is not to say that I support the existing Ponzi scheme anymore than I support the public schools, it’s just that the history of government reform teaches that such reforms are better described as expansions. The problem with both vouchers and the Bush administration’s proposed “privatization” of Social Security is that the reforms are designed to maintain government control over resources that are otherwise on the verge of escaping it via systematic breakdown.

The only true privatization of Social Security is its abolition. The clueless blatherings of those who simply dial back the clock and compare what they had to what a mythical investment in the Dow would have been fifty years ago proves nothing except that they do not understand how the stock market works. The fate of an individual stock cannot be compared to an index because all of the major indices are changed – the preferred term is “rebalanced” – regularly. The rise of the markets since the October 2002 low meant absolutely nothing to those holding Enron and WorldCom stock, for example.

Nor would investing in index-matching funds change anything. I’m not exactly sure how the concept of having trillions of dollars pegged to a much-smaller underlying basis of dynamic investment valuation would work out, but I have no doubt that massive scandals resulting in huge losses to investors would eventually be the result.

Finally, there is no money to be invested. The “trust fund” is nonexistent and has already been spent. The incoming funds are already allocated for spending and that money will come from somewhere, most likely the inflationary thin air from which the Federal Reserve daily spins our collective delusion. “Privatization” and school vouchers, like government-sponsored “free trade” are ships flying under false flags of freedom.

Cedarford wrote:

And VD is only blessed with historical hindsight. That limits his ability to assess the risks at the time. For all we knew in 1942, the Japs were going to forward deploy I-25 and all other subs in an effort to nail troopships going the Australia & the Solomons. The impact of several sunk troopships, thousands of bodies washing up on California beaches, all blamed on Jap spies? A West Coast massacre…

Please, cedarford, turn your brain on for five seconds and realize that I am NOT using even the tiniest bit of hindsight. Our generals and admirals were neither stupid nor less informed than we are now. If they had had any concerns at all about the war being set back as you describe, they would not have done the following in the first three months of 1942:

1. Stripped the West Coast of more than 50 percent of its long-range bombers and fighter planes. Malkin tries to make a case based on two (2!) aircraft batteries being placed in Los Angeles and completely ignores how the greater part of US air strength was sent elsewhere at the same time. While the B-17s did turn out to be less than effective against Japanese warships, this was not known until well after Midway.
2. Sent two of the four West Coast-based carriers to escort those planes to Samoa The only reason Saratoga was on the West Coast from January to May 1942 was that she was in for repairs after being hit by a torpedo by I-16 while on the way to the south Pacific.
3. Sent Wasp first to England, then twice on to Malta delivering Spitfires, inspiring a rather famous message to the ship from Winston Churchill himself: “”Who said a Wasp couldn’t sting twice?”
4. Kept Hornet on the East Coast training for the Doolittle raid. The Doolittle raid itself makes no sense in light of the revisionist pro-internment theory.
5. Kept Ranger on patrol in the Atlantic before sending her to Africa. Twice.
6. Kept the escort carrier Long Island on anti-sub patrol off the Atlantic Coast.
7. Kept the escort carrier Charger on the East Coast to serve as a training ship and aircraft ferry.
8. Transferred four escort carriers, Archer, Biter, Avenger and Dasher, to the Royal Navy for use on trans-Atlantic escorts. Please remember, Malkin specifically argues that the German submarines were no threat to America, that the only real threat was from the 717 planes carried by the Japanese aircraft carriers. The evidence suggests that the military officers in command at the time completely disagreed, as do their modern successors.

It is customary to try to argue that the escort carriers somehow don’t count, that they were not “real” carriers. But not only did they carry as many planes as some of Japan’s smaller carriers – which Malkin herself definitely counts – but they were particularly devastating to the very threat to which cedarford refers, namely, submarines. “…three Jeeps — USS Core (CVE 13), USS Card (CVE 11) and USS Bogue (CVE 9) — and their escorting destroyers sank a total of 16 U-boats and 8 milch cows in a period of 98 days.” These small, but deadly carriers also took part in almost every Allied landing, from Operation Torch to Okinawa.

In fact, not only is Michelle Malkin hopelessly ignorant about her military history – she stated erroneously there were only four US carriers, all on the West Coast, in early 1942 – but I incorrectly mocked her for not knowing about the other five carriers active in pre-Midway 1942 or where they were. In fact, there were SIX other carriers active in US service, as CV-1 Langley operated out of Australia from Jan 1, 1942 until Feb 27, 1942, when she was sunk ferrying P-40s to Java.

Ironically enough, Langley was based in the Philippines at the time the war began.

A missive from KG:

I have never written a response to a columnist before, ever, so please bear with me, I am a little nervous. I am a 40 year old mother of 6. 3 boys, 3 girls, ranging in age from 18 to 2. I have not had any “formal” education past high school, and even while in high school, I began to realize that IF I were to receive any sort of real knowledge, I should begin to take responsibility for it myself.

I started with a list of “classic literature” I found at the back of a book called “War and Peace”, which I had heard a few time referred to as a “classic novel”. I started going down the list, borrowing what I could find (which even back then was becoming difficult), and buying some when ever I had enough money to do so. Thus began my real education….

Your comments regarding the lack of appreciation at the opportunity women today have to obtain a real education, as well as them squandering and frittering away their brains in nonsense are very accurate. I wish I had the opportunities these women had. I considered them so blessed, but at the same time I am astounded at the calibre of character and mental acuity that these women possess after 3 and often more years of “higher” education.

I truly believe that one of the best ways to dumb down the masses, and numb their desire for knowledge and truth is to attack those whom have the most power to influence them against such dangers. The future mothers. I see it all around me, and now, even my children see it. Mothers, women, aunts, grandmothers, so wrapped up in their new “modern” roles. They hold a job, and take care of the home, and raise children…wow…bow down to these Super Women. They talk about their ability to juggle all, still climb the corporate ladder, and have lovely homes, educated, active and enlightened children, and wonderful family vacations.

They are full of pride at their abilities to be like men. Yuck! Who wants or needs manly women? Really, who needs them? Men exist, and are wired the way they are because they need to be that way. We need women to be women. I guess that is why more and more men are being feminized, to take up the unnatural role women have abdicated by allowed themselves to be duped into adopting unnatural masculinity for themselves.

What I see now is the the foot prints of these “women” on the backs of the mind-numbed, empty headed, cold hearted children. I see their footprints on the backs of their beaten down husbands, who must compete now with their wives in intellect, status, earnings, and parenting. I see their footprints in the future of our countries. Smashed homes, aimless children who have no solid foundation in their world, men who wonder if it really is true that they are animals after all….

My husband is a computer engineer, and I can tell you from his experience, even the women that are educated in math and sciences still don’t know how to think. I don’t understand it, it’s like common sense and basic logic is incapable of inhabiting a modern woman’s mind. The women my husband has met and worked with are all considered to be “well educated”, but he tells me that for some reason, they are unable to do their jobs well. They lack the ability and skill to think logically and clearly. Yet they are educated, so what is the problem? I asked him if they are more intuitive and feminine in their approach to their work, and he tells me that they are cold, hard, and lack the intuition that women are known to possess. They are neither here nor there.

It felt good to get this off my chest, and though I’m glad to have seen my sentiments written down in your column, I lament that it came from a male columnist. I wish to see more and more women speak out like this, not just Ann Coulter. Thanks for speaking the truth.

The thing that leaped out most in this letter from a homeschooling mother is how her literacy is far superior to that of the “educated” professional women who would likely look down on her lack of “education”. The time for the independent university would appear to be fast approaching.

I believe more women will begin to speak out like this once men begin to give them the support. Social acceptance is generally more important to women – it’s almost certainly more important to every single member of the commentariat than it is to me – and the Sisterhood have made it clear that they will do their level best to destroy the career of anyone who dares to commit the blasphemy of calling their massive, decades-long bluff.

RJ worries needlessly:

I just read your latest article. It was brutal but quite accurate. I now think you would be wise to start wearing a bulletproof vest.

I do object to your implied cut on Michelle Malkin. I think your previous criticisms of her latest book defending internment were completely valid. However she also wrote “Invasion” so I think you were being too hard on her. (Granted I can identify to some extent with your frustration for her refusal to debate you regarding her internment book.)

There’s nothing wrong with INVASION, except that like Ben Shapiro’s BRAINWASHED, it’s barely one step above the “oxygen is good” category. Statements of the obvious may sell well – books that devote hundreds of pages to breaking the news that men don’t like to marry self-serving feminist bitches sell very well – but they’re not what I consider to be serious. I didn’t consider MEDIA WHORES to be serious either, just so you know, whereas the book I’ve been writing on my theory of socialist crisis certainly is. IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT was an attempt to be serious, but its flawed premise combined with the author’s rampant historical inaccuracies and inability to master basic subtraction reduced it to parody.

However, there’s no need for a bulletproof vest. Women are afraid to debate me in public, in fact, most are unwilling to even dare an email discussion after being on the receiving end of a first volley. The vast majority of those who wish to disagree with what I’m saying today are too fearful of drawing attention to themselves to do anything more than mutter quietly among themselves, because they know perfectly well how true it is. What men don’t realize is that women are all offense and no defense. They’re so used to men caving after the first exchange of hostilities that they have no courage or stamina to stand up to a merciless frontal assault. Tears are their last resort and when even those won’t suffice, they’ve got nothing left except to fume in helpless, angry silence.

As for the inevitable name-calling, so what? In four years of column-writing, I’ve yet to hear anything more cutting or creative than I hear from my friends. If any inflamed abortionette manages to pull her head out of her scarred uterus long enough to come up with a decent insult, I’ll be delighted to share it with everyone here.

Mr Bush will delight Euro-philes by giving the European Union the strongest blessing it has ever received from the Oval Office. He will say that he supports a strong Europe because “we need a strong partner in the hard work of advancing freedom in the world”.

The line will be interpreted in Brussels as a presidential blessing for the European project at a time when the EU is forging ahead with a common foreign policy. At the start of his first term Mr Bush talked of a Europe that was “whole, free and at peace”, but he avoided commenting on the Continent’s political integration.

On the first foreign trip of his second term Mr Bush is sending a different signal that will alarm Eurosceptics. Tomorrow he will become the first US President to visit the European Commission after separately meeting the EU’s 25 leaders.

This neither surprises nor disapoints me, as the president is intent on recreating the EU on this side of the Atlantic. What started out as NAFTA and has transformed into the Free Trade Area of the Americas will be called the American Union within 40 years. And both Unions will be about as free as their Soviet predecessor.

GM weighs in on the erudition of Estrich:

My only exposure to the supposedly erudite Susan Estrich is from her appearances on Hannity & Colmes and the O’Reilly Factor. I believe she is a certified “Fox New Analyst”, a position aptly tailored to her ability to not allow objectivity to define the bulk of her arguments. As a disarming technique during debates, she often and out of context regurgitates the fact that she was raped as a young woman. The fact that she was raped is sad in itself, but what is downright lamentable is how this event charted a path for her that paradoxically led to a feminist crusade, a movement which only further exacerbated the subjugation of women.

I’ve never seen Estrich on Fox, probably because I seldom watch it anymore. There’s just one more good reason to pass on it. And here I thought only “conservatives” were allowed on FNC, don’t tell me that the Democratic Underground is stretching the truth again!

However, I have heard her bring up an out-of-context claim of rape victim status on more than one occasion myself and I must confess that I was quite surprised to read two emails and an article by her that didn’t manage to mention it. My theory is that she wants to remind everyone that once upon a time, someone, somewhere, found her attractive enough to violate. Let’s hope for her sake that her feminist sisters don’t remind her that rape only involves violence, not sex, or happens to pass on Maureen Dowd’s article about “slump busters” onto her.

Teresa raised an objection:

Great column, but you left out Laura Ingalls, who is a great conservative write, and definitely a good read.

To which I responded: “Yes, I loved LITTLE HOUSE IN THE BIG WOODS.”

She then replied:

OOPS, I MEANT “LAURA INGRAM”. I think I just demonstrated the point you were making in your article, Ha Ha!

Which was, of course, not the point at all. Women are perfectly capable of thinking, but sixteen-plus years of maleducation schools it out of the majority. Teresa apparently escaped this intellectual cauterization, as she demonstrates the ability to a) recognize her own mistake, and b) laugh at herself, two things that properly indoctrinated feminists notoriously lack.

As for Laura IngraHAm, while I’m skeptical that a radio host of either sex is likely to write anything of import – ever notice how these best-selling “writers” only have one or two books in them – I shall reserve judgment unless and until I actually read one of her books.

A lover’s quarrel took a bizarre twist last night. The Anchorage Police Department said late last night, after a fight over a pending breakup, a woman severed her 44-year-old boyfriend’s penis.Kim Tran, 35, was arraigned today on charges of domestic violence, assault, and tampering with evidence….

Police say Tran flushed the penis down the toilet and then drove the man to Providence Alaska Medical Center shortly after midnight. Hospital staff called the Anchorage Police Department and police called officials with Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility to recover the penis…. Police say surgery to reattach the man’s penis was successful.

I won’t be surprised if this evil whackjob becomes the latest cause celebre with feminists, given their past cheerleading for her amputation-prone predecessor and the infamous post-natal water abortionist. And yet I’ve yet to meet a man, no matter how bitter about women he might be, who celebrates the genital mutilation of women.

But it’s NOT about penis envy. It’s not. It’s NOT!!!!