The Admiralty

Farewell gift- create your own post!

2006-01-18T23:38:00.000-05:00

I've received a number of complaints after I decided to stop blogging. I haven't the desire to start again, so I'll leave a handy template that anyone can use to replicate the distinctive style of this blog. Just select one of the three words or phrases in brackets and insert it into the sentence as appropriate. It will re-create any Admiralty post quite convincingly!

I note that (Tony Blair|Robert Mugabe|Lee Kwan Yew) is again clamping down on the natural rights of the (citizens|subjects) of (Great Britain|Zimbabwe| Singapore). It seems his (sorry ladies) latest affront involves (total censorship of the media|1984-ish surveillance of the entire population|trying to toss his political opponents out of tall buildings). This is comparable to (Roman|Tudor|Mediciean) times, when (Henry VIII|Duke Cosimo I|Domitian) did a very similar thing to (monks|Thomas More|fruit-flies). That period was a very barbarous one in human history, and it is certainly disheartening to see elements of it returning to the modern political scene.
I also see that (the European Union|Human Rights Organisations|gun control pressure groups) (is|are) hypocritical because (it|they) recently (was|were) caught (exchanging automatic weapons fire with members of AR15.com|eating babies|operating involuntary brothels using African women). It is quite disgusting to see these people in action, and readily provides further proof for my low opinion of them.
Speaking of firearms, I certainly would like to have (a FN-FAL|an HK91|an M1 Garand) to (defend my new computer|shoot at paper targets|fight zombies). Too bad I can't get one because (I'm broke|I'm busted|I have no money).
In addition to this, I've noticed that the Grand Inquisitor is insulting (Martin Luther|King Henry VIII|Queen Elizabeth I) because (he|she) had problems with (constipation|siring legitimate heirs|angering Pope Pius V). I would like to state in reply that Pope (Alexander VI|Pius IX|Stephen VII) was worse because he (declared himself infallible|had nearly as many illegitimate children as Henry VIII|put dead and rotting people on trial).
Finally, I took this quiz that I cleverly refer to as self-criticism.

The Which Tom Clancy Book Are You? Quiz

You are Red Storm Rising. You're very long, deal mostly with war, and probably have multiple personalities. On the plus side, you're better-written than his other books, and have lots of cool submarine chases. On the downside, Clancy will milk your characters for another two decades, and thus the poor USS Miami and its noble crew will never get a break until retirement. Your rendition of a hypothetical NATO/Warsaw Pact conventional war is very good, but also extremely dated.

Your scores:
62% Red Storm Rising
51% Rainbow Six
32% Clear and Present Danger
21% The Cardinal of the Kremlin
13% The Hunt for the Red October

What Tom Clancy book are you? Find out at Samizdata.net! (Warning: Not really a quiz site, but a good blog).

This result (accurately reflects me|does not accurately reflect me|is not written in English). I feel this way because (it makes me look bad|it makes me look good|what does "Durka Durka" mean?).

Tune in later for my undoubtedly deep thoughts on the subject of (religion|metaphysics|the meaning of life). Or don't, because said thoughts will be pre-empted by a post about (the tyrannical and arbitrary nature of the Federal Government|how truly appalling Tory leader David Cameron is|a strange dictator in Africa).

I hope you enjoy. Adios!

Last Post

2005-12-23T18:23:00.000-05:00

I shall no longer post on this blog.

There goes the UK's future

2005-12-16T22:51:00.000-05:00

My triumphal graduation post shall be delayed for a time while I try to wrap my mind around exactly how much of a jerk the UK electorate seems content to elect into office. They've really got themselves into a fix this time. Their fearless leader, Tony Blair, has surrendered completely to the impotent ravings of the rest of the European Union. The budget rebate that Margaret Thatcher worked to secure has been surrendered. Tony Blair has given up £7 billion (10.5 billion Euros) from its 2007-2013 EU budget. This is half of Maggie's rebate for that five year period.
Why a rebate? Well, much of the EU's expenditure is on the ridiculous Common Agricultural Programme (CAP). This system of subsidies funnels enormous amounts of money to European farmers, much in the same manner of our own system except much larger. This money supposedly goes to agricultural development. However, oddly enough, more money goes to French, Spanish, and German farmers than to farmers in the other twenty-two countries combined! The disparity between what the UK put in and what it received was so great that the rebate, which covers this disparity, is now worth £3 billion per year.
This represents a problem for the Franco-German axis (with Spain's Zapatero playing the part of Harpo) is that it cuts them out of a great deal of CAP money. The European Commission also wants to expand its operations, requiring a bigger cut of the budget. This all came together to put pressure on Blair. Having no backbone, Blair eventually caved. One of his campaign issues was to keep the rebate. He then announced that he might surrender 15% of the rebate in exchange for CAP reform. He finally dropped about a third of the rebate in exchange for the possibility of a review of CAP reform (that the French can, and will, cancel) in 2008. Not to be outdone, Chirac demanded at the same press conference that the UK rebate be abolished entirely within the decade.
This is patently ridiculous. The UK rebate is being surrendered by turns, and what do they get in return? More onto this, the UK is abandoning its naturally strongest allies in the Commonwealth for European partners that are at best unreliable. The much-vaunted Anglosphere Alliance between the US, UK, and Australia isn't materialising. What we're seeing instead is a more geographic and economic division. The US and Australia have become strong allies. Japan has also joined this- Japan has strong ties in the realm of defence and economics with the US. Europe hasn't joined the party- it's too concerned with its radical anti-Americanism and amusing attempts to form an opposing power to the US. This takes money, and Tony Blair is more than willing to part with his taxpayers' cash.

A Retrospective

2005-12-13T20:40:00.000-05:00

Having completed my senior thesis, and thus being drained of all creativity, I’ve decided to shamelessly crib other peoples’ ideas. To-day I’ll steal Professor Massa’s idea for a blog entry. Given that I leave University permanently Thursday morning, it seems an appropriate theme.

Nicholas “Professor” Massa
One of the first gentlemen I met at this school. He’s typically my co-conspirator in grand projects. Over the course of my time here, the projects have become considerably grander, and thus our wallets considerably more drained. He has quite the interest in history, and a library that puts my meagre collection to shame. It’s rare that you meet anyone so conversant in the subject. Other joint projects include the Battleship Yamato and other efforts of the WJU Shipyards, sledding and Cedar Point instead of studying for finals, and the Swedish Mauser Acquisition Programme.

Chris “chirs” Lim
I also met this gentleman early on in my first year here. Again, it’s a pleasure to be acquainted with someone conversant in foreign affairs and international policy, especially after high school. He’s a bit on the eccentric side, and he spends much of his time demanding money from people around campus. However, his eccentricity is complimented by a level of maturity which makes him a good companion for meaningful conversation.

Kristine “Christine” Malmgren
One of the many effects of having the same people in all of your classes is getting to know them. Out of all my fellow PEP majors, I’d say that I know Kristine the best. Though we’re not terribly close on a personal level, Kristine and I get along very well, at least most of the time. Of course, when I misspell her name or make a wiseacre comment the situation changes dramatically. I’d place her as one of my all-time favourite (part) Scandinavians, and one of my favourite people at Jesuit.

Thomas “Tom” Gallagher
Tom has been the source of many escapades over the years. There is no way to describe the full “Tom experience” in such a short column as this. Tom is serious about his religion (he is of a very papistical temperament) and his philosophy. Despite his tendency to find creative ways of persuading Protestants to embrace the Popish Superstition, he is a great conversationalist, especially when it comes to discussion of the various demerits of certain Christian denominations (5-4-3-2-1 Communion!).

Jerry Schubert
Mr. Schubert is a topic all to himself. He was the dark lord of the Young Republican movement, and made for many interesting class periods. He also had a capacity for retaining liquor that the rest of the campus could not collectively match. He was also an interesting conversationalist, especially in the areas of firearms and political philosophy.

Scott Hitchens
Master Hitchens inherited Jerry’s dark mantle and he’s the current master of the Young Republicans. He’s the sole author of the extremely progressive Comrade Stalin cartoons, many of which decorate my refrigerator presently. Whether it’s a smart political point or a didactic anecdote concerning the infamous ice plant, Mr. Hitchens can easily dominate conversations and ably steer them.

Stefano Bartolini
Stefano is the model of the cultured European gentleman. He has a very friendly temperament and is always concerned with the lot of his friends. He’s also possessed of an excellent sense of humour. Stefano is one of my favourite people to be around, and I already miss his presence at the traditional Churchillian lunch.

Mattia Bartolini
Mattia is Stefano’s (fraternal) twin brother, and is equally a delight to call a friend. Mattia is a fine source of camaraderie or the latest reports of Berlusconi’s constant perfidy. When Mattia became a US citizen earlier this semester, the majority of the audience consisted of his friends, which is an able testament to his amicable nature. Mattia and Stefano are easily in the front rank of good friends.

Alain Merkova
Alain is another friendly fellow, so friendly in fact that he didn’t slap me upside the head even though I mispronounced his name for the first two years of our University experience. He’s another interesting source of conversation about a variety of topics, and I’ve learned much from him. Some of this knowledge will profit a great deal in the future.

Eric Mena
I’ve known Eric primarily through various other people since my freshman year. He’s quite a character, though I rarely see him. He has quite a work ethic, and travails in a full-time job in addition to attending school. He certainly leads an interesting life, and is good to know.

Bridget Harrison
I haven’t the foggiest recollection of when I first met Bridget. She’s been a good acquaintance for some time, despite her alignment with the dark forces of Political Science. Bridget is quite amiable (except on the subject of Oliver Cromwell, but that’s hardly surprising as most Englishmen aren’t either). Bridget is very fun.

Grace Burke
Grace is another interesting person. It can certainly never be said that she leads a dull life. She’s also very amicable, and knowledgeable about European affairs (Bolstered by her semester in Vienna, which is a fine city). She hatched the notion of the go-away shindig.

Eric Ferguson
Eric’s a bit of a trouble-maker, but at the same time he’s very kind, especially to me. He has quite an interest in community service. He’s also a kick to have in class. His various activities are now the stuff of legend around campus.

Virginia Shumate
The “friendly ghost,” Virginia was one of four original PEP majors (the others being Eric, Kristine, and myself). Though I don’t have much conversation with her outside of class, Virginia is certainly one of the kindest people on campus. She’s also one of the few liberal PEP majors, and she has remained so for the entire term of her education. That speaks much for her convictions.

Chris Fox
Chris was in my group in Dr. Pagan’s human person class. He created the revised chart of human evolution, culminating in the “Pagan-o-man” stage. Chris is another fellow who is fun to chat with on a variety of topics. I took the LSAT with him, and wish him well on his score.

John Bowman
Mr. Bowman is a Gonzaga-bred Washingtonian. He’s also a straight philosophy major, and has a very questioning mind. He is yet another example of the amicable type, and I’ve had many good conversations with him on a wide range of topics.

Curt Bolton and Lindsey Peters
Not that they’re related or linked in any way, but I’m running short on space. They’re relative newcomers to the PEP crew, but they’re both intelligent and interesting. I wish them well in their future endeavours, but that is hardly necessary given their capabilities.

Liz Meyers
Liz is one of the few people in my FYS class with whom I still speak on a semi-regular basis. I still remember the great mission of the UNSATRAPROFOR freshman year, when she turned a popcorn bowl into a UN helmet. She’s quite a character.

Levi Pelikan
I’ve known this fellow off and on since freshman year. A glutton for punishment, Levi is back after a brief hiatus and is making good headway in his college career. He is rather friendly, but also very unique. I wish him the best fortune as he continues his college life.

The ARC gang
To round it out, I’ll include the entirety of my co-workers at the Academic Resource Centre. This is a diverse lot, from the activist/intellectual such as Levi White to the well-travelled Lauren Leif, with characters such as Brian O’Donnell, Mary-Ann, and Jenn Larch in the middle. They made work interesting.

I’m certainly glad for the company provided by those listed above. If I didn’t list you, blame my faltering memory. I’m grateful for the good times and I hope I find an equally amicable group to speak to in future.

Our Chinese Trading Partners

2005-12-12T09:24:00.000-05:00

It seems that during my latest blogging intermission, the Chinese government has perpetrated a massacre of peasants whose land was being taken for a new power plant. There are thirty-three dead and many injured in the village of Dongzhou. There are some graphic pictures of the victims here, at Gateway Pundit, and a video from the Washington Post. The Chinese police and party thugs cooperated- the police fired guns and tear gas while party toughs beat some of the protesters to death with farm implements (as you can see on the video).
With the death toll at thirty-three (six according to official Chinese figures), this is the worst repression since the infamous Tianamen Square Massacre of 1989. In my view, this demonstrates exactly what the People's Republic of China is- a totalitarian state that is willing to murder its own people with the utmost savagery in order to keep power. This will happen again and again to those who stand up for their natural rights. The current regime in China is not capable of pro-democratic change.
The shocking part of all this isn't that China was so brazen in murdering its dissidents- that's par for the course. What is truly shocking is the utter failure of "human rights organisations" to condemn the massacre. Of several such "organisations" that I visited to-day, I found only Amnesty International even mentioned the massacre, and issued a bland press release and condemnation, asking Chinese authorities (the ones responsible) to develop "effective channels for dispute resolution." I don't think the Chinese authorities have a problem with dispute resolution. Bringing a heavy farm implement down on a dissident or poking 5.8mm holes in him with a QBZ-95 are very effective channels for dispute resolution. The problem is with their egregious violations of natural rights that occur over and over again, not their infamous efficiency in ending debate. To their shame, I could not find a single statement about the massacre (let alone a condemnation) on the sites of either the sanctimonious European Union or the so-called Human Rights Watch. What I did find was a great deal of consternation about possible abuses that may have taken place by the US.
This is very telling. Tranzi-types such as the EU and Human Rights Watch are more than willing to give China a free hand to squelch internal dissent so long as they play along with the Tranzi programme (sign Kyoto, join the ICC, &c). The trouble comes when a nation refuses to join either of those two entities. The US gets hit more in the press releases of these organisations than any other, China included. This demonstrates not only a double standard (the fact that the US might have tortured someone is worse than routine beatdowns and torture of Chinese dissidents) but also a willingness to abandon Chinese dissidents for political concessions and trade deals. The same goes with abandoning Cuban dissidents for ideological considerations.
Human rights organisations are more than worthless. Their insistence on ignoring major human rights problems in certain countries while relentlessly targeting not-so-major problems elsewhere degrades their reputation. Ultimately we need independent organisations dedicated to defending man's natural rights. If they cry "wolf" while ignoring the real danger, they spend their most precious resource- credibility. Without that, they cannot function properly as watch-dogs for human rights.

Euthanasia and Sarko

2005-12-08T09:37:00.000-05:00

First, I must apologise for being remiss yester-day in two anniversaries. The first was, obviously, the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour, and its courageous defence. The next day, which is to-day, Japanese forces began attacking the heroic USMC garrison on Wake Island.
Also yester-day in 1815, Marshal of France Michel Ney (who, incidentally, was actually of German origin) was shot by a firing squad on the orders of King Louis XVIII, who had be restored to the throne following Napoleon's second reign (the Hundred Days). Some rumors suggest that Marshal Ney escaped execution and ended up teaching school in the Carolinas as one Peter Stuart Ney.
Reading the Daily Torygraph was certainly profitable this morning. It seems that Mssr. Nicolas Sarkozy, last seen commenting on actor Matthieu Kassovitz' blog, is going to be the UMP (centre-right) candidate for President of the Republic during the next (2007) election. He will face off against current Prime Minister (and true little Napoleon) Dominique de Villepin for control of France's future. If Sarko wins this, France just might have a chance of solving its numerous problems. Villepin is too much of an ideologue to change any of France's disastrous policies. Then again, I said the same thing about Angie Merkel, and her "economic stimulus" plan is "raise taxes."
I also see that the Israelis have approved a method of Euthanasia. The difficulty that previously prevented this pernicious legislation was that the Torah forbade it. It seems the Israelis have now adapted "Sabbath clocks" to shut off ventilators. This is a disturbing development. It's also an example of man ignoring the spirit of the law for the sake of the letter. The horrific punishment of burning at the stake was invented because Church Doctrine forbade the shedding of blood. The prohibition on killing is there because euthanasia is bad. Creating a technological "loop-hole" does not exempt one from the spirit of the law.

Everybody's got to wear clothes...

2005-12-06T22:59:00.000-05:00

...and if you don't, you'll get arrested.
-Mr. T
This rule even applies to UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon "Tax 'n Waste" Brown, though he apparently didn't think so until recently. He imagined himself as clad in the most exquisite "third-way" garments. Sadly, when he went on display, he turned out to be as naked as the proverbial emperor. It seems that the land of my ancestors is posting growth below 2%, and is expected to do so for the next year. This comes a quite a surprise to Mr. Brown, who figured this year's growth would be twice as high as it turned out back in the optimistic month of January.
This is not an unexpected development for anyone who has even a cursory understanding of economic systems- higher taxes and increasing government hegemony over the economy tends to slow things down. It happened in the Euro-zone in a big way, and now it's hitting Great Britain.
I also see that the Tories have selected Bizarro-Blair as their leader. He says that the Tories must "accept modern Britain," or (less prosaically) change nothing substantive. Britain is doomed.

Now on to a new feature. I've noticed that people on campus tend to know little about me. This is a new section where I speak informally about my (eccentric) personal habits. This is my personal Glasnost.
One habit that provokes a great deal of criticism is my teetotaling habit. People are often put off by the fact that I refuse to drink alcohol. It's seen as unsocial.
My family has a history of alcoholism. Neither of my parents drink alcohol, and they've been able to provide a good living. Sadly, family history is not so promising. There's a great likelihood that I've a predisposition for it. As a result, I prefer not to take chances.
In addition, the style of drinking in college is extremely off-putting. People drink in order to get drunk. This sort of behaviour I must confess is revolting. Human beings are the only creatures gifted with reason, and yet university students see fit to toss it out the window and to return to the "terrible twos" through the use of intoxicants. I've been around drunk people far too often in my life, and the descent into an alternately self-pitying or aggressive stupor is mind-boggling. The entire point of being an adult is being able to take care of yourself. The drunk imposes a great burden on all of his friends through his lack of virtue. This burden is entirely preventable, but the drunk is too involved in his own problems to see outside his horizon.
There are many aspects of human behaviour that I'll never get. Heavy drinking is certainly one of them.

The EU and Capital Punishment

2005-12-04T08:29:00.000-05:00

It seems there's to be a debate on capital punishment, brought on by Singapore's recent execution of an Australian citizen (or is that "subject", since they're in the Commonwealth?). In addition, we've reached the "grim milestone" of 1,000 executions in the United States since the re-introduction of the death penalty. So, the capital punishment issue is once again making the rounds
Most of this criticism comes from the EU. Specifically, the Italian Government has criticised the US over this event. Demonstrating further that the EU does not understand "federalism," the Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia was responsible for the execution, not the United States government. There have been precisely three federal executions since the re-introduction of the death penalty. Perhaps the EU refrained from criticism because the governor of that Commonwealth is a Democrat. In any case, the US Embassy warned US citizens in Italy to be on the lookout for revenge attacks (?!?).
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of attacking people because one of their states executed a murderer who was plainly guilty, the Euros have a few skeletons in their own closet. Specifically, the European Union's relations with the world's number one death penalty user, the People's Republic of China. While the US has, in the nearly thirty years since its re-introduction in 1976, executed 1,000 people, China puts 5,000 to 10,000 people to death every year, more than the rest of the world combined several times over! No one is certain of the exact number, since the Chinese authorities won't say. In addition, the Chinese authorities routinely practice torture on prisoners and violent cultural suppression in Tibet. No country on earth is more renowned for its repeated violations of natural rights or the "human rights" listed by the EU.
What is the EU's relation to China? Why they're trying to lift their collective ban on selling modern weapons to the Chinese government! Does this strike anyone else as the least bit strange? That's not the limit of their hypocrisy, either. It seems that the Italians are helping the Chinese develop mobile execution vans. Were I a gambling man, I would wager each one of these execution vans would see more people put to death than the entire United States would in a year. Yet, the only members of its bloc facing censure are those rumored to have operated secret CIA prisons that haven't been proven to exist.
The endless criticism of the world's foremost democratic power, contrasted with the kid-gloves treatment given to the brutal and authoritarian People's Republic leads us to one conclusion- the European Union and its member states are no "humanitarian power" as they like to style themselves, but rather an opportunistic group of amoral businessmen, embracing the most ruthless elements of capitalism that they claim is the exclusive inheritance of the American system. Provide them with a suitably-sized defence market, and they will turn a blind eye to anything.

More Religious Self-Criticism, Iraqi War Small Arms, and Bonaparte's Greatest Victory

2005-12-02T14:16:00.000-05:00

I took another, more detailed religious questionnaire at Beliefnet. Here are the results

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (94%)
3. Eastern Orthodox (91%)
4. Roman Catholic (91%)
5. Seventh Day Adventist (87%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (78%)
7. Hinduism (60%)
8. Liberal Quakers (56%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (53%)
10. Islam (50%)
11. Sikhism (49%)
12. Unitarian Universalism (48%)
13. Theravada Buddhism (46%)
14. Reform Judaism (45%)
15. Mahayana Buddhism (44%)
16. Bah�'� Faith (44%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (43%)
18. New Thought (41%)
19. Jainism (40%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (38%)
21. Scientology (37%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (35%)
23. Neo-Pagan (32%)
24. Nontheist (32%)
25. Taoism (31%)
26. New Age (30%)
27. Secular Humanism (20%)

100% Protestant. I'm surprised I got 91% Popish, but c'est la vie. As expected, Secular Humanism scored really low (below Scientology!). This isn't terribly big news, as I've never liked secular humanism, even back in my liberal days. The Quaker-ism was another start, as I'm certainly no pacifist.
Speaking of Pacifism, or (more appropriately) the lack thereof, I've found another (more credible) small arms review about the Iraq conflict. This one comes from Strategy Page, and is entitled "Little Bullets Lose Respect". It seems that there is general dis-satisfaction with the current-issue 5.56mm round. There is also a great deal of noise favouring the older 7.62x51mm ammunition, which has better close-in penetrating ability. The "one shot, one kill" model is the preferred tactic, even in urban combat. There has also been some complaint about the sensitivity of the M16 to dust. The old M14 has come out of this the overall winner- not bad for the shortest-lived service rifle in US history.
I would like to remind my reader(s) that any time is a good time to contribute to the FAL fund.
To end on military affairs, two hundred years ago to-day Bonaparte triumphed over a combined Russian and Austrian army at Austerlitz, presently near Brno in the Czech Republic. Bonaparte yielded the high ground to his opponents, an unusual move for the time. He also began maneuvering under cover of fog, a "duh!" idea to-day, but revolutionary at the time (beaten only by Wellington's idea of the "reverse-slope" technique, i.e. "hiding your men behind hills"). Bonaparte thoroughly thrashed his opponents and won his greatest victory. This secured his position as the leader of Europe until 1812.
It occurred, interestingly enough, on the anniversary of Bonaparte's coronation as L'empereur des Francais, which was two hundred and one years ago to-day.
It's on to the LSAT to-morrow.

Islam is not a race

2005-12-01T23:54:00.000-05:00

Whenever one condemns Islamist ideas, one is often labeled as a "racist." This is irksome, as Islamism is a political and religious ideology that transcends racial barriers. This assertion was demonstrated last month when Mireille, a Belgian woman blew herself up in a suicide attack against a US convoy in Iraq. From what I've been able to gather, Mireille was a Walloon (a Belgian of more-or-less French extraction), and was born into a well-off middle-class Christian family. Her town, Charleroi, is very close to the French border- Napoleon crossed into Belgium there during his hundred days campaign in 1815.
How did she end up as a suicide bomber? She married a radical Moroccan and converted to Islam. She was radicalised through his influence, and they departed for Iraq. He was killed by American troops in the theatre. She ended her life near a US Military Checkpoint on November 9, attempting to kill fellow westerners.
She was not born into a condition of want. She lived in the very shadow of the European Union, in the presence of (so Europeans think) the ultimate culmination of western thought. Yet she embraced radical Islam, and attempted to murder soldiers of another NATO country on the field of battle.
This demonstrates the falsity of leftist ideas concerning Islamism. They reduce everything to mere material want. They cannot see anyone challenging their philosophy, so they use its tenets to describe a situation even if said tenets do not fit. This is a great weakness, as their "progressive" ideas hold that some "tide" of history sweeps away any opposition to their ideas. This doesn't happen, but they can't deny their ideas, so they try to adapt an unchangeable thing to fit into their schema. As we see from this incident, Islamism is a serious threat both in the sense of its violence and its ideas. Whether European "third-way" thinkers would like to admit it or not, there is serious competition going on. Of course, competition gets easier when you do this to your ideological opponents (warning: disturbing).

Heroes?

2005-11-30T16:45:00.000-05:00

Two posts in one day- a new record!
Sadly, this isn't an exuberant post or even a smarmy one. It's actually rather tragic. It deals with the magic of childhood heroes, and their fall.
Recently, a GOP congressman from California stepped down due to corruption. My thoughts on the subject ranged from non-surprise to anger at the Stupid Party for screwing up again. Given the current political climate, I don't think that it's terribly surprising. I let it be until I found out that the Congressman Cunningham of the scandal was formerly Commander Randy "Duke" Cunningham, one of two American Vietnam-war aces. Flying off the USS Constellation in 1972, "Duke" shot down the famous North Vietnamese Ace "Toon" after a fierce dog-fight. Earlier in the same flight, he had "splashed" two other MiGs. I remember reading about it during my youth. I studied the techniques of the various pilots- how the Vietnamese used American rules of engagement to draw the heavy F-4s into close-in dogfights that they couldn't win, and how "Duke" adapted to the situation and came out victorious.
That a man who held such lofty stature in my child-hood (and in the pantheon of ace pilots) could make such a colossal error is important. It is a reminder that everyone is fallible, even figures who seem larger than life. Also, there is the important lesson that "power corrupts" as it was famously put by Lord Acton. Despite what they might like you to think, politicians are not human beings of superior will or moral fibre. They are ordinary people, and thus they are just as likely to fall into the traps that threaten to ensnare us all. More to this, when they do err, the lot of the nation suffers greatly because of it. Only by developing a healthy conscience and scepticism towards politicians can a citizen of a democratic state hope to maintain a just polity.

Popish Progress

2005-11-30T13:22:00.000-05:00

It seems that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has decided to dump the medieval concept of "limbo" altogether. A panel of theologians discovered that the place was made up in the middle ages (rather like another non-Biblical locale invented by Catholic theologians in the late Roman Empire. Indeed, the old-style Anglican Church said that "The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory...is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God."
So much for whack medieval ideas, eh wot? Perhaps if the Catholic Church gets rid of some of Pius IX's decrees (i.e. Papal infallibility in matters of faith and the idea that Mary was not subject to Original Sin, decreed in the 1850s), Pope Benny's idea of a unified Christian Church can come closer to reality.

One Hundred

2005-11-29T21:35:00.000-05:00

This marks the one hundredth post on this blog. It was established on the Twentieth of January, 2005. Given this, I've managed an average of one post every three days. The counter stands at 1439, which works out to 14.39 views per post. I'm moving up in the world!
It has been, and will continue to be a rather unpleasant week as I proceed to jump through the last few hoops thrown out by a desperate bureaucracy seeking to prove their necessity. The week-end will be filled with the joys of the LSAT. Monday evening is my Senior Thesis presentation, followed by a week of nothing.
In any case, it seems that big things are afoot up north in Canuckistan. The ruling Liberal Government of Prime Minister Paul Martin has lost a vote of no confidence, and new elections have been called for January. The three other major parties (the Conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois, and the NDP) all voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. This happened because of the Adscam scandal. There was nearly a no-confidence vote some time ago, which I wrote about. The motion was defeated when the ruling Liberal party used its clout to buy off several MPs with senate seats or cushy appointments. They weren't so lucky this time.
I also see that everyone's favourite Uranium-refining African Strong Man has "won" a large majority of seats in Zimbabwe's "new" upper parliamentary house, the National Assembly. To clarify as to how Mugabe "won" this one, it's hard to lose seats when you rig the polls and your opposition (mostly) boycotts the election. Regarding the "new" comment, Zimbabwe actually had an upper house, a Senate, until 1990. It was then abolished by Mugabe to help him gain control over the nation. The new upper house is being created to help Mugabe gain control over the nation. I sense a common theme here.
To complete the Foreign Affairs trifecta, current Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is said to have been surrounded by a heavenly light during his recent UN speech. Though no one knows if he really thinks this, it can't be good news if he does. Her Majesty's Armed Forces aren't nearly in the same shape as they were the last time someone decided that they were the Mahdi.

Religious Self-Criticism!

2005-11-27T10:47:00.000-05:00

Shamelessly lifted from Divinely Wounded:

the Conservative
You scored 42 out of 45 on proximity to orthodoxy!

Your theology is orthodox, mostly (you occasionally overemphasize one
aspect or another). You believe in the supremacy of Christianity, but
you don't preach hate. Your motto is "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
You are conservative on social values too, although you believe in
helping the poor and the oppressed. Gay people make you kind of
nervous. You secretly enjoy watching "Sex and the City" but you feel
bad about it.
Jesus loves you! (But, you know, not in that way)

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 98% on orthodoxy

Link: The What Kind of Christian are You Test written by agape29 on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

I must take issue with most of this test. For example, the Marian idol serving as an icon is not in line at all with my cantankerous Protestantism. As we learn from unimpeachable, non-partisan sources, Mary isn't an intercessor. OK, maybe Jack Chick does more harm to my argument than good, but nonetheless Mary isn't an intercessor or Co-redemptrix.
The "gay" remark is a bit off also, as I am on friendly terms with a number of gay people and bisexuals. They don't make me nervous, though the constant homo-erotic posturing of nominally straight people does. Besides, according to the Grand Inquisitor, I'm "gay" anyway (though I'm still not certain how that happened).
As a matter of record, I despise "Sex in the City," it being indicative of the great ridiculousness of modern society. It's the only show more predictable than Scooby Doo! Having suffered through only two episodes of it, I correctly predicted the outcome of the entire series! At least the ghosts were real in Scooby Doo, and Scoob and Shag got to hang out with Vincent Price. All that went on in "Sex" was a bunch of whining by Horse-face and company, with a few naughty scenes tossed into interest men forced to watch this atrocious crap by their girl-friends.
While we're on the subject, what sort of "orthodoxy" do I conform to? I certainly don't conform to the Popish model (denying the doctrines of Mary makes me automatically excommunicate from their Church, even though I never bothered to join). I might have fit in well with Elizabethan Protestantism (but that was screwed up by the Laudian prelates). I certainly detest that Blairite idiot Rowan Williams who attempts to run the Anglican Church (into the ground). I suppose "orthodoxy" is measured by one's conformity to the Nicene Creed. In that I suppose I'm orthodox, but the Nicene Creed is used by nearly every denomination. Except for those Gnostic types and Arianists, but they were big more than a millennium ago.

Armed Self-Criticism!

2005-11-25T22:09:00.000-05:00

Machinegun
You preferred a weapon with 43% power over speed and 94% range over melee.

You use a Machinegun.
Phenomenal range and rate of fire more than make up for the lack of
mobility that a full machinegun warrant. Though a machinegun lacks the
punch of heavier artillery, it is still an exceedingly potent infantry
weapon and can fire continuously for a long time. Your enemies will run
for cover as you pepper the landscape with bullets.

My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 49% on power
You scored higher than 99% on range

Link: The What's Your Signature Weapon Test written by inurashii on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Surprise, surprise? I think not. Though, to be fair, I'm not much of a fan of the MG in the picture. A better choice would be the estimable HK MG3. I must also state that I like accuracy as well as volume of fire, so either the superlative AR-15 rifle or the battle-proven L1A1 SLR. Automatic fire isn't nearly as effective as aimed shots.
Needless to say, even the least adequate firepower is superior to a great-sword of any pattern. I should like to see any Popish Brigand attempt to get the better of a stout bulldog when he's armed with an L1A1. If said Bulldog was to be stuck with the awful SA80/L85A1, I'd give the Papist an even chance.

Sarko posts?

2005-11-24T10:00:00.000-05:00

It's a star-studded Thanksgiving in the Blogosphere. It seems that the French Blogosphere has been the site of a high-profile debate. It all started when French Cinema Star Matheiu Kassovitz (known to some as Fr. Riccardo, the Jesuit priest, in the excellent Amen) posted an attack on French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy (English Version, the original is in French) on his blog. He accused Sarkozy of being a "little Napoleon" ("Nicolas SARKOZY est certainement un petit Napoléon", literally "Nicolas Sarkozy is certainly a little Napoleon"). He also says that Sarkozy would have helped Dubya in the War on Terror ("Il aurait engagé la France auprès des Américains dans la « chasse à la Terreur » de Bush. J’en suis convaincu."), which is a serious charge in French politics. Mostly, it's moralistic prattling (odd a man who hates the idea of absolute truth) about how "violence begets violence" ("La haine attise la haine"). Of course, Mssr. Kassovitz doesn't deign to imagine his own response to the riots that recently engulfed France (and are still smouldering, by the way). He only says "true problems" must be addressed ("et qui se permet de menacer ouvertement toute une partie de la population française sans adresser les vrais problèmes."). To really drive the point home, he compares Sarkozy's response to the riots to the Israelis ("L’Intifada des différentes banlieues parisiennes ressemble effectivement aux affrontements qui ont opposés les enfants de Palestine armés de pierres, aux soldats d’Israël armés d’Uzis.", or "The intifada (?) of the various Parisian banlieues effectively resembles the confrontations between the children of Palestine armed with rocks and the soldiers of Israel armed with Uzis").
There are some great responses to Mssr. Kassovitz's non-dialogue. One of my favourites is "mathieu vous etes d'une demagogie a toute epreuve" ("Mathieu, you are a demagogue by any standard").
The best comment comes from none other than Nicolas Sarkozy himself. He has a rather long response and even-handed response, criticising Mssr. Kassovitz for his overly-sharp words. He also points out that Mssr. Kassovitz has no time for anyone who was victimised by the rioters-
"Pourquoi n'avoir aucun mot pour ceux dont la voiture a brûlé, les privant ainsi d'un outil de liberté et de travail durement acquis ? Pourquoi ne pas évoquer ces jeunes dont les gymnases ont été réduits en cendres et ces enfants dont l'école est détruite ? Pourquoi, par ailleurs, n'avoir aucune pensée pour les 110 policiers blessés, les pompiers caillassés et les médecins injuriés ?"
("Why don't you have a word for those whose cars were burned, and were thus deprived of a tool of freedom acquired through hard work? Why do you not evoke the youths whose youth centres (gymnasiums) were reduced to ashes and the children whose school was destroyed? Why, in addition, do you not have thoughts for the 110 policemen hurt, the calloused firemen and the injured doctors?")
He tells Mr. Kassovitz that he (Kassovitz) is ready to "accept the unacceptable," but all said, the tone of his missive is fairly respectful. Though it cannot be said with certainty whether this is Sarkozy speaking or not, I cannot help but admire him. Much unlike the sentimental fluff on Margot Wallstöm's blog, Mssr. Sarkozy gets directly to the point without becoming arrogant or condescending. He ably presents the other side of the story.
There are few things I like seeing more than a politically active entertainer (even a good actor, like Mssr. Kassovitz) put in his place by someone knowledgeable. I'm tired of "personalities" who no more understand the vagaries of morality and ethics than quantum physics. What makes it more intolerable is that these prattling idiots attempt to create policy from their child-like understanding of ethics. "Hate is bad, and using force to dispel rioters is hate, so we shouldn't do it." Then what should we do? Dispelling rioters isn't always an act of hate, and rioters are usually filled enough with hate as it is. It is the social conditions brought on by France's "superior" social model, along with their so-called "multiculturalism" (which looks to me a great deal like segregation) that filed away these poor foreigners in these banlieues and kept them from integrating into the larger society. They don't have jobs, and they're radicalised. The prattling of an actor won't stop these problems. Only serious debate over the future of the social model and the lives of these immigrants as a part of greater French society will begin to tackle the problem. In the meantime, civic order must be kept, and people who don't have real solutions for the problem should stop acting as if they do.

Small Arms Review from Iraq?

2005-11-23T20:31:00.000-05:00

There's been an interesting document making the rounds on-line as of late. It claims to have the "unvarnished opinions" of the soldiers serving in Iraq regarding their small arms. Entitled "what worked, what sucked", this little gem is being bandied about in acrimonious discussions amongst small-arms devotees everywhere. Here's my take on it.

"1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.

Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use. "

I've heard about jamming problems with sand, but that's a common occurrence with any tight-tolerance machine. The standard 5.56x45mm service ammunition is also getting panned due to its lack of "stopping power." Then again, the M1 Garand rifle in .30-06 was criticised during WWII for this same short-coming, as was the L1A1 SLR (British FAL) during the Falklands conflict. Killing someone in one shot depends on getting hits in the right places. One-shot stop power is largely mythical outside of anti-tank rockets. I also hear that the new Mk 262 Mod 0 and Mod 1 ammunition for 5.56mm weapons works quite well. I don't know about the opium bit.

"2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of s***. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly.(That's fun in the middle of a firefight!)"

No such weapon. There is an M249 SAW, which is a 5.56mm belt-fed light machine gun, which is a derivative of the FN-Minimi. It's usually considered very reliable. Then again, I'm not in the theatre, so I can't say. However, this is sounding rather phony.

"3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight."

I'd heard quite the opposite- the military procured cheap magazines with "crinkle" finish on the inside and as a result the Berettas refused to work in sandy environs. Not the pistol's fault, but the weapon has garnered a bad reputation as a result. From what I hear the Beretta is nearly universally reviled, as is the 9mm cartridge.

"4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect."

The main shotgun in US inventory is the M1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun, which is a Benelli M4 Super 90. I've heard good things about it. There might be some individual Mossbergs in service, but it's not standard-issue kit.
There are some further reviews on heavier weapons, but there's another bit that caught my eye.

"Bad guy weapons:
1) Mostly AK47's The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like s*** Undisciplined "spray and pray" type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again)"

Lots of things wrong with this one. AKs don't shoot .308, they shoot 7.62x39 M43. The .308 is 7.62x51mm. There's quite a difference. Furthermore, the PKM is a medium MG that shoots a completely different cartridge (7.62x54R). Anyone trying to load a full-power .308 into an AK won't get far, as it won't even fit in the magazine. I've heard that the M43 has wounding problems- it's little more effective than a .38 Special at range.

A lot of people think that this is a hoax. I'd generally agree- I'm no serving soldier, I'm just some guy with a cursory interest in small arms. If I can spot errors in this document, then there are some serious issues that need to be resolved.
Here's a gem from the comments at Defense Tech's entry:
"im going into field artillery and i dont particularly like the m-16a1 carbin or the regulare m-16. i want to know if i could buy a difrent gun or if i would be able to trade it in or what because iv had some problems with jamming in the gun range and i would rather have a better gun. Plus the .223 round isnt going to bring sombody down unless you hit them above the torso. so write back and tell me if you know anything.

futer marine,
andrew bozza"

A domino factum est et mirabilis in oculis nostris

2005-11-17T18:28:00.000-05:00

In 1558, a young Elizabeth Tudor stood under a tree and received the news that her half-sister Mary I ("Bloody Mary") had died, and that she was now Queen of England. Her response, the title of this post, translates as "This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes." She was crowned on this day in that year, and she would reign for many years thereafter, becoming perhaps the greatest queen in history (thought some people might disagree).

Back to normal?

2005-11-16T11:42:00.000-05:00

Glenn Reynolds thinks that Europe is now "the Sick Man of Europe." I must agree with him. However, straightening out Europe would require "strong-man" management of a sort that's not easy to stomach. It seems the French have grown comfortable with more than 150 cars burned each night, and have decided that the riots have gone away.
The Catholic Church has just lost one hundred arbitrary points. It turns out that they're considering beatifying Robert Schuman, one of the "Founding Fathers" of the European Union. There has also been talk of Sainthood. Let's review some other Saints in comparison to Schuman.
St. Maximilian Kolbe
-Was imprisoned in Auschwitz in 1941 for sheltering Jewish refugees
-Smuggled bread and wine to hold mass for the prisoners
-Took the place of a young, married man in a starvation chamber
-Ministered to his nine fellows for three weeks of starvation and dehydration
-Martyred by carbolic acid injection after the Nazis got tired of waiting
St. Thomas More
-One of the most learned men of his age
-Chancellor of State under King Henry VIII
-Fired, exiled, and imprisoned for his courageous stance
-Beheaded because he would not commit perjury
Robert Schuman
-Was briefly detained by Gestapo
-Was religious
-Prime Minister of France (for less than a year)
-Convinced Germans to join Monnet's "coal and steel community", now the EU
-Died in his bed at the age of seventy-seven
Could someone Catholic kindly explain to me how Schuman belongs in the company of More and Kolbe? From where I stand, it sounds to me like the Church is beatifying people based on politics, not merit. It seems that the charges made by Protestants about that practice aren't so spurious after all.

Self-Criticism, Volume III

2005-11-13T10:23:00.000-05:00

Here's the latest self-critical examination, lifted from Murdoc Online.

You scored as Batman, the Dark Knight. As the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman is a vigilante who deals out his own brand of justice to the criminals and corrupt of the city. He follows his own code and is often misunderstood. He has few friends or allies, but finds comfort in his cause.

Batman, the Dark Knight

79%

Maximus

67%

William Wallace

63%

Neo, the "One"

63%

Captain Jack Sparrow

50%

James Bond, Agent 007

50%

The Amazing Spider-Man

46%

Lara Croft

38%

The Terminator

38%

El Zorro

33%

Indiana Jones

29%

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

I certainly I don't end up like certain other installments of the Bat-man series.

18 Brumaire II: Napoleon Strikes Back

2005-11-10T17:06:00.000-05:00

As we left the intrepid First Emperor of the French, he had herded all seven hundred and fifty members of the French National Assembly into the Chateau Saint-Cloud, under his "protection," in order to elect a new government to replace the corrupt Directoire. All did not go as planned. Twenty hours after debate began, the deputies continued to argue. Most of them were of the Jacobin party, and they supported the old government (and hated Bonaparte). After waiting for this long, Napoleon decided that it would be a good idea to pay a visit to the deputies while they were in session, armed with an escort of Grenadiers, or heavy infantry. He first swung by the Council of Elders, telling them that "the Revolution is over" and that the constitution was moot. Having thus impressed them, he went to the considerably more rowdy Council of Five Hundred, of which his brother Lucien was President.
It seems here that Napoleon's impetuousity got the better of him. The Five Hundred attacked Napoleon as soon as he entered the chamber. They managed to injure him somewhat before Lucien ordered the Grenadiers to escort him out. This gave Napoleon and Lucien the pretext to summon the soldiers waiting outside. Lucien told the soldiers that a "desperate faction" of men with daggers threatened the assembly, and that they had to disrupt the meeting to ensure the safety of the deputies. He then produced a dagger himself, and pointed it at Napoleon's chest, proclaiming that he would "stab him...if I suspected of violating the rights..." Thus encouraged, the troops cleared the chamber. The deputies, thus cowed by military force, submitted to Napoleon's new constitution. Napoleon became First Consul of France. Seiyes and Roger-Ducos were replaced on December 31 of the same year with more pliable consuls. In 1804, Bonaparte declared the French Empire, and became its emperor.

18 Brumaire

2005-11-09T08:35:00.000-05:00

On this day in 1799, Bonaparte, with the backing of government officials SieyÃ¨s and Roger-Ducos, moved the French Assembly to the Chateau St-Cloud with the aim of overthrowing the previous and very corrupt Directoire. SieyÃ¨s and Roger-Ducos were members, and their resignations, combined with that of Barras, the President of the Directory, necessitated the formation of a new, non-Jacobin government. The two legislative assemblies, the Five Hundred and Council of the Elders (les ancients) were moved to Saint-Cloud for "protection". In reality, Napoleon wanted to "convince" them to vote for his proposal by surrounding the deputies with his troops under the command of his loyal (sort of) Marshal, Joachim Murat.
Why 18 Brumaire instead of 9 November? Well, the intolerable Metric System was only one of several efforts by the French Republic to over-throw the previous system. The new calendar (metric calendar) of the Revolution was based on agricultural events and natural phenomena rather than the old Roman calendar. Each month was thirty days, and consisted of three weeks of ten days each. This meant it was easy for the simple peasants to calculate things (and it also meant that the government would only lose one day in ten to rest, rather than one in seven). The day was broken into ten "hours" (2.4 real hours) divided into 100 "minutes" (1.44 real minutes or about 86 seconds), and these were further divided into 100 "seconds" (0.86 real seconds) . The calendar started at the Autumnal Equinox, and measured years from the 1792 birth of the Republic. The months were named after natural things- Brumaire refers to fog. Another famous month, Thermidor, refers to heat (and appropriately enough, the heat was applied to Robespierre, who got the chop in the coup of 9 Thermidor, Year II(27 July 1794). Further months included Fructidor, the month of Fruit.
It broke with tradition well established since Roman times (much like the metric system- the system of feet and miles was a universal measurement established by the Romans) and ended up confusing a lot of people because it was more or less arbitrary (I see many parallels here). It was designed to completely remove all traces of the old life and thus represented the totalitarian nature of the French Revolutionary government- they were so self-important that they thought history should be measured from their foundation.
This calendar was quite appropriately abolished by Bonaparte in 1806. Not only did it screw over the workers, the Autumnal Equinox changes dates each year, providing a "fantastic source of confusion for almost everybody." It was briefly resurrected along with a host of other equally bad ideas in the Paris Commune of 1870.

Fun times in France

2005-11-06T10:05:00.000-05:00

Contrary to even my expectations, the riots in Paris have reached their tenth day. Last night (like each night before it) was the worst, with 1295 vehicles burned and 312 arrests throughout the country. As I understand it, even Normandy is being hit by these riots. Thirty-two cars were burned inside the city limits of Paris itself, with four burnings near the Place de la RÃ©publique, former site of the Bastille. French police also managed to shut down a bomb-making factory in the suburbs while some youths crashed a car into a McDonald's. Rioters are also shooting at police and civilians with the guns they couldn't possibly get.
And what is top of the news pages? Why, a tornado in Indiana! Foolish of you to ask. I spoke with my esteemedcolleaguee Dr. Fujiyama on the subject, and he said that European news has more or less buried the issue. Before the mighty tornado, they focused on the abortive Free Trade meeting, which was derailed thanks to the good offices of Hugo "Fidelito" Chavez.
I'll readily admit that I'm a pessimist when it comes to Europe, yet even I continue to be shocked by the scale of these riots. I thought that the French government could overcome its bureaucratic inertia and deal with this. They have yet to do so in a serious way. By Tuesday morning, if the riots continue, they will have lasted longer than the Watts and '92 LA riots combined.
Speaking of delicious irony, I'm reading a Harvard Institute of Economic Research paper from September 2001 entitled "Why doesn't the US have a European-style welfare state?". Their answer? Listen to this-

...differences appear to be the result of racialheterogeneityy in the US and American political institutions. Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited the political power of the poor.
Translation? We don't have a welfare state because Americans hate black people. Apparently the only reasons to oppose the welfare state are racism and being an evil rich capitalist. Perhaps this failure to engage in self-criticism is why leftist policies are so prone to spectacular failure. As we've seen lately, the welfare state has as much of a poverty problem as we do, if not more so. Unemployment in the Paris ghettos is much higher than the rest of the country (where it's still outrageously high). Perhaps the Paris riots will inspire the political left to take a long, hard look at the failure of their policies as exemplified in Europe. Or, in a more likely scenario, they'll come up with increasingly juvenile insults to fling at their opponents and ignore the problem.

Chirac n'aimez pas les personnes noires

2005-11-04T09:19:00.000-05:00

Or, "Chirac doesn't care about black people."
It seems that the rioting in the suburbs of Paris I wrote about some time ago is continuing and indeed increasing in ferocity. On November Second, day six of the riots, 250 cars had been burned in the entire riot up to that point. Over the last night, more than four hundred cars had been torched along with three warehouses. The French media has apparently decided to start down-playing the riots. The BBC reports that over five hundred vehicles were burned, and that the riots are spreading all over the country.
Where's the scandal? Apparently the Manchester Guardian is more concerned about Interior Minister Sarkozy referring to the looters as "scum". It also seems that the French Youths have managed to open fire at police with real guns, which are banned in France. So much for gun control laws.
The other big news (thought trumpeted by the media with much greater gusto) is the fact that apparently we're all doomed thanks to the birds. This may or may not be a huge public health risk. In any case, given the utterly uninformed state of most media coverage, I recommend highly the FluWiki, which has a great deal of real information about the bird flu problem.

Aimez-vous une petite émeute?

2005-11-02T08:23:00.000-05:00

It seems Mssr. Chirac has a slight problem on his hands. Rioters have been at it for six nights in a suburb of Paris. It seems that these rioters are young North African Muslim immigrants. Two young North African boys died while being pursued by French police (who, one must admit, are very committed and thorough, perhaps too much so in this case). The French, being inspired by a spirit of dialogue, decided it would be a good idea to fire tear gas into a Mosque. The riots are spreading into other parts of Paris. For comparison, the infamous Los Angeles Riots of 1992 and the Watts riots of 1965 both lasted six days. This new one shows no sign of stopping soon. Given the month-long 1968 student riots, I won't be impressed until the government calls a general election.
It also seems that some people are less than thrilled with the recent anniversary of the Reformation. They will pray to their various Popish Saints for the conversion of the world. They can do that as much as they please, but it shall change nothing! Bwahahahahahaha!
Finally, a bit of good news. The US Army and Special Operations Command have teamed up to find a replacement handgun for their use. Here is the specification below:

The USSOCOM intends to issue a solicitation to obtain commercially available non-developmental item (NDI) Joint Combat Pistol (JCP) system, Caliber .45 (ACP). The Program will use full and open competition to fulfill the JCP requirement. The JCP will be delivered in accordance with specification entitled "Performance Specification Joint Combat Pistol" to be provided with issuance of the solicitation.
What does that mean? It means the Army is replacing the Beretta M9 with a .45 caliber pistol, type unknown. The specifications call for an "external safety" option, a specification that eliminates Glocks and many other modern pistols. My recommendation? I'd thoroughly recommend a high-capacity 1911 (such as the fine Para-ordinance P-14, with a fourteen round magazine) or the tough HK USP Tactical, .45 ACP. The latter better fits the specifications, as it has a threaded barrel that allows it to accept silencers. The problem with these guns is that they are eeeeeevil foreign designs. Many people complain about the lack of domestic-made hardware. I must point out that the US Army has used many "evil foreign" designs quite successfully- the Krag-Jorgensen rifle was Danish, the M1903 Springfield was a copy of the German Mauser 98, the M1917 US Enfield was a British design, the M1 Garand was designed by Canadian John Garand, and the M14 was based on Garand's earlier design. There's nothing wrong with using foreign designs so long as they are produced domestically (so that we won't be dependent on supply lines in time of war).

Small Arms fun-time!

2005-11-01T10:39:00.000-05:00

It seems that nearly all of the "future military" projects of the 1990s have been cancelled in the wake of several real wars. Cool-sounding theories that were advanced during that time are being shown to be pure nonsense. Yester-day, even the most successful of these theories was struck down by reality.
Via Murdoc Online, the following document made its way to the Admiralty yester-day.

AMENDMENT SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT
Solicitation W15QKN-05-R-0449, OICW Increment One
Amendment 002
The purpose of this Amendment is to CANCEL Solicitation W15QKN-05-R-0449, OICW Increment One.

This action has been taken in order for the Army to reevaluate its priorites (sic) for small caliber weapons, and to incorporate emerging requirements identified during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Government will also incorporate studies looking into current capability gaps during said reevaluation.

What does this mean? It seems that the famous XM-8 Rifle Programme has been cancelled. The XM-8 was the descendant of the nineties OICW programme, which involved sticking a 20mm smart grenade launcher on a new 5.56mm rifle. The resulting assembly weighed almost twenty pounds (6.8 kilo-pretend units of measurement) loaded. For comparison, the extremely heavy M1 Garand, standard issue in WWII, weighed 9.5 pounds. A fully loaded machine gun M249 with full kit and tools weighs 15 pounds, and that is considered excessive. The current-issue assault rifle comes in a bit under nine pounds. The French also tried their hand at a version that was considerably more awkward (scroll down).
The XM8 was born when they took the assault rifle portion off the assembly and made it its own rifle. The result, based off of the successful G-36 system, was very reliable and light. However, it seems that real-world experience got in the way. The XM8 was chambered for the same cartridge as the M16/M4 series- the 5.56x45mm NATO. However, because of this cartridge's small calibre (about .22), it depends on extremely high velocity to create fatal wounds. This is no problem out of a standard 20" barrel M16, which pushes the bullet to a velocity of over 3,000 feet per second. This gives it an effective range of over 200 yards (~200 French Revolutionary nonsense measurements). However, most soldiers want reduced barrel length. The 14.5" barrel of the M4 carbine currently in use, combined with the newer M855 ammunition that is heavier (but slower), reaches out to less than 100 yards effectively. The XM-8 was to have a twelve-inch barrel, which means that the weapon wouldn't have been effective even at point-blank range.
What's the solution? It seems that the military is considering changing calibres. The current system is, at best, effective out to 300 yards. This leaves a large range where enemies cannot be hit reliably. Hence the "capability gap" mentioned earlier. Some gun gurus want to bring back the old M-14 rifle in the potent 7.62x51mm chambering. However, the M14 is heavier than the current system, and is nearly uncontrollable in fully-automatic fire. It was a failure as a service rifle, being replaced after only seven years' service by the M-16. It was out of date as soon as it was fielded.
Instead, I propose an intermediate calibre. The 6.5mm Grendel cartridge delivers best among the current crop of possible replacement rounds. The 6.5mm Grendel has superior ballistics at range than the 7.62x51mm. It's also light enough to carry easily and it lacks recoil. Best of all, current M-4 weapons platforms can be used as the basis for the new one- the Grendel system only requires replacement of the upper receiver assembly, which can be done in the field by soldiers without tools. It would also serve as a sniper round (it is extremely accurate at range, and the AR-15 is an extremely accurate platform), and as a standardised machine-gun round (given its hitting power). Logistics would be greatly simplified as a result, and magazines from any weapon could be inter-changed with any other.
At least we're not talking about using .17 calibre ammunition, which was quite the hot idea in the nineties. Yeesh. I often wonder how we got through that decade as well-off as we did.

Trick or treat, suckers!

2005-10-31T19:31:00.000-05:00

To-day, on a balmy October evening in the year 1517, a certain set of ninety-five theses were nailed on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Saxony-Anhalt (in Germany, that is). This was an invitation to public debate regarding the touchy subject of indulgences issued by the Romish Church. This issue is even touchy to-day amongst some of the more fervent devotees of Catholicism. This was the beginning of a huge series of events that culminated in the Peace of Westphalia, the underlying document for the modern nation-state. It also eliminated the hopes of some in a unifying the quarrelsome European kingdoms into one continent-wide super-state (sound familiar?) called the Holy Roman Empire. Oddly enough, Javier Solana and Joschka Fisher, both major "Euro-Luvvies" (the former is the current EU Foreign Minister), have denounced the Westphalia system of sovereign nation-states as "obsolete" for a number of reasons, mostly because it represents a threat to politicians who yearn for a united European super-state.
What was the response from Rome? The Pope at the time, Leo X,, was too busy holding mock poetic triumphs involving his elephant "Hanno", hunting animals with the aid of a spy-glass, and tending to his anal fistula to deal with this new threat. After three years of diversions, he finally got around to excommunicating Luther on 3 January, 1521. Later that year, Leo died. His replacement, Adrian VI, was famous for his statement that the Pope was not always infallible in matters of faith (haeresim per suam determinationem aut Decretalem assurond. He readily admitted that the "problems" in Germany stemmed from the problems in the Roman Curia, and not the perceived lack of virility of Henry VIII. To set the record straight, "Bluff King Hal" had, presumably between drinks, at least four children who survived infancy, three of whom were legitimate (Elizabeth I, Bloody Mary, and Edward VI). He had six children by his first wife alone, but only one survived. He had three by Anne Boleyn, and one by Jane Seymour. There are at least six possible illegitimate children as well.
In any case, it's a monumental occasion to commemorate.

Self-Criticism, Volume II

2005-10-26T15:34:00.000-04:00

Never being one to stray from self-criticism, I publish the latest results!

You are Revelation.

Which book of the Bible are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Not surprising, though I was half expecting to be Quoheleth from Ecclesiastes. See if any of this sounds familiar:
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
And to demonstrate that there is no new thing under the sun, Congress has overwhelmingly rejected the Coburn Amendment. This would have redirected the money going to Ketchikan, Alaska's famous "bridge to nowhere" to reconstruction projects in New Orleans. It was shot down 85-12. This demonstrates that the "stupid party" has completely lost touch with its electorate. Many commentators are thinking about selecting a democrat president next election so that the congress would brake spending. Of course, I think this plan is patent nonsense- Congress itself is the problem, and if Republicans mean "small government" then I wonder what the Dems have planned. The radical left is providing most of the money for the party, so if they seize power in 2006 (which looks exceedingly likely), we can look forward to more of the same. Will anyone stand up against the centralisation of power? It seems an unstoppable trend around the world- everywhere from the United Kingdom to China. It's truly a sad time for libertarians.
"If you don't change with the times, you become an irrelevant joke."
Toto's Steve Porcaro, to Michael McDonald
The pleasant half of this update comes in the form of Yacht Rock. It's from the same people who developed "Laser Fart," and it chronicles the adventures of smooth rock superstars such as Kenny Loggins, Michael McDonald, and the Doobie Brothers. It's amusingly over-dramatic. There are four episodes, and I recommend them wholeheartedly, even if you know nothing about this odd period of history (as I do).

You're either with us or against us!

2005-10-23T19:04:00.000-04:00

It seems that the American "global village idiot" has lately become a trend-setter for even the most progressive elements of the world. To demonstrate, one must hearken back to the heady days before the Iraq war, to the mythical time when Saddam Hussein peacefully governed Iraq with a general consensus. One must recall the speech of one George W. Bush, who famously said that, in the "War on Terror," one can be either "with us or against us." This policy statement met with much criticism from the moral voice of society, who agreed that it would "offend allies." Despite the obvious criticism that an "ally" is an entity that has "allied" itself with another entity (and is thus "with" its ally), this opinion transformed into a general consensus amongst the Fourth Estate (i.e. "Media" as they presently style themselves). It also became a justification for the actions of France, Germany, Russia, China, and company in the subsequent years. If only "dubya" had been more nurturing to Vlad Putin (who is truly a sensitive soul), things would have undoubtedly turned out differently.
However, yesterday's anathema is to-morrow's certainty! The eminent Dr. Richard North at EU Referendum has kindly pointed out an interesting article in The Observer. Its author, noted European Union enthusiast Will Hutton, describes at length many of the problems facing the Union at this time. His final analysis follows.

"In the end it is simple. You either think that, despite its failings, the EU is a force for good - or you don't. And if you are on its side, you have fight for it. Beset by critics and internal division, without a sense of purpose and momentum the EU will rot and implode. Nobody should underestimate the risk - and how it would leave us all the poorer."
Again leaving aside the obvious and snarky comment that leaving the EU and its veritable cornucopia of regulation (and, by leaving the Euro-zone, gaining the ability to set interest rates again) would instantly improve the economy, this is pretty much the same thing "dubya" said. Political necessity is the peer-pressure of the international scene. It often forces nations into the equivalent of strutting about the international stage in polyester bell-bottoms. Perhaps it's time we heeded the wise men of history, who counsel that conscience must replace necessity. It certainly will spare the family of nations many embarrassing memories.

Also, it has come to my notice that the Air Force of the Republic is testing transparent armour that uses aluminum oxynitride. If my memory serves me correctly, its inventor should be an ingenious Scottish engineer. It certainly seems that the British Army could make use of it over in Iraq.

England Expects that Every Man will do his Duty

2005-10-21T11:41:00.000-04:00

Exactly two centuries ago to-day, a Royal Navy fleet of some twenty-six ships of the first, second, and third rate under the command of Admiral Horatio, Lord Nelson defeated the much larger French/Spanish combined fleet under Admiral de Villeneuve off the cost of Cadiz, Spain. Attacking from a tactically disadvantageous position, Nelson's squadrons penetrated the enemy fleet in two columns. They were unable to bring their guns to bear for much of the engagement, but superior RN gunnery managed to turn the battle decisively. Nelson was wounded on board his flagship, HMS Victory, after he was singled out by a French sniper on board le Redoubtable who saw his fanciful uniform. Taken below, where he died several hours later after learning of his great victory, uttering "Thank God I have done my duty." His body was preserved in a keg of brandy and shipped back to England. A grateful nation buried its greatest hero under St. Paul's cathedral in London, where he lies to-day (near the other great national hero, the Duke of Wellington). HMS Victory is also still around, and I had the good fortune to visit her in Portsmouth several years ago. Being a first-rate ship of the line, it had over one hundred guns. It is an impressive sight, and its masts still rise above the most modern ships of the Royal Navy.
The main benefit of Nelson's victory was that it forestalled Bonaparte's plans to invade England permanently. Admiral de Villeneuve lost control of the sea to the British, who held onto it until the end of the Second World War (and the Labour Government of Clement Attlee). However, it seems that the main benefits of his labour have been forfeited by Eurocrats. At the recent International Fleet Review in honour of the battle, nations from around the world sent their ships to pay homage to the men who fought there. The US Navy intended to send a Nimitz-class carrier, the largest warship in the world to-day, as a gesture honouring the importance of one of our principal allies. However, the French (who lost the original battle and killed Lord Nelson) became furious, as the US Carrier would overshadow their contribution, France's home-grown CVN Charles de Gaulle. Instead, the US sent the Saipan, a Landing Ship of the Tarawa class. Does anyone think that this is ridiculous? It's what happens when a nation whose current Prime Minister compared Bonaparte's defeat at Waterloo to the Crucifixion of Christ is forced to re-live its defeats. I wouldn't be surprised at all if by 18 June 2015 (the two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo) the French would try to re-write it? Already, in French Prime Minister de Villepin's book Les cent jours or The One Hundred Days he claims that the defeat of the French at Waterloo had the "glint of Victory." Perhaps he might endeavour to tell Bonaparte about that, considering l'empereur des FranÃ§ais was sent packing all the way back to France from Belgium and promptly de-throned when he arrived in Paris. One might also tell Mssr. de Villepin that Napoleon Bonaparte was born Napoleone di Bounaparte. Being a Corsican, he was more an Italian than a Frenchman. Alas, I'm not one to provoke a hissy-fit over a war that's been done for nearly two centuries.

Important Dates and German Cabinet Antics

2005-10-20T09:51:00.000-04:00

Yester-day was the nineteenth of October. On this date in 1781, the Independence of the American Republic was recognised when Lieutenant-General Charles, Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown to General George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Forces of the United States and France. He first attempted to surrender to the commander of allied French forces, General Comte de Rochambeau, through his second in command O'Hara. However, le Comte directed Cornwallis to surrender to Washington, who was the overall commander. Eventually, Cornwallis surrendered to General Benjamin Lincoln, Washington's second-in-command. The articles of capitulation, though primarily concerned with disposition of prisoners, contained a de facto recognition of the young Republic. This was formalised two years later on 3 September 1783 in Article I of the Second Treaty of Paris.
In Germany, the CDU has finally seen fit to name its six cabinet ministers. They now control the key ministries of Defence and Economics. However, the Economics minister, Edmund Stoiber, leaves much to be desired. He's socially conservative, but he's more akin to Schroeder's outgoing SPD in the realm of economics. Don't expect Germany to improve its economic situation anytime soon. Read more about him and the other CDU ministers at David's Medienkritik. He also has a list and descriptions of the eight SPD ministers. Signs aren't very encouraging from that side of the isle either. The SPD Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is a Scroeder ally. David thinks that he'll continue the anti-American policy of the German Government.
When can we get Prussia back?

Studmobile, or death car?

2005-10-19T21:16:00.000-04:00

I see that my esteemed colleague Professor Massa has decided to send the venerable Studmobile to the auction block. Though it is sad to see the Studmobile end its service to the Society, it must be commended for the sterling work it did. It endured innumerable shuttle-runs to Cabela's, Hardee's, and other exotic locales.
This also brings to the fore the problem of a replacement. How does one replace a vehicle so refined as the Studmobile? Thus far, only two potential candidates have surfaced. I shall present each here.
First on the list is a fine example of German engineering that will undoubtedly appeal to the Prussian side of Herr Professor. It is the one and only Panzerkampfwagen V "Panzer Tank"! It was constructed by Daimler-Benz in Germany, but had a rather limited production run. Regardless, it's virtually indestructible and weighs several tons (about fifty, to be more precise!), much like the venerable studmobile. It also has a 75mm main gun that makes clearing up traffic or wiping out the "Judeo-Bolshevik" Russian menace a snap!
Those put off by the poor mileage of the Panzer (about 0,65 miles per gallon) can instead choose a classic of English workmanship. I speak, of course, of a modern update to an old standard, the modern death car. It's a bit smaller, but has a great deal of ground clearance and extra space in the back for all those battlefield casualties the Belgians seem intent on inflicting. It's also a great way to attract the attention of the ladies, and demonstrates your "'til death do us part" commitment (though it doesn't specify when death parts you, or how, for those afraid of commitment). Another advantage is that nobody will look at the fashionable driver strangely when he transports corpses in the substantial rear compartment.
It is my sincere hope that these choices will aid the discriminating driver in his selection of vehicle.

Good-bye, Berlusconi!

2005-10-14T06:30:00.000-04:00

My friend Matthia (an I-talian by birth) is due to become a citizen of our Republic at about eleven this morning, so I'll keep the update short. First, congratulations are in order to him. He'll be a welcome addition to our national polity.
Congratulations are also in order to CDU leader Angie Merkel, the first woman Bundeskanzler. The cursed Hun has finally seen fit to select a government. Interestingly enough, the losing party (Schroeder's SPD) is getting eight cabinet positions (out of fourteen). In any case, Schroeder is out, and he went out with a bang, insulting "Anglo-Saxon" nations (isn't Saxony a region in Germany?) in General and the United States in particular as a "disaster." That's an amusing comment to hear from Gerhard "Twelve Percent Structural Unemployment" Schroeder, but (as Shakespeare said of Henry VIII) these things are true.
Finally, Mr. Free Market notices that Scotland is attempting to ban air-guns due to the tragic death of a two year old child. This seems an odd choice of prosecution, considering how Scotland has a very high murder rate from very real guns (also banned).
Finally, nine hundred and thirty-nine years ago to-day Duke William of Normandy and King Harold Godwinson of England fought a decisive battle north of Hastings, England. King Harold was killed during the battle, and William became King William I of England (better known as William the Conqueror). William, in addition to building the White Tower (better though incorrectly known as the Tower of London), also built a large abbey on the site of the battle. Though now ruined (mostly by the efforts of Henry VIII), it still is an imposing sight. The altar of the chapel was placed on the exact spot where King Harold fell. My father tells me that there is a good chance that my ancestors fought in the battle. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Le moteur économique français a calé (encore)

2005-10-05T13:50:00.000-04:00

To-day's update again concerns the multi-fold misadventures our moral betters in Europe. First, for those of you wondering, the recent German election (18 September) is still dragging on. A key vote in the city of Dresden again gave a (marginal) victory to Angie Merkel's CDU/CSU party. However, the SPD is only four votes behind in the Bundestag, and are still demanding to lead the governing coalition. Talks are still dragging on, and it appears that a "grand coalition" will be formed so that productivity will cease altogether.
Meantime, in the other part of the European Union's "Engine", French Workers have called a massive general strike for reasons that are not entirely clear. Though this is hardly news (there are massive strikes in France every year), what's interesting about this one is that the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin (previously famous for crying on the Battlefield of Waterloo), is about as far-left as one can get outside the Communist party. Even de Villepin knows that the current French economic structure is untenable and bound to collapse, and that reforms are necessary. We'll see whether France sinks or swims.
Next, in the progressive Scandinavian lands, a disabled man in Denmark has demanded that the state to reimburse him for his visits to local prostitutes. It'll be interesting to see whether this will spur the Danes to consider the crazy "Anglo-Saxon" (as the French call it) idea of "personal responsibility."
Finally, the news from merry Albion grows increasingly bleak. In the government corrections bureaucracy, employees have been banned from wearing the flag of St. George, which is England's national flag, because it's used as a symbol by nationalists. The BBC ran a poll discussing "changing" the national flag to make it less offensive. To add insult to injury, Dudley Borough Council has banned likenesses of pigs to appease the vocal Muslim minority population. Oddly enough, Muslims are only banned from eating pork, not reading it (or, in the case of our country, seeing it built on their campus).
It seems to me that ridiculousness in government advances in stages. First, a ridiculous proposal is disguised as "sensible" and "necessary." Its critics are silenced with terms like "we're just banning smoking in restaurants, which is in the public interest because they are public places. It's not like we're banning everywhere." That accomplished, a few years pass by to allow the lawsuits to settle, and then an ambitious councillor puts for the idea to "ban smoking in all public places." Though far-reaching, he notes the success of the previous ban as an example, and silences critics with "we're targeting only one, very specific behaviour that is demonstrably deadly to all. It's not as if we're banning fast food because it's fattening." Another ban passes, and a few years later the same health-types begin examining the idea of banning "trans fats" in food. Thus, the government becomes so ridiculous that it goes beyond parody and its citizens are solemnly convinced of the necessity of extreme measures against a bogeyman that never truly threatened their safety.

Self-Criticism and a Personal Note

2005-10-03T12:21:00.000-04:00

Here's more progressive self-criticism. It was in the "word choice test" at the "OKCupid" people's self-critical biography site. I took it on a lark, and obtained the following result-

English Genius
You scored 100% Beginner, 100% Intermediate, 100% Advanced, and 86% Expert!
You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

Thank you so much for taking my test. I hope you enjoyed it!
Translation: Nerd!

It's about that time when people look at graduate school. I'm looking at two presently, with strong parental insistence on a third (cheaper) university. Where it will lead me, no one can say.

The Crisis of Liberalism

2005-10-02T16:51:00.000-04:00

It fell out that I had a few spare moments to-day, and so I found myself reminiscing about the early-summer endeavours of our Society. Specifically, we held a symposium concerning the question of modernity. We concerned ourselves with its origins and problems. Though recent posting is certainly not up to the level it once was, I think taking another "cheap shot" at modernity. I invite my fellows to contribute their thoughts.
Dr. Phillips is a professor of Political Science at my University. Though one would scarcely know it from external appearance, Dr. Phillips has an exceedingly rare combination of traits. First, he has an inquisitive and critical nature, native to the philosopher. Second, he can wield effectively the mystery of power, even in such slight quantities as are given to university professors. He uses the widespread fear of him present in each freshman class to ensure that people actually do read Plato's Republic. Thus, though he can use power as a means to reach an end, the end he seeks is noble rather than selfish.
Dr. Phillips has often spoken of a "crisis of liberalism." He asked of his ten o'clock in the mourning class (rhetorically, it seems) a startling question- why has liberalism become so collectivist? How can a philosophy rooted in individual freedom turn into a collectivist monstrosity? The turn-about from Jeffersonian Liberalism to Clintonian "third-way" nonsense is so complete, it begs a citation from Dante.
Were he as fair once, as he now is foul,
And lifted up his brow against his Maker,
Well may proceed from him all tribulation.
I would say that the modern failure of liberalism lies in its radical secularisation and claims on scientific certitude. Liberalism held that self-interest could replace human spiritual dignity. This was an untenable proposition, and it was replaced by the vastly more untenable proposition that people were mere "economic agents," concerned only with the consumption of goods. From this determinism we get the roots of modern "liberalism"- Marx's "scientific socialism," Skinner's Behaviourism, Maslow's material-heavy "hierarchy of needs," Keynesian economics, and Erlich's Malthusian "Population Bomb," where people are too stupid to conduct their own affairs. Due it its authoritarian bent, this version is longer-lived and has developed deeper roots than the previous incarnation. It's a disastrous direction for our future, but no large party has proposed any other course. It's either the fast-track or slow-track to scientific Utopia*.

Just as the French word for shower needs a footnote translation (spoiler: it's "Douche"), in the Greek "Utopia" means "nowhere"

Self-critical biography!

2005-09-28T18:00:00.000-04:00

Here's the latest fad test. I was inspired by Murdoc Online to engage in this month's bout of self-criticism.

You are a
Social Liberal
(63% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(80% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Libertarian

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Dear me, it seems I've become rather authoritarian as of late. Perhaps I might start threatening others' jobs or taking away air-soft guns. But, political views are truly passÃÂ©. Perhaps I'll get in on the latest fad, health dictatorship! There's another test that foretells the date of your death based on probability. Well, that's interesting to note. Let's see when I'm due to kick the bucket.
JANUARYRY 2058 at age 74.7 of a heart attack, or a car accident.Lonelinesss came in third at thirteen per cent probability. Sadly, I have more health and vitality than the average man. Also, I've lived thirty per cent of my life, which has been wasted away in educational institutions. Good thing I have so much to show for my extensive schooling.

In any case, if I've learned anything from this, it's that I live too long and I'm a mean-head. At least I'm no Nazi. I've merely a bad case of "insensitivity."

There's little new content to add, so I shall cut short for to-night.

Lunar Livery Let-down

2005-09-27T09:29:00.000-04:00

Back when I was a wee lad, and foolishly trusted government, I thought that space exploration was best left to the faceless bureaucracy of the state. I lived in perpetual fear of the day when a craft covered in advertisements set down in the dusty soil of Mars. I figured only government-run space programmes could provide the daring and technical skill to reach other planets, ad-free.
It seems to me, upon reflection, that the only way people are going to get to other planets is through the private sector. I've been confirmed in this view by recent events, such as the repeated grounding of the shuttle fleet. Further confirmation came in the form of NASA's new lunar exploration plan. The site is very user-friendly, and I invite all to take a look at it.
In short, after examining what I could of the proposals, I found that we're re-launching Apollo (the 1960s lunar plan), except the capsule as bigger and it takes twice as many rockets to do send one crew to the moon. Only the capsule returns to Earth, meaning it's another throwaway mission. Undoubtedly it will bring back more return than its Apollo predecessors, but that's not the issue.
The prime issue here is the lack of innovation and risk. NASA is a moribund and sclerotic institution, much like the EU or any other government agency (aside from the military, which naturally must take risks each day). Many exciting new concepts have been floated that could save money and build trans-lunar infrastructure and thus make our presence on the moon a permanent one. Yet all the government is capable of doing is attempting to make a Saturn V out of shuttle booster parts and old fuel tanks.
In order to conquer space, man is going to need to take risks and try new designs. To NASA's credit, they're financing a few truly visionary projects such as the Space Elevator. However, these plans are not proceeding like they should- technological failures, not bureaucratic inertia, should be the limiting force on space development. You certainly cannot explore a realm so dangerous as space without losses. It's a price of exploration, and one I'd personally pay. The rewards outweigh the risks by orders of magnitude.
On another note, it seems that the devilish Spaniards have decided to give out light sentences to several 9/11 conspirators, while using the opportunity to slam the US. This has brought the suggestion from many quarters that US intelligence efforts in Europe should stop cooperating with the local authorities. It sounds reasonable- US efforts get better results out of Pakistan than with many of the continental powers, who cannot even manage their own economies, let alone prosecute a war.

Fluffy Bunny

2005-09-24T13:54:00.000-04:00

No, it's not another post about EU Commission Vice President Margot Wallström. Instead, I'd like to make note of several spurious accusations made by Grand Inquisitor Torquemada as part of his continuing conversion efforts. I'd also like to note that even the late John Paul II cannot help your case when you misspell "infinitesimal" when insulting my intelligence. Your continuing terror campaign to make me a Sad Panda shall not succeed, much like his previous efforts to cow free men to the Papist Yoke!
No posting to-day, except this note on current law regarding Parody.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has since reviewed this case. It decided that the existence of a commercial purpose does not destroy the fair use exception to copyright infringement. A four factor test must be applied.

Those four factors are:
a)the purpose and character of the new use (including the question of a commercial purpose)
b)the nature of the original work
c)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the original work as a whole
d)the effect of the new use on the market or value of the original.
The Supreme Court stated that the first factor should be more a question of whether there was a verbatim copying or whether the new use transformed the original and how extensive was the transformation. The Court of Appeals decision was based upon the rule that every commercial use is presumptively unfair. The Supreme Court rejected this rule, stating that the finding of a commercial use is only one factor in determining fair use.

There were other issues and rules expressed by the Supreme Court, but they are unrelated to the parody discussion. Suffice it to say that the parody continues to be a fair use exception to copyright infringement."

Democracy is over-rated

2005-09-21T16:05:00.000-04:00

I briefly return, dear reader(s), courtesy of the University's un-marked Wi-Fi connection in the "bridge" area. This is one of three areas on campus with such a connection. The first is our ITS department, but mere students aren't allowed to hog up their bandwidth. The second and third areas are directly adjoining, so one is left with the impression that they only installed one Wi-Fi hotspot. Regardless, one must not denigrate them too much, for they are probably listening.
Again, I must apologise for my lack of posting, which is in turn because I have no internet access at home. However, a number of events have compelled me to make a few brief notes in this underused space.
First, I must comment on the German election. It seems that the campaign was very substantive. The CDU/CSU (the same party, but with a different name in Bavaria) focused on their leftist opponents' economic failures. The governing coalition of the Social Democrats and the Greens focused on blaming George Bush for Germany's economic woes. Also, they said that Merkel was little more than an agent for Bush's policy.
As is evident from the election results, the Germans responded well to Schroeder's well-considered campaign. Schroeder's party, the SPD, dropping Merkel's party from 51% in early polls to 35%. Schroeder is attempting to build a government, as is his opponent Merkel, but at the moment very little is clear. It seems either a minority coalition will be formed and rule by presidential decree, the CDU/CSU and the SPD will have to form a "grand coalition" (imagine the difficulties of needing bipartisan support for every new law in congress), or new elections will be called. The grand coalition is ungovernable, as the SPD wants to raise taxes and the CDU/CSU wants to cut them and deregulate the economy. A minority government ruling by presidential decree seems likely if this happens. Because it rules by decree and lacks a majority, it can't be viewed as legitimate. This was what happened in the governments of Heinrich Brüning (1930-32), Franz von Papen (1932), and Kurt von Schleicher (1932-1933). All of these governments ruled solely by presidential decree because they couldn't muster enough parties in a moderate coalition because extreme parties took away many of the votes. The two principal parties then were the German Communist Party and the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Eventually, a grand coalition headed by Adolf Hitler was appointed by the president.
A similar trend is occurring here (except that there is no Hitler). Both the CDU/CSU and the SPD, the mainstream parties, are down considerably in popularity from the last election (-3.3% and -4.3% respectively). Conversely, the Left party, the PDS (formerly the East German SED party) gained almost 5% this election. SED has also made big inroads to Berlin, where they famously bulldozed the Checkpoint Charlie memorial. They've also recently proposed that the statue of Lenin that used to stand in East Berlin be returned to the city. Given the rapid decay in the German economy, and the fact that the traditional German method for dealing with bad times is no longer open, radicalism is taking its place.
The second issue is the European response to Hurricane Katrina. As one would expect from our moral superiors, European officials have blamed the United States' failure to implement statist policies. The (former) German environmental minister blamed the US failure to join the Kyoto protocol for the storm, and Margot Wallstrom claimed that the problems in New Orleans occurred because of institutional American racism.
What's that? Some people were apparently angered by our European superiors. Many of these reactionaries pointed out the recent (summer 2003) heat wave in Europe, which killed 35,000 people across Europe, thirty-five times the current death toll of Hurricane Katrina. They also claim that the "institutional racism" is just as present in Europe, and that the reason why so many African-Americans died in New Orleans was that they comprised sixty per cent of the population of that city. They also point out that other places that were swarming with crackers were also hit.
However, again we seem to be a bit confused. Remember, people who die in a manner that promotes a European cause celebre are worth more than those who do not. Besides, as we all know, old people (who were the primary victims of the 2003 heat wave) are not worth as much as martyrs for a political cause because they are a burden to society, as our progressive European masters have demonstrated time and again.
For those interested in fun, visit our Uncyclopedia Article on Wheeling Jesuit University

Katrina

2005-09-08T20:47:00.000-04:00

Apologies for yet another absence, but my new "digs" lack an internet connection, making it rather difficult to post.
In any case, the recent debacle of Hurricane Katrina has been on everyone's mind as of late. My thoughts on this are few, but perhaps controversial. Here they are-
1)Complete failure of local responsibility. Despite receiving more federal funding for flood control than any other state, the group of New Orleans decided to use it on pork projects instead.
The mayor refused to evacuate, the governor dallied and by doing so refused to declare martial law or allow FEMA aid. Thanks to these clowns in Louisiana, the fed will undoubtedly centralise power dramatically using this disaster as licence. They should all be shot.
2)Looting. The actions of some irresponsible jerks (such as shooting at rescue helicopters) have moved the New Orleans Police to order the confiscate all civilian arms. In some parts of the city, private individuals bearing arms are the only protection against looters, as the National Guard isn't enough to stop them. The looters will hide their arms, while honest citizens will give theirs up, leaving them in the capable hands of the police department. They'll probably never get them back. Another interesting fact is that, as of yet, no one has discovered where the mayor derives this new authority to order the confiscation of arms. His major power, as far as is known, is to stop the sale of arms in the city.
Of course, the hired bodyguards of the rich do not have to give up their weapons. It seems there's a definite double standard between those who have it (such as Dianne Feinstein, who wants to ban civilian arms, but was issued a special concealed weapons permit), and those who don't (poor suckers like you and me).
3)New Orleans vs. Mississippi. New Orleans is a disaster area, but Mississippi got hit much worse. Why aren't there looters shooting people in Mississippi, or more precisely, looters brazen enough to merit non-stop news coverage? I think the answer lies in the fact that ill-educated red-staters have to shoulder a greater burden of personal responsibility than the welfare-statist New Orleans types. Some will undoubtedly point to race as the deciding factor, but Mississippi has a large black population, and they are just as well-behaved as the whites despite being in a materially poorer condition than their cousins in Orleans.
4)The Bush-bashers and entertainers. Gee, these types are now blaming the BusHitler McChimpyChump Halliburton for the poor response to the Hurricane. I hate to break it to them, but there's a little notion called "subsidiarity" that demands that those most proximal (i.e. closer) to a problem fix it first, followed by more help from outside. However, it seems ol' Dubya, despite being "Chimp Shrub," has managed to control the weather and limit federal response because there was a majority of blacks in one area hit by the disaster.
5)Media-whores. These people get worse with every disaster. My displeasure is better expressed by this fine talking squirrel.

After this hurricane, New Orleans won't be the only thing taking a pounding. Our civil liberties will certainly be hit hard under new "disaster" legislation. It's enough to make me want to pack up for Alaska with a fine PTR-91 (before they're banned, that is) and live in a cabin for the rest of my days.

Unrestricted Warfare and Lawfare

2005-08-25T00:27:00.000-04:00

A few years ago, two Colonels in China's People's Liberation Army wrote a book entitled "Unrestricted Warfare". This book deals primarily with how a technologically advanced nation (i.e. the United States) can be defeated by a less able power using a variety of methods. Such methods would cripple the larger power without involving decisive military action. The Chinese know that their fleet cannot stand up to the US Navy, and they know that they have no defence against the American nuclear deterrent. In order to expand their sphere of influence against American opposition, the Chinese have decided that a creative approach is in order. Tactics such as Network Warfare (i.e. hacker attacks) and economic warfare do not involve direct use of force, yet have a dramatic effect perhaps more so than a military effort.
Another tactic proposed is "lawfare." This is using the court system, "international law," and Non-Governmental Organisations to hamper the ability of the opponent to fight or at least oppose Chinese influence. Lawfare influences public opinion, and is extremely pernicious in a society where the idea of "rule of law" is important. Such rulings are binding, and often debilitating.
Of course, it seems that the Chinese won't even have to try their new tactic. Radical groups here are working hard enough. The latest silliness involves a lawsuit brought against US aid agencies. They are accused of furthering global warming through their development activities. The backing comes at the behest of a number of environmental groups. Read more about it here
This is just silly. Third world nations can either sit in poverty forever and endure famine and all manner of ills, or they can develop. Development means some pollution. This can be ameliorated by technology-transfer agreements that allow developing nations to cut down on their greenhouse production, such as the recent agreement made by the United States and several Asian nations.
Of course, this is anathema to environmental groups. As their mantra goes, technology is never a solution because technology is the problem. They prefer hard limits such as the Kyoto Protocol.
Speaking of Kyoto, it seems that several European signatories might exceed their Kyoto emissions targets. Why is the US's failure to ratify trumpeted above China and India's exemption, or Europe's failure to reach their assigned targets? Simple- ideological and political reasons. Developing countries (responsible for much, if not most, of the release of greenhouse gases) are exempted from any targets, despite the fact that their emissions will continue to climb. This is worsened by the fact that they lack technology to clean up their act. The bonus is that they can ratify the protocol and receive aid from first-world nations without paying a price.
This demonstrates the massively unbalanced effect that a few committed activists can have. Imagine the effect when an organised power undertakes these sorts of activities. It also shows how devious action can undermine a good principle such as rule of law. To counter this influence, one either must ignore the rule of law, or accept de facto marching orders from another power whose interests do not always coincide with one's own. Such is the price of the lack of moderation that characterises modern political discourse.

Travel the World with Dschingis Khan

2005-08-14T15:08:00.000-04:00

Yes friends, you too can travel the world with famous German pop band Dschinghis Khan. Although the band is best known for their trip to Moskau, they've apparently done songs about Rome, Madagascar, the Sahara desert, and Israel. Take a tour with them here.
It seems our neighbours to the South have been active since my last posting. First, I see (with some satisfaction) that hard-left Brasilian President Lula da Silva has been tainted by a massive corruption scandal. This is made more amusing by the fact that Lula was elected on an anti-corruption platform. He's asked the Brasilian People to "forgive him." Though leftist westerners are apparently more than willing to take up his offer, Brasilians have been more reticent. Understandably so, but then one must ask what else they expected to happen when they elected a hard-left nutball who has done nothing to decentralise power. The best checks on government corruption are virtue on the part of government officials and distrust of the state on behalf of the populace. The only way they can rid of the corrupt state there is to eliminate as many chances for officials to enrich themselves as possible.
I also see that Hugo "Fidelito" Chavez has revoked immunity granted to US DEA agents operating with the Venezuelan law enforcement authorities in the fight against drugs. He's also refused to cooperate with them. To justify this action, Chavez has accused them of being "spies" (he's already taken a page out of Fidel's play-book). A more prosaic explanation comes from the fact that since Hugo has taken over the state, Venezuela has given substantial aid (including air cover, I've heard) to the Colombian FARC rebels. It's notable that FARC's primary source of funding is narcotics. It seems to me that Hugo wants an alternate source of funding for all those paramilitary forces that he's equipping. Perhaps I'm just cynical.
In any case, it sounds like Lula's ripe for a military coup. If this sort of thing keeps up, the military there will have little problem removing him. Eventually Hugo will either wear out his welcome and suffer a similar fate and so continue the "cycle of South American governance", or he'll crush the military and become a dangerous version of Fidel Castro due to his control of a significant oil supply.
Fortunately, the US Military has a convenient Tinpot Dictator Removal Kit that we might want to lend to Alberto Uribe. It would certainly ease his troubles with his next-door neighbour.
To-morrow is V-J Day. It's been sixty years since the war that changed the world. We're about due for another one, methinks. In any case, it's a good day for reflection, especially on policies of appeasement, especially those involving Germans.

Hitler's Death Car!

2005-08-06T21:15:00.000-04:00

No, this post isn't about Hitler's choice in motoring. Instead, it's a quick rumination on two subjects. The first subject is Hitler himself, especially viewed through the eye of the excellent Kraut film Der Untergung. The second involves some thoughts on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, an event that occurred sixty years ago to-day.
For those who have yet to see it, I can give high marks to Untergung. It can be a hard film to watch, but it accomplishes something important. Ever since Hitler became a notable figure, he has attained a sort of mythical status. In Nazi Germany, he was obviously lionised as humanity's saviour, and by his enemies as a cartoonish lout (portrayed by Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator. Since the discovery of his true legacy after the war, he's been seen as an inhuman monster, even a sort of demon. In fact, when Annaliese Michel, a Bavarian girl, was exorcised in 1976 one of the demons said to be infesting her identified itself as Hitler. The common view of Hitler to-day is as a psychotic, a madman, or a demonic monster.
In truth, Hitler was a human being, and I think that this fact is the most difficult thing for us to face. Hitler, until the very end, was in control of his own actions and emotions. He did what he did not on the compulsion of some dark force, but rather of his own will. He wanted to do it because to him it was a "necessary sacrifice."
The same with his cronies. I've read one account of Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuerher-SS and a fanatical Nazi, attending the murder of some three hundred Jews. Despite this being a literal "drop in the bucket" compared to what Himmler had carried out, he couldn't watch it. He fainted during the proceedings.
Hitler, Himmler, and the rest of the criminals of the Third Reich were not somehow born lacking a conscience, but instead supressed it for the sake of the "greater good". There's an important lesson here- one's conscience is one's only guide to the world. Once it's ignored, there's no limit to what can happen.
The second matter, also a matter of conscience, speaks of the nuance of conscience, and the sort of inhuman decisions that must be made in the face of war. As stated previously, sixty years ago to-day a nuclear weapon was used in combat for the first time in history. A fifteen kiloton Uranium-gun weapon was dropped onto the manufacturing city of Hiroshima, Japan. Around seventy thousand died immediately, with many more dying after due to radiation.
In modern times, there's been a great deal of speculation (especially from the anti-nuclear lobby) that dropping the bombs was not necessary, and was done for more base motivations. One group holds that the US is inherently racist, and wanted to kill as many of the "Nips" as possible. Others hold that it was more a way to impress Stalin with America's technological prowess. In any case, they argue that Japan had already been reduced, and all that was needed was time.
I don't think these people have done their research, or perhaps they have let their own biases cloud their judgment. Anti-nuclear feeling is more an irrational hysteria than a reasoned opinion in many cases. It's no different here.
The basis of their theory, that a sustained air campaign could break an enemy's morale and destroy their war-fighting ability was a popular one in the early stages of World War II. In fact, aerial bombing was viewed at that time in the same light nuclear arms are viewed now. Prime Minister of Great Britain Stanley Baldwin thought bombers to be so dangerous as to merit a complete international ban, along with severe restrictions on civil aviation to prevent development of technology that might lead to advances in strategic bombardment.
After the war broke out, it was found out that bombers were not the wonder-weapons that they were thought to be. The veritable bristle of machine-gun turrets were insufficient to defend bombers against fighter attacks, and even with precision bomb-sights bombers had difficulty getting bombs close to their targets. Bomber crews suffered a terrifying loss rate in combat missions.
However, advocates of air power insisted that continuous bombing would reduce the enemy population. This is one reason why invasion was delayed until the summer of 1944, rather than 1943, which was the original date. However, it was apparent that this wasn't working, and an invasion was needed.
The will to fight in Japan had not been broken either. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both producing war materiel when they were bombed. Furthermore, the horrific fire-bombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed more than one hundred thousand people in a single night. The raid was carried out on 9-10 March 1945. Later, from 1 April to 21 June 1945, the United States invaded Okinawa, an outlying island that has historically belonged to Japan. Over the course of the battle, the American forces suffered 72,000 casualties, twice the combined toll of Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. The Japanese lost 76,000 soldiers (which, coincidentally, was the entire strength of the Defence Force, minus 2,300 who were captured), and about 130,000-150,000 civilians (militia and otherwise), about a quarter of the population (which was estimated at about half a million).
As for the planned invasion of Japan, projected casualties for the American Forces ranged anywhere from 500,000 (a best-case estimate) to just under two million! Keep in mind that the total toll from the Civil War was about 650,000 on both sides. Also note that the total number of Americans killed in the Second World War ran about 300,00. All told, maybe a million Americans have died in all wars we've fought. Imagine increasing the number by two hundred percent in a two or three year period.
If one imagines the Americans had it bad, the Japanese would be manifestly worse. Their army historically took close to one hundred percent casualty rates because they refused to surrender. The Japanese Army designated to defend Japan had a strength of two million men in fifty-five divisions. In addition, there were a further three million men in the Army at the beginning of 1945, for a total of one hundred and forty-five divisions and five million men. Nearly all of the Defence Army would die in the operation, along with whatever divisions the High Command would throw at the advancing allied forces. If one would take Okinawa as an example, a bit more than a fifth of the population died. In the 1940 census, the Japanese population was about seventy-three million. One fifth of that is 14.6 million people. As to whether that many would have died it is hard to say, but it is worth noting that seventeen million civilians died in the USSR during the Second World War. Still, that's an atrocious figure. Millions upon millions would have died, and it seems likely that Japan would have become a vassal state of the US, as Okinawa was until the seventies.
The counter for this argument was that the Japanese were "ready to collapse" and they just needed a few more weeks. Again, not so. Even after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were still militant elements in the government that would not bend. Eventually the Emperor intervened and ordered surrender. He was apparently shocked to it by the bombings.
Let's hope that the type of decision that Harry Truman made in August 1945 ever has to be repeated. Choosing hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths is not something that one's conscience should ever have to deal with.

Porous Membranes

2005-08-02T18:52:00.000-04:00

It's been some time, but with effort I am able to recall Mr. Beckleheimer's AP biology class. This class, taken my senior year along with Mrs. Chandler's AP Literature class, marked the high point of my interest in science. One particular memory that stands out is the experiment regarding the transmission of sodium ions across a porous membrane. It was certainly a simple experiment of a basic principle, but it has implications beyond the obvious, or even other areas where diffusion of sodium across a membrane is important, such its role in electrically polarising neurons and permitting the "firing" of the cell.
Another example of diffusion over membranes comes in a political form. In this case, the membrane is the southern United States border. It seems a lot of Mexican ions are diffusing across this membrane as of late. The United States government has been reticent to shore up border security despite the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States with something particularly unpleasant. Some of the more cynical might think that, with better border security, future terrorist attacks would be greatly hampered, and there would be no impetus for greater security powers that the government craves.
But it is not our place to question our betters in government. Instead, we must examine the concrete issue of the pros and cons of unregulated illegal immigration. Some have claimed that the true threat is not al-Qaida but rather the increasingly virulent Mexican drug gangs that actively pursue law enforcement with superior tactics and weapons.
In any case, the immigration issue has become the "elephant in the room" of contemporary American politics. Neither political party supports a crack-down on the border, and it is rarely mentioned in what passes for political discourse nowadays. This is curious, because there is considerable public support for such a measure. However, it seems both parties are ignoring it so that they do not appear "extremist." This attitude is rather silly when the parties are either pushing for Intelligent Design theory to be taught in classrooms or constantly comparing Gitmo to a Gulag.
Why are they ignoring it? Some more cynical types might claim that the parties cannot harm themselves by ignoring the problem, and can pick up the vote of illegals (which is rather substantial) in the process. Again, if there's one thing we've learned from the media, it is that we have no place to question the motivations of our betters in Washington, which are undoubtedly noble.
In any case, it seems that the flow will increase soon. It seems a virtual certainty that hard-left Mexico City Mayor Lopez Obrador will be elected to the Presidency of Mexico next year after he was cleared of a pesky criminal investigation involving abuse of power. He is widely compared to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Brasil's Lula da Silva. Although Sr. Chavez is undoubtedly a fine democratic leader completely uninterested in establishing a dictatorship, Lula is another story. Apparently the number of Brazilians entering the United States since Lula's election has increased drastically. According to some, the number of Brazilians entering the US has quadrupled since 2002, which (coincidentally, of course) is the year when Lula was elected on the "I loooove Brasil!" platform from the "Workers' Party". He has attempted to create a South American trade bloc with Cuba and Hugo Chavez to rival the economic juggernaut of El Norte somehow.
Again, some cynical people believe that the cycle of South American politics continues much as it did in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. First, there is a successful government that encourages growth. Eventually, that government is defeated in elections by a hard-left government that opposes los Norteamericanos and said new government tries to create either a regional power bloc or work with another foreign power to overthrow the Gringo domination. Then, either they become enough of a nuisance and are promptly removed by CIA (Allende, anyone?) or they destroy the political and economic structure of the nation with their policies and give an opportunity for the military to take over and rule for a good decade or two. Eventually, the military steps down and a civil government is elected, starting the cycle over again.
If Sr. Obrador, Sr. Chavez, and Sr. da Silva want to get together with Cuba and after a "Weekend at Fidel's" party decide to form a South American regional superpower, who's to stop them? They only have a few years before their respective militaries kill them, so it's important that they have some fun beforehand. However, I propose that the United States should stop playing "protective parent" and let them do as they please. That said, we should close the southern border. The last thing we need is to become a place for people to hide from the consequences of their actions. That way, while we deal profitably with stable allies such as Japan and Australia in the Pacific, we can wave at our Southern friends and watch as their attempt at a regional super-bloc collapses. Perhaps we can make it into one of those popular reality shows, where the audience can thrill to the back-stabbing that invariably follows grand ideas of unification such as this one. If so, said programme will be one of the few types of foreign investment heading into these far-left nations, seeing as how there is no Soviet Union to prop them up, and China prefers not to be too Communist.

Politics aside, here's the result of a fun test I discovered thanks to Professor Massa.

Der Resistance
Achtung! You are 0% brainwashworthy, 27% antitolerant, and 47% blindly patriotic

Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom, justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the the dark side.

Breakdown: Your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but
you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance
to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight Fuehrer with furor, so to speak.

Conclusion: Born and raised in Germany in the early
1930's, you would have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even
your friends' oppressors. Congratulations!

Less than 5% of all test takers earn a spot in Der Resistance!

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 0% on brainwashworthy
You scored higher than 38% on antitolerant
You scored higher than 69% on patriotic

Link: The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test written by jason_bateman on Ok Cupid

The Rosen Sanction

2005-07-31T22:43:00.000-04:00

No, as much as the immanent death of former RIAA Duchessa Hilary Rosen on a high mountain at the able hands of Clint Eastwood might appeal to some, it is not the type of "sanction" that merits my long-delayed return to blogging. Instead, we must examine the field of sociology to understand the sort of sanction Ms. Rosen has applied to society. In sociology, a sanction is a form of social control, a restriction applied by society (or rather, to Sociologists, the state) for some reason. Some sanctions, such as punishment for crime or restricted information, serve a positive purpose in society by preserving social order or ensuring military supremacy over other states. These sort of sanctions are generally well-founded and more or less universally acknowledged.
However, there are other sanctions that less emphasise the "social" aspect and instead focus more on "control." Mme. Rosen's pet sanction is one of these. You see, Mme. Rosen was the head of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) during the late nineties, and she is also the source of that body's policy of bringing lawsuits against assorted vicious grandmothers and pernicious pre-teens. This has made her subject to almost universal revulsion on-line. At a debate in Oxford University two years ago, Mme. Rosen was on the short end of a decisive 233-72 vote.
Yet it seems that even with her much-hated lawsuits aside, Mme. Rosen also crafted another bit of legislation that is every bit as odious as her court-room antics. This is, of course, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Essentially a gift from the US Congress to the RIAA, the DMCA was a far-reaching piece of legislation that attempted to "build a bridge to the new century" as the Notorious B.I.L. was so fond of saying. Aside from implementing "World Intellectual Property Organisation" treaties into US Law, the DMCA reached into the nascent "problem" of online piracy. This meant attacking the means of piracy rather than the pirates themselves. The end result? The limitation of our rights yet again.
I suppose that at this juncture people are wondering why I'm upset about a bill that was signed into law almost ten years ago. The reason for this is that to-day I downloaded a hard-to-find song from the post-modern eighties classic Manhunter from Apple's iTunes, which was the only place I could find it. I paid for the song and downloaded it legitimately. Once it was on my hard drive, I figured that it I would be able to load it into my MP3 player and enjoy it as I do my other songs. However, being confounded at the technical challenge of converting my M4P song to MP3 format, I discovered that I was forbidden by Federal Law to convert a song I had lawfully purchased into a song I could play on my MP3 player.
One's first response is that this is silly. The federales wouldn't be that intrusive, would they? Obviously, this is more paranoid libertarian garbage.
I invite those who disbelieve to examine the United States Code, Title 17, Section 1201, under the heading "Circumvention of copyright protection systems." Part "A" of this law is quoted:

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."
The "two-year period" expired in 1998. As a result, if I convert my M4P music to MP3 format, I'm committing a federal crime. By converting my song, I circumvent Apple's Copy Protection embedded in its M4P format. This is contrary to the idea of "fair use", which holds that I can convert formats as I please so that I might better utilise my file.
This brings up the perennial libertarian concern of the sheer volume of laws out there. One cannot be a good citizen, since one cannot possibly follow one's conscience and the law at the same time. Given that the conscience has primacy over temporal (not natural) law, the concern then becomes avoiding getting stomped on by the force of the state. There needs to be serious reform if we're to allow the citizens of good conscience to live in peace. The "causeway" of the law that Thomas More described needs to be extended from a tightrope over philosophical ravines to its original path, set down in natural law.

The most over-rated goal in politics

2005-07-16T21:30:00.000-04:00

To-day, my driver's-side window of my evil SUV exploded. Apparently the rapid decrease in external temperature led to a buildup of pressure in the cabin, causing the safety class to crack up and blow out. Very strange. Perhaps the government is involved.
Regardless, to-day's rant is on the topic of politics. Politics has always been a sentimental science, with each side galmorising the period in history that most closely represents their utopian vision. For the modern Clintonista (i.e. authoritarian democrat), that period was the nineties. The carefree nineties represent an almost mythical time period in modern thought. In 1999, anyone could become an inter-net millionaire, and money grew on trees. Perhaps the reality was a bit different, but the Clintonistas still have fair dreams about the days when the Monica Lewinsky scandal was the greatest trauma to rock the nation.
Many others have different views about this magical decade of overpriced coffee and long-running TV sitcoms. Some heretics even think this was a decade of unparalleled ridiculousness, where serious foreign matters such as the wars in the former Yugoslavia were glossed over whilst the cult of celebrity was at its peak. Some have likened the America of this decade to the proverbial ostrich with its head in the ground.
However, these nay-sayers ignore the greatest achievement of the nineties. According to the Clintonista types, a national consensus of a sort existed and guided the progressive progression towards progress- the bridge-building to the twenty-first century, as it were. These types claim that we had none of the vociferous political fighting that marks political discourse nowadays. Furthermore, internationally we had wondrous coalitions and plenty of multi-lateralism to protect us against the bad guys. There was no nuclear North Korea or Iran, and Iraq was a distant problem mentioned only when the administration launched cruise missiles at random buildings.
Again, the critics claim that there was no sense of consensus outside of the Democratic party and the media organisations. Remember the Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals? Furthermore, the critics contend that North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, and Iraq were engaged in secret arms-building throughout the nineties, and we're only now hearing about it because at the time we were too focused on the latest goings-on at Central Perk to pay any notice over-seas. Only now, where we have sites like Strategy Page and resources like Google Earth, can civilian analysts notice this buildup and coordinate their thoughts to create a comprehensive picture of what's really going on without depending on some empty suit at CNN to decide between an expose on the North Korean nuclear programme and the secret life of Bill Clinton.
But on to the main question. Is political consensus something to seek? Do we really want that warm and fuzzy feeling that we get when we think that there is a comprehensive blueprint for the bridge to the twenty-first century?
I would argue that we don't. First, any sense of "consensus" will automatically exclude a significant portion of the population from the political discourse. Furthermore, the discourse becomes boring, as there's only one message being preached. People lose interest in the political process and their attention focuses else-where. This is a bonus for Clintonistas, who like the idea of an activist and even an authoritarian Federal Government that enforces the consensus. They do not like public pressure deterring them from a course of action, since they are acting for the betterment of all (whether they like it or not).
Secondly, a "consensus" does not adequately serve the needs of a government. Oftentimes, radical measures are needed to save a nation (especially, it seems, after years of "consensus"). Margaret Thatcher was a radical politician, but her reforms saved the British economy and the British State from virtual third-world status. Consensus-building does not admit these possibilities: Thatcher is still an extremely controversial figure in British politics. If she had attempted to build consensus with Labour, she would have accomplished nothing. The same goes for the Reagan administration after years of the Nixon/Ford/Carter malaise and stagflation.
An example of how a "consensus-builder" is failing to save their economy comes in the form of German CDU leader Angela Merkel. Frau Merkel will more than likely become the next Chancellor of the German Republic after the massive defeat of social democrat Gerhard Schroder. Many had their hopes pinned that Frau Merkel would be a German Thatcher, leading the German economy out of its worst depression since the Weimar Republic. However, it seems Frau Merkel doesn't have the stomach to do what must be done for Germany's long-term survival. Instead, she offers only a meagre plan that will probably increase effective taxes by closing loopholes. By trying to create a consensus, Frau Merkel is dooming the German economy. She has merely loosened the economic noose slightly. For those interested, read details of her lukewarm plan here at TechCentralStation.
A third negative about a consensus is that it really doesn't exist. The sense of consensus is usually a put-on by the powers-that-be that allows them to suppress the voice of the opposition and lend themselves a special legitimacy. Though a general and clear consensus does exist on some subjects (such as the Kelo-authorised abuse of eminent domain), most political controversies do not have anything close to a resolution at hand. To pretend that there is a consensus is silly. It also requires the suppression of the opposing view. Though this prevents the vociferous exchanges of political battles, it also prevents the democratic process from running as it is supposed to.
I prefer the loud and super-heated political barrages of modern times to the deafening silence on political matters that characterised the nineties. At least we can exchange political opinions in an unregulated and open manner, as the Founders intended. By these vulgar machinations, we maintain our liberty and do not pave it over for a lyrical bridge that goes nowhere.

Fun with WMDs

2005-07-15T22:20:00.000-04:00

To-day is a big day for Weapons of Mass Destruction, or rather to-morrow shall be. On 16 June 1945 at 05:29 Mountain Time the first nuclear bomb was set off near Alamagordo, New Mexico. This will be the sixtieth anniversary of the moment when, according to the old metaphor, man released the nuclear genie from the bottle.
True to recent form, world events remind us of this momentous day by bringing nuclear arms back into focus as a chief threat to man. I have two nuclear matters this post, one regarding a nuclear threat and the other a very unusual response and perhaps an explanation as to why teh BusHitlar McChimpy Halliburton emphasised the danger of Saddam's WMD capability during the run-up to the Iraq war.
One good reason for reading alternative news-sources is that it points out articles that would normally be buried or not even covered, even if they do represent a matter of the most extreme importance. Through places like Above Top Secret and Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country, I've come across an article in the London Financial Times. This article quotes a top Chinese General on a number of prescient defence matters. The most shocking quote in the lot concerns US intervention on behalf of Taiwan in case of Chinese invasion. Of this, he said that ÂIf the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons.Â The term "Chinese Territory" applies to Chinese shipping and military hardware as well as the mainland. He threatens not only tactical action against US and Taiwanese forces on Taiwan, he also made reference to strategic nuclear strikes against the United States.
Of course, General Zhu is a hawk. Perhaps his is not the mainstream view, but it seems to me that the more hawkish stance China is taking will worsen as the years go by. China seeks to prove itself a superpower by taking back the "rebellious province." If they're foiled, then they will lose the initiative and will be reduced to a laughing stock. The US will remain the superpower at China's expense. Conversely, if China succeeds in taking Taiwan, it will be poised for further expansion and will have the fear and respect of other nations. It's entirely possible that a future Chinese administration might use the nuclear card. If they don't use their deterrent, than it's worthless. The sad truth about nuclear weapons is that when one has to make the decision on whether to use them, it is already too late. Launch, and you have a nuclear war. Don't launch, and you lose not only the war but your deterrence capability.
Go read the article here.
The other interesting item is that I learned from the United States has been in a declared "State of Emergency" since 14 November, 1994. This is news to me, as I have yet to be rounded up for my obstinate opinions. I checked the matter out myself. According to ATS (which can be less-than-reliable at times, seeing that it is a conspiracy site), the declaration of national emergency comes in Executive Order 12938.
Naturally, I headed over to the handy web-site of the Federal Register to take a look at the order in question. Certainly enough, when I opened the order, the following phrase was plainly visible:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), Executive Orders Nos. 12851 and 12924, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."
He then goes on to enumerate special powers to deal with this emergency. Most of these deal with negotiation powers in regards to the subject of WMD proliferation. In addition, sanctions for nations that engage in WMD proliferation are spelled out. However, the fact stands that this order was never rescinded. We live in a "state of national emergency" at the moment. One wonders how many other executive orders declare a "state of national emergency" for another topic and spell out special powers for officials. The early-nineties "war on drugs" comes into mind. Don't believe me, read it yourself.
Regardless, this demonstrates that even with publicly available documents such as this Executive Order, one is still left in the dark by the government. Interestingly, the Executive Order pursuant to National Emergencies is currently EO 12656. It replaced the draconian EO 11490 that authorised total nationalisation of every aspect of life. The current EO still calls for government-determined action, but does not demand centralised decision-making of every sort. It's noticeable that 12656 was signed by Reagan, while the more authoritarian 11490 and the even older (and often cited on militia websites) orders 10990-11005 signed by Nixon and Kennedy respectively. God bless the Gipper.
We must be cautious not to let our public officials turn every situation into an emergency. As they know, their power is limited by the constitution. It can only be suspended (without riots) in an emergency. The key to power than is convincing the public that there is an emergency where there truly is none. The recent obesity "epidemic" is proof of this- the diet nazis can only pass theiludicrousus programme if people stop thinking and react to emotional stimuli only.
Now it's time to adjust the tin-foil beanie...

Treason doth never prosper...

2005-07-14T19:12:00.000-04:00

..what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
-Sir John Harington

One word I hear bandied about more and more these days is the word "treason." Mostly it's been put forward by the political right, levied against some of the more radical anti-American types. They argue that some, such as Jane Fonda, are guilty of treason against the Republic because they produced propaganda for enemy nations (in Fonda's case, North Viet Nam).
More recently, a more creative interpretation of the crime of treason has come from Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, who proclaimed that two op-ed writers in the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece that was ""treasonous for the state of Michigan." The article criticised the governor's plan to increase taxes on businesses, insurance companies, and banks. They pointed out that these type of organisations tend to move away from higher-tax areas or pass on their increased costs to the hapless customer. The authors estimated more than twenty thousand jobs could be lost, and the proposal was defeated.
Understandably miffed, the governor let loose with the curious remark. According to the article, the governor has recently made a habit of using the term in reference to her enemies.
Some spoil-sports are inclined to point out the legal definition of treason, which is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States. This definition lies in Article III, Section three, clause one of this document. Here is the clause in question-
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The appropriate section of the US Code (Title 18, Â§ 2381) says more or less the same thing, but also outlines the punishments for the offence of treason-
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Some less visionary types might think that thegovernorr has "flipped her lid" and is, as the British are inclined to say, "throwing her toys out of her pram." They think that the limited concepts of tradition- the idea treason applies only to federal cases, as states do not have the independent ability to wage war and/or have enemies. They furthermore note, with a hint of sadness, that this is the sort of super-heated political rhetoric that inevitably results when a public official with a Napoleon complex loses to the process of democracy.
Of course, these silly people are quite wrong. We must remember that our constitution, like our law and custom, is a living document that can be altered by our loving andbeneficentt betters in government. That definition of "treason" is based on fear and misunderstanding. Back in the time the constitution was written, "treason" meant doing anything that displeased the administration. This meant that the constitution's stricter definition was based on fear. In modern times, we have perfected an intellectual utopia under the leadership of our loving governments. There is no longer any need for anyone to worry about the government abusing their power or stomping on the rights of citizens. Such thoughts are truly reactionary fears that must not be heeded. Government is here to look out for you, and they want to work in an honest and trustworthy manner.
Remember, the word "treason" means whatever you want it to mean. If Michigan'sgovernorr has a true, heartfelt desire to include criticism of her administration's efforts in the definition, we shouldn't stop her. She's worked very hard to rid the state of worms and trash like those banks who sit out-of-state and ruin her people's revolution. She knows that "they are unwilling to adapt to the spirit of our revolution...We don't want them! We don't need them!" Since thegovernorr obviously knows what is best for her state, we shouldn't question her decision, because that would be judgmental of us, and mean.
As for the political right questioning the patriotism of people like Jane Fonda, it is typical of theirtemperamentt. Progressive pioneers like Jane have been trying for many years to increase understanding between differing nations and prevent war. Listen to the words of the brave poet D.S. Savage, writing during the festival of intolerance known as the Second World War, said that he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.". He furthermore cautioned "who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" In a final and touchingly modern statement, he ended with a plea for the universal solvent, tolerance. "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."
As an example of government officials working in our interest, the ATF has banned the importation of foreign gun parts such as barrels, frames, and receivers. This, of course, makes repair of many types of popular and legal firearms impossible. Some might view this as unconstitutional, or at least something that should be passed in the legislature. Of course, these silly people don't see the visionary path of bureaucratic management. As we all know, people with weapons can be a barrier to the aims of the state. Some have noted that they moved only after the response to the visionary Kelo decision seemed to be "time to buy a gun."
We must move forward, not backward. We must emulate the crime-free utopia of Europe rather than the US model.
On a final note, after an examination of the fine message boards at Above Top Secret, I see that our erstwhile UFO channeler Prophet Yahweh has delayed his promised UFO appearance until this time next year. It seems he couldn't make the UFO appear by his 15 July deadline. What a shame.

Fun with Gatling Guns

2005-07-06T23:56:00.000-04:00

"Thank the Lord
That we have got
The Gatling Gun
And they have not"
Old British Proverb
I daily visit Mr. Free Market's fine blog, where one can experience one of the few outposts of classic British humor in a country that is falling apart. He provided this little morsel in his post on the Battle of Ulundi, the final battle of the Anglo-Zulu war.
This entry shifted my mind from its usual morass and into reflective mode. To-day's entry is on the subject of "innovations designed to save the world, but ended up making it vastly worse."
The first one up is, obviously, the Gatling Gun and later the Machine Gun. It was thought in the overly-optimistic Victorian era that a constant stream of lead directed at enemy troops would make war impossible, as casualty rates would be so enormous that armies could not function.
As we learned in World War I, armies would continually march into machine-gun nests despite horrific casualties. By World War II, armies had figured out that marching directly into the line of fire was a bad plan, so they developed doctrines such as those of suppressive fire and fire and maneuver. These neutralised the advantages of the machine-gun and made war relatively safe. Nowadays, nearly every soldier in every modern army carries some form of automatic weapon, yet casualty rates have gone down, not up.
A couple of other innovations designed to doom warfare were the magazine-fed rifle and the airplane. Instead, they've facilitated it, and allowed sides to engage in relatively greater safety because they can minimise exposure to enemy fire.
The modern mind, in my view, is a direct yet slightly twisted descendant of the Victorian world-view, like the Goth son of a football star and prom queen. Nowadays, while we laugh at the naivete of the Victorians, we count on a few of our own innovations to protect us from open war.
These innovations are the double team of nuclear weapons (including the doctrines of MAD and the like) and transnational organisations and international trade. We think that the scale balanced on one end with the tremendous costs of nuclear conflict (the result of open war) with the benefits of international trade and the power of treaties weighing strongly in favour of peace. We assume that it will prevent full conflict between industrialised powers. What we don't realise is that it will probably make it worse.
First, even if one does accept the value of nuclear arms as deterrent and the power of treaties, I'd argue that it merely forces people to find new forms of warfare that will end up being just as destructive as open armed conflict. This doctrine was published in the monumental Unrestricted Warfare, which asks questions such as "What is war?" To most of us, war exists when two sides start inflicting physical harm on one another.
Yet there are many ways to inflict harm. There's economic warfare- a stock market crash would destroy a nation just as efficiently as bombs without the messy problem of retaliation- if a nation's market crashes, it loses its financial resources and this its ability to retaliate in kind. It either has to risk military retaliation (which it can no longer afford) or sit in its newfound morass.
There's also the trend of involving civilians in war. One excellent strategy for electronic warfare would be to hijack computer systems that control the routing for trains &c. One could actually kill members of the population and, if it is done correctly, it cannot be traced. It could be used for wide-ranging destruction, economic and otherwise. Yet it leaves one blameless in the eye of the world.
Aside from the many new forms of war opened up by this, I think that these will be co-opted into future wars. Nuclear weapons don't have to be used to level cities in dramatic fashion- EMP from an upper-atmosphere burst will shut down an entire country of a considerable size. All one needs is a single nuclear weapon to accomplish that purpose. Furthermore, because a high-altitude detonation disrupts the ionosphere that is used to reflect radio communications and because EMP also effects satellites, this singular burst would delay or even prevent retaliation. Such an attack would cripple the economy, especially one so dependent on technology as the United States'.
In a tactical sense, it would in a moment neutralise the technological advantage held by US troops. The EMP would literally fry all of the electronic equipment our military depends on for its edge. The advantage would then lie with the side who is most familiar with the terrain and best able to exploit it.
As for transnational organisations and treaties, history has shown that they tend to make wars worse. Transnational organisations are obsessed with unity. This goes back to their earliest days. It reminds me of King Charles I of Great Britain, who dreamed of yoking England, Scotland, and Ireland together into one unified and harmonious realm united in every way and incapable of experiencing war. However, this meant that everyone had to follow a centralised programme that dictated the totality of life for all people in his realms. Religion was part of that, facilitated by the authoritarian Archbishop Laud. Charles' attempt at civic religion angered the Presbyterian Scottish Kirk, and they refused to obey by signing the National Covenant against him. This began the English civil wars. By attempting to shoehorn everyone into a unified realm, Charles guaranteed war. This goes to show that the English never have much luck with any King named Charles.
The same goes for treaties. Must I remind everyone of the alliance system that expanded World War I from a conflict between Serbia and Austria into a general European war?
As we can see, man's attempts to enforce peace have failed spectacularly. This demonstrates my theory that man loves nothing better than war. Like the unfortunate dieter, he tries to find ways around the self-imposed regimen that separates him from the object of his desire that he knows is no good for his body. It's time for a realistic self-assessment on man's part. Crash dieting isn't working in this case. The best solution would be to limit war by general convention and habit- common rules agreed on by all sides that limited the scope and damage to the willful combatants.
Will this happen? No, because war breaks out over things that matters, and man always is willing to pull out all the stops to win. It'll continue to get worse, and that's how it is. It's the flaw at the heart of human existence, and it is an irreparable fault.

Live 8

2005-07-05T19:21:00.000-04:00

If you want to lose all of your free time, take a look at Google Earth. It allows you to view satellite imagery of any part of the Earth. It's a great time.
Another addictive thing is Princetons's Global Consciousness Project. It uses a series of random event generators located around the world. Each generator or "egg" produces random numbers. The squared and normalised deviation from the expected means of each generator is calculated and displayed. There's a helpful display with sounds that allows one to hear the level of deviation. In the last several minutes, I've heard a few "pings" and many more examples of the popping sort of noise that signify a significant deviation of a sort. The sounds are ordered by the magnitude of the deviation. My understanding is that before major events, the order of deviation increases drastically. It supposedly predicted the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States and the earthquake on 26 December 2004. Of course, it didn't display a variation on other key dates such as the recent earthquake in Turkey. Nonetheless, as a believer in things unknown, I think there are bonds that we do not fully understand connecting things. Perhaps more research is required to achieve a fuller understanding. After all, Matter/Energy is estimated to make up only five percent of what's in the universe.
One of the latest things to hit the headlines is the "Live 8" concert. Everyone's been tripping over themselves in an attempt to promote this concert. Some have called it "The Greatest Thing to Happen in the History of the World." Others have more prosaically described it as "the Greatest Concert Ever." In any case, those responsible are engaging in a hearty bout of self-congratulation. Some have called for the Nobel Committee to award a Nobel Prize to Live 8 organiser Bob Geldorf. Given the quality of recipients nowadays, it wouldn't be at all surprising if St. Bob received the honours.
Of course, one is made to wonder exactly what "Live 8" accomplished. The original concert was designed to raise money for famine victims in Ethiopia. Live Aid was rather successful, though some spoil-sports believe that most of the Live Aid money never got where it was supposed to.
Live 8, on the other hand, was designed to "raise awareness" of poverty in Africa. No specific programmes other than conning the G-8 leaders into giving more money in foreign aid to Africa. The main news is that a great number of old-hat performers from the sixties put aside their immense personal feuds and joined up with the next generation of humanity's saviours to tell the Elite Eight of the world to spend more of other people's money. Not their own, of course. It would be a disservice, because only by participating in their dissolute life-styles can they renew their energies to fight the tides of global poverty with the funds of others. Besides, it does us no service to question our superiors.
Regardless, I think the difference between "Live Aid" and "Live 8" is in how charity is handled. "Live Aid" represents the classical model of charity- taking money volunteered by citizens for a worthy cause. "Live 8" on the other hand represents the new charity. Rather than appealing to individuals to volunteer their own money, the charity lobbies for funding from leaders that wield the coercive power of the state. Thus, everyone becomes an unwitting benefactor of their cause, and there's nothing they can do about it.
Even so, the final decision lies with the political elite, not our the dear soft-hearted minstrels. Political elites make decisions based on their own interests, and rightly so. I'd be rather nervous if intellectual giants such as Bono and Green Day dictated national policy. In any case, their efforts will come to nothing if the national leaders refuse to follow their programme. In the end, national interest rather than star-studded lineup will dictate the aid programmes.
So then, what is the point of "Live 8"? All indications seem to be that the proportion of those favouring a large increase in aid are about the same. There seems to be a growing cynicism about the efficacy of foreign aid as we see how the money we send is being spent.
Why must we then endure the moralistic pretensions of men like Geldorf and other veterans of the British Invasion as if they are so many latter-day Chekhovs? Simple- they view themselves as a morally superior class of being with the responsibility to be the moral minders of mere peons such as myself. They must steer us from our wayward path while shooting smack into both of their eyeballs.
Will we ever see the day where Africa can stand on its own? Possibly, but then we might have to find other poor unfortunates to assuage our consciences.
Why do we feel so guilty? Well, that's another post, and I've no answer to give. Regardless, I think that Live 8 and its ilk represent man's tendency to prefer meaningless gestures to true acts of charity.
In the mean-time, visit Professor Massa, who has an interesting post on Operation Rhine and the Bismarck, with Hitler "getting all sad" and Mecha-Stalin making a guest appearance.

Remembering Republicanism

2005-07-04T19:33:00.000-04:00

It's the Fourth of July. A long time ago, a group of sagacious men gathered in the summer heat in Philadelphia to commit an act of treason against HM The King. Their reason was an inalienable belief in the rights of man. Their focus on the liberation of the individual was all-encompassing. Despite what we've been told in the modern era, men like Jefferson wanted to see the liberation of slaves and the extension of franchise to worthy citizens.
Regardless, the America they sought was a society based on the notion of respect for individual rights that are granted by God and thus in man's nature. They knew that a society that protects the rights of individuals provides the best basis for continued advancement.
They were correct. The country that they built grew rapidly, attracting immigrants and, on their industry, building a vastly strong nation out of a pastoral colony that by its two-hundredth anniversary stood above all others and dominated the earth. The Republic's power eclipses that of any potential rival by a substantial margin in both crucial areas of economics and military might.
Adding to the truism, new injections of liberty spurred on greater growth. After the abolition of slavery, for example, the nation redoubled its development and rebuild after a long and destructive civil war and continued to grow until the Spanish-American War, when the US beat a European power both by land and sea.
Similarly, after the enfranchisement of women in 1920, the US built up its power (after the great depression and FDR's lacking economic programmes)until by the end of the Second World War, it eclipsed all of the European nations altogether.
Then a different sort of struggle for liberty happened- the Civil Rights struggle.
This bit of history is interesting, as it never should have been made necessary. With the passage of the XIII, XIV, and XV amendments to the constitution after the civil war, Blacks were enfranchised and extended full rights. However, the Supreme Court of the US ruled that the states could still practice private discrimination, and gave segregation its blessing in Plessy v. Ferguson. Thus, the practice of discrimination and the infamous Jim Crow laws could have been prevented. However, the Supreme Court had other ideas.
What is especially ironic is that when the problem of discrimination was finally tackled, it was done so with further government involvement. Rather than merely stating the fact that the XIII, XIV, and XV amendments in their nature prohibited discrimination, there was a massive amount of government involvement. The state took over many aspects of the lives of Afro-Americans, building massive projects for them to live in and subjecting them to social engineering. The result is that racism has merely gone underground, and finds new fuel in the controversy over the social engineering programme known as affirmative action. Further attempts to root it out have more deeply entrenched it.
Such is the result of government interference. When you outlaw racist talk, racists re-invent themselves as "alternative politicians" and, rather than expressing their true opinions that would offend any sensible person, they hide their rhetoric behind a mask. Eventually, when their cause becomes popular enough, they unmask their beliefs when it is too late to do anything about them. Such is the case in Europe, where we see the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen and other radical politicians, who let loose racist and anti-Semitic diatribes that are immensely popular.
What do governments do in response? They increase the rigidity and scope of the orthodoxy. Eventually, it gets ridiculous, as people who express the wrong political views or wearing the wrong colours on your t-shirt. This is a ridiculous state of affairs, and a "reactionary" one at that. Rather than racism being an out-of-date and dying ideology going through its radical death-rattles, it is instead a dynamic and expanding ideology that has the initiative. The racists pick and choose battle-grounds while those ostensibly charged with defending the God-granted rights of an entire group of people only come up with progressively more authoritarian five-year diversity plans and proposals for hate-speech laws. This is ridiculous! They can't stop the tide of racism so they turn to purifying those who aren't, trying to purge them of undesirable political opinions. Why? We all agree on the same thing. What's the point of branding people with the scarlet "R" if they criticise the hip-hop culture or the practice of affirmative action?
We see the same thing happening in other aspects of our lives. Islamist terrorist threaten the lives of people across our civilisation. They pull off a massively successful terrorist attack to demonstrate their power. The result is massive restrictions on everyone else. Proposals for national ID cards have floated about, and have been formalised in the odious REAL-ID act. We all pay the price, made literally into Plebians by the Transportation Security Administration. We aren't allowed to see their extensive rules and regulations, but we are still subject to them. As anyone who's had the pleasure of a Fr. Kevin Quirk law class, one knows that a law is not truly legal unless it has been promulgated.
As I sit here on a rainy Independence Day and reflect on the last several years, I realise that I never imagined I'd wake up in a country that was becoming, by degrees, a police state. Like most everyone else, I laughed at those who predicted that we would live in this kind of society. Yet we're waking up further and further entrenched in it. It's enough to make one wonder.

A Just Day

2005-06-28T21:15:00.000-04:00

To-day I went out to the range to try out dad's old .357 magnum revolver and the full-power military surplus ammunition for the Mauser KAR98 belonging to my erstwhile colleague Professor Massa that I'm keeping for him. It was quite a trip. I put .38 Specials and .357s through the revolver, which can only be fired left-handed. I managed to hit the target nonetheless, and found that the .357s provided a very satisfactory kick. The Mauser, despite its higher power, was more to my liking this time. I must confess I hate the Mauser action, which cocks its hammer on the opening stroke of the bolt. I prefer the Lee action that cocks the hammer on the forward stroke, using the natural tendency of using force to seat the bullet properly.
However, the rifle handled well, and delivered solid hitting power at 100 yards. My sighting is much improved thanks to the excellent game "Brothers in Arms," where I use the KAR 98 to deliver accurate fire. In fact, my only complaint on this otherwise-satisfactory session was the 90+ degree weather at the range.
When I returned home, I was doubly surprised (and pleasantly so) by electronic means. First, I saw on my mail that my custom rifle is inbound as of Monday. It promises to bring much evil and desolation to wherever I choose to lug it. The other news is that certain parties who were greatly angered by the Kelo v. New London case have announced plans to construct the "Lost Liberty Hotel" over the current home of Supreme Court Justice Souter, who wrote the odious majority opinion in that case. To make it even more sweet, this group intends to use his eminent domain ruling against him and evict him forcibly from his own house! To boot, their restaurant is called the "Just Desserts CafÃ©." How sweet can revenge get?
I also see that the Blogosphere has turned out, Left and Right, to oppose the FEC's proposal to regulate individual political speech by bloggers under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act. Kos of Daily Kos is the superstar witness. It's good to see bipartisan opposition to this issue. It's better to have ersatz coalitions of political opponents than no politics at all.
Things are not faring so well in Progressive Britain. Parliament has passed the National ID Card Act. However, it seems costs associated with the plan are soaring. The suggested maximum, Â£100 per person (at current rates, $181.63 US), is apparently insufficient to fund the measure. Clearly there has to be a way to pay it off. The solution? Ministers might be planning to sell personal information for Â£750 a pop. I've yet to see further confirmation on this, but HMG has denied these charges. This opens the question that if the government steals your identity, who will prosecute them? The answer is, of course, nobody. We cannot depend on paper barriers set up by bureaucrats to protect us. We must prevent them from gaining the ability to abuse their power at all. That is infinitely more effective than rules that they set out for themselves and later change.

More Housing Woes

2005-06-25T23:33:00.000-04:00

It seems that the United States has been, as usual, pre-empted by Progressive Britain in the realm of totalitarian statist strategies. While the US blogosphere still fumes over the disastrous Kelo decision, New Labour is forging ahead with the next step. It is breathtakingly authoritarian and grand in scope. Deputy PM John Prescott has proposed a plan that would demolish nearly a half-million private homes and replace them with government housing tracts for Labour voters. The homes being demolished are mostly Victorian homes that the government now considers "unsafe". In addition, the lack of lebensraum in England is putting the squeeze on contractors.
Why does this sort of scheme remind me of Zimbabwe's less PR-friendly version? The government is kicking people out of older homes to make housing more suitable for the lower-class Northerners who tend to vote Labour. Disenfranchisement of one class for another more suitable to the ruling classes.
In another ruling bound to anger most of the internet community, there's been a ruling that effectively criminalises all porn as Child Pornography. However, the DoJ has decided not enforce the law until 7 September.
There's an old saying that the only reason that everyone hasn't been arrested is that their DA hasn't decided to prosecute them. It seems there are all sorts of laws, and one can hardly live without running afoul of some law.
The law should be simple and easily taught in its fullness to each citizen so that they might obey it. Instead, we depend on the kindness of authorities to point out these laws. We're technically supposed to be aware of all of them, even though we aren't.
In war news, Taiwan is constructing phased-array early warning radar networks and putting IFF beacons on their equipment. This is to guard against China's build-up of long-range missiles.

More Kelo fall-out, EU in North America

2005-06-24T23:57:00.000-04:00

The recent Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London has been the subject of immense controversy. It's drawn universal criticism as far as I have been able to ascertain. Naturally, the political sides couldn't be united in their criticism with some half-wits blaming Libertarians, despite the fact that the Libertarian creed "No Force, No Fraud, No Problem" prohibits government intervention, as all government intervention carries behind it the threat of violence.
On an issue like this, people need to be united. The Right hates it, the Left hates it, Libertarians hate it. Blaming one another for the ruling makes no sense- political ideas are born of idealism, and this ruling has the scent about it of a naked power grab. We need to knock off this obnoxious and immature behaviour so that we can help those families who will be evicted. As has been pointed out by the fine folks at Strata-Sphere, the bulldozers are already rolling. Let's get together, use the decentralised organisational ability of the internet and provide those in need with the support necessary to resist this illegitimate decision.
Moving on to the second part of my title, I must confess that the EU is not about to invade North America. In fact, these people cannot even get their sole CVN to cruise over 19 knots or keep its propeller blades from spinning off at that meteoric speed. For those of you who are not Naval Affairs people, US Carriers displace nearly three times as much as the French Carrier and go twice as fast).
Instead, it's a proposal from the always progressive group of power-hungry extra-dimensional lizards we know as the Council on Foreign Relations. You can read the proposals put forth at their "Future of North America" forum right here. Those extra-dimensional lizards are certainly long-winded and love sharing their "9/11 stories" to justify their position. If you'd like the short version, here's a summary on the site of the United States Embassy to Canada. Some highlights include a "common security perimeter," "common external tariff" (sounding like the EU yet?), and a the need to "Develop a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers." Another disturbing and very European element is the proposal to "Institutionalize the partnership" with a plethora of international organisations between the three nations in the partnership. Another touch of EU institutionalism is the "North American regulatory plan that would include "open skies and open roads" and a unified approach for protecting consumers on food, health, and the environment." It sounds a great deal like European Health and Safety Rules. Just as I was beginning to relish the ability to own a bendy banana...
In any case, this is the Tranzi plan for world unification by stages. Tranzis know that no one aside from them likes their ideas, so they have a "gradual" process. It's based on creating regional super-states. First, a free trade bloc is set up, along with a common defence infrastructure. In Europe, it was Jean Monnet's Coal and Steel Community that controlled production of vital war materials that morphed into the European Common Market. In North America, the Trade deal came first in the form of NAFTA. Now we see the proposal for a united Defence as a "common security perimeter." They have a minimum of international involvement, and represent sound thinking.
The next stage is a bit fuzzier. It involves developing a series of multi-national standards and organisations to control said standards. This would be the phase of the "European Community," and the "North American Community." It's a bit harder to swallow, but still based on keen trade-based incentives like standardisation.
The next stage is the trickiest Tranzi stunt of them all. It's the call for the unification of these various standardisation organisations into one super-organisation. They're very cautious about giving it power, because most folk will be uneasy about unification of this sort. It's mostly presented as a measure that promotes efficiency and codifies the nations relations with each other. There's no mention of this in the "North American Community" proposals, but it's likely to come in time. This would correspond roughly with the 1992 Treaty of the Maastricht in EU history, when the European Community morphed into the European Union. As I said, it wasn't terribly popular and barely passed in most nations.
The Tranzis then allow a ten year or so period for the nations to get used to the new government, and they sign a few treaties that centralise bureaucratic power in Union hands. Eventually, they reckon, everyone gets used to being governed by the Union. It's time for the final block to come into play- the Constitutional Treaty of a Federal Super-State. This is represented by the EU Constitution that has poked its head up as of late.
Despite its rejection by France and the Netherlands, the EU Constitution will still be ratified, either in whole or in parts. The ten year process of centralisation by which the Union government used its regulatory powers over certain matters to extend its reach has left the national governments incapable of taking back their authority. This is the critical time. Once it is past, the Union will either have to go on to be a super-national government or will be torn asunder by its members. Given the great love which Tranzis have for the unquestioned authority of the State, it's more likely to be the former, despite protests.
We have to fight against creeping tranzi plans to turn North America into the next European Union. There's no point in adding an additional layer of unelected and unaccountable government that ends up destroying the economy and laying waste to our liberties. Our current government is bad enough about that. Let's not see this plan come to fruition.

Nature of Statism

2005-06-23T23:03:00.000-04:00

Many people are curious at my vast disdain- for government power. They wonder where I get the notion that government isn't a force for good in the world, and instead should be something that is continually under suspicion. After all, these people think that the government is the great leveler that protects us from eeevil corporations.
To answer, I will present two current events that teach a potent lesson about the problems of government run amok.
The first is the continually-decaying situation in Zimbabwe. Our plucky picnic-basket pilfering African Strong-man Robert Mugabe has initiated "Operation Murambatsvina" or "Drive out filth" in order to rid the country of the "maggots that ruin the economy". More than one million people have been driven onto the streets after their homes were torched. Their crops are being slashed and burned as well. It seems Mugabe is trying to drive these people from the city to work the farms he's "liberated" from the White Oppressors. This sort of thing has happened before of course. It seems to be fated for Zimbabwe too.
It's a bitter irony that Africans had a longer life expectancy, better employment, and more food under the incredibly racist Rhodesian Government and the Obnoxious Iain Smith. More men have been killed due to conflict under Mugabe's rule than during the long and bloody insurgency in Smithy's Rhodesia.
What's the problem? According to the progressive stormfront.org "White Heritage Community", it's letting the Africans govern themselves. Of course, seeking policy advice from stormfront.org is pure lunacy. A better explanation is that Mugabe's government shows what happens when government goes wild with absolute authority. The same thing is starting in Chavez' Venezuela and other nations. Horrific democide like Zimbabwe's or Cambodia's cannot happen without government control. That is reason alone to be suspicious of the state.
The natural reaction to this goes something along the lines of "Zimbabwe and America are different. It can't happen here." If only white nations can be free of democide, then that proves Louis Farrakan's dictum that white people are from outer space, or perhaps an Atlantean Laboratory. Again, this isn't true. Genocide and Democide have occurred in nations of all colours. Americans and Zimbabweans are made of the same stuff. We have a few advantages that can easily be squandered- remember that Zimbabwe was once one of the richest nations in Africa.
Closer to home, the Supreme Court has handed down yet another pro-statist decision in the form of the Kelo case. The court has decided to boost the self-esteem of corrupt local governments by letting them use their imaginations to define the limit of Eminent Domain. If your house isn't producing enough tax revenue, then the city can dynamite it to feel better about itself and replace it with a federally-funded shopping centre.
Sensitive Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer all decided that local towns are frustrated in their development, as this pesky "fifth amendment" keeps them from realising their dream of raising money. Fortunately, these Justices saw how the mean spirit of common law and civic virtue was depriving local officials of higher salaries and the pursuit of higher offices. They decided to help the poor local officials in their quest.
Sadly, not all Supreme Court Justices saw the progressive future. Some mean justices, like Justice O'Connor and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist thought that the dreams of our plucky local officials should take a back-seat to a silly concept called "private property." Under this plainly absurd notion, people would be able to own their own houses and keep them as long as they wanted! What foolishness!
As everyone knows, the state is all-powerful, and all of our lives and our things are actually its property. We must worship the all-powerful state, because it is plainly looking out for our best interests.
Enough of that digression. In truth, we've seen yet another blow to our rights as citizens handed down by un-elected dunder-heads who get off thinking about government power. This decision has been reviled by both the Left and the Right, and rightly so. It disparages the right of the individual to better line the pockets of rich contractors and morally bankrupt local officials who want more money at the expense of the rights of their citizens.
I hope Dubya and the congress lays aside the terminally stupid flag-burning amendment and creates some legislation to put the judiciary in their place. The right of eminent domain is only intended for projects that are absolutely necessary- military bases, roads, and other necessities. Greater tax revenues are not a sufficient condition to violate the most basic right of a free society. It's an element of creeping statism wherein the state becomes the only arbiter of its authority, and "rights" are merely a nicety given out at the convenience of the state.
If not, there's not much that the homeowners can do. I can think of a couple of solutions, but they're both rather radical and illegal. Perhaps a bit of civil disobedience is in order. I encourage the Left and the Right to get together and provide for those who resist this injustice. If that doesn't work, there's always a more drastic solution to deal with governments that refuse to recognise man's natural rights.

Javier Solana is teh Anti-Christ!

2005-06-23T00:19:00.000-04:00

Apparently the progressive forum-dwellers at Conspiracy Super-Site Abovetopsecret.com are engaged in a marvelous debate as to the identity of the anti-Christ. There seems to be divided opinion. One gentleman believes that EU Lord High Something-or-other Javier Solana fits the bill. Though the EU is undoubtedly an obscene work of the noon-day devil and its ministers his earthly servants, the Anti-Christ is supposed to have charm. Solana is a Clintonian-era "squarer of circles," who despite his opposition to NATO as a Spanish Politician became NATO Secretary-General for some reason in 1995 and lead NATO's "Operation Bomb Stuff" and "Operation Avoid Scandalous Headlines" in Kosovo during the terrible year of 1999. He's about as inspiring as a Contemporary Canadian Performance Artist.
Another prominent and more believable candidate is the infamous Hillary Clinton. Again, this is entirely believable, as Hillary is a little Mussolini who thirsts after absolute government power. However, all indications are that the Anti-Christ will actually be popular. Hillary is not so, except inside a group of fanatically loyal "Clintonistas" in the Democratic Party. Perhaps they'll be purged by Chairman Dean during his next Great Leap Forward. YEEEEAAARRRGGGGHHHH!
Let's not pick on poor Chairman Dean. He's not the only one guilty of incredible stupidity nowadays. The GOP has decided to pass an amendment to outlaw flag burning. As much as I love and respect the symbols of our Republic, they become meaningless if we start limiting political expression. Naturally, this is the intent of our ruling classes. We'll likely follow Australia, Britain, and other nations where free speech exists "except in special cases decided by the legislature" (i.e. when they decide to ban it).
An amendment like this is will most likely serve as a trojan horse for odious hate speech legislation that limits liberties and favours certain political voting blocs. Such is the future we have to look forward to- the coercive force of the state being used to further the interests of key voting groups. Then, ascribed groups can fight over the crumbs from the State's table instead of asking important questions about the duties of the state. Divide et impera.
I hope common sense prevails. Of course, hope doesn't guarantee anything. I hope to procure a flying Spitfire also. I doubt either of these hopes will be fulfilled.

Speaking of Speaking Too Soon...

2005-06-22T00:33:00.000-04:00

Talk about being over-run by current events! In a recent post, I praised Britain for its tough stance, and gave credit to the always-outrageous Daily Sun for its tractor antics.
Of course, in the two days since Tony promised to take a "firm line" in protecting the rebate, and he vowed that he would only be rid of it if France dropped its extensive agriculture subsidies (for those outside the EU, that roughly translates to "when hell freezes over"), he's completely changed his tune and now insists that the rebate is an "anomaly that has to go." He wants a wider "budget restructuring" that will involve French farm subsidies. Of course, Chirac will never negotiate them, as they are the only thing keeping France's bloated agricultural sector afloat. It seems that Tony will make more sacrifices for the sake of "the project" with no clear benefits. In fact, the UK pays far more into the EU and gets very little out of the deal. It is enough to make one wonder when enough is enough. Certainly, even an Americanised Bulldog such as myself marvels at the inability of Tony to stand up to the EU and his own Europhile ministers. I remember his programme of "red lines-" national prerogatives such as taxation, defense, criminal justice, and foreign policy that Tony swore he'd never give in to the EU. Now it seems the EU is setting up its own diplomatic service and with it its own foreign policy, a Common Defence Procurement Agency outside of NATO, the ability to issue arrest warrants in thirty-one areas, including the vague "racism and xenophobia" charge (remember, any criticism of the Union is, by its nature, racist or at least xenophobic), and a proposal on how member states should tax their people, and more wild proposals for a direct EU tax. Every single red-line has been crossed. Some of them were crossed before he even made up the term.
Tony's self-control when it comes to EU programmes is about as bad as mine when I walk into Cabela's. He can't resist giving more power to the Union, despite massive public opposition. This demonstrates that, nowadays, opinion of a number of bureaucrats far outweighs one's own electorate. Such is the nature of post-modern government.
Further news in the Pessimistic Section, the Planetary Society Solar Sail that I helped fund is silent. The best-case scenario is "unplanned orbit." More likely, the submarine launch and jury-rigged boost engine destroyed it. What a shame.
For good news, I see that the excellent Fulton Armory has expanded their FAR-15 AR-15 type rifle selection. These folks are seriously good at what they do. If you're interested in owning an AR-15 style rifle, or an M14 or Garand, pay them a visit.
I've also started Herman Hesse's master-work novel Magister Ludi. This is a deep novel. So far, I've agreed with most of his ideas about a lack of intellectual rigor in modern education. Years ago, people read Latin and Greek in high school. Nowadays, most people in my college lit class can barely read English. More thoughts will come as I read it further.

More Signs of the Apocalypse

2005-06-21T00:07:00.000-04:00

In this planet's never-ending quest to justify my cynicism about the future, I have two brief events to report to my faithful readers. Both are sickening to be sure, and both are dire portents for the future.
The first is Tony Blair's new religious intolerance law currently being debated in Parliament. Blair, being the foremost leader in his intolerance of intolerance, has taken this drastic step at the urging of Britain's sizeable Muslim community. This law outlaws "incitement to religious hatred," though the definition is no more specific than that. In Islam, denying the basic creed "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet" is an infamous crime. Does that qualify as incitement to religious hatred? Or the more-than-likely catalyst for this bill, the "Koran Desecration" incidents? If someone mis-treats a Koran, does that qualify as "incitement?"
This puts forth serious issues concerning free speech and exercise of religion. I am not a Muslim, and I do not believe in the creed. Must I pretend not to? Must I give a book whose tenets I do not believe in more reverence than I do my own Holy Book? Must I memorise the litany of rules regarding proper treatment of the book?
I don't think Tony, despite his Fabian Socialist origins, designs an end to free speech. Laws like this are a symptom of both his sheer incompetence and the leftist dogma that government is the solution to every problem. Tony knows that Muslim immigrants are a growth sector in his electorate, and as they oppose his backing of the Iraq War, he's giving this to them as a diversion.
The other sign of the immanent apocalypse is from to-day's Awful Link on Something Awful. I never predicted people this sick, but it seems that someone has written homo-erotic civil war fiction. I'll leave it at that.

Live at the Crime Scene

2005-06-19T21:36:00.000-04:00

It seems that the EU budgetary talks have collapsed when Britain refused to give up its rebate (yet another gift from the Iron Lady whose efforts to save Britain Tony Blair is undoing more each day). Of course, the fact that the rebate consists of 2/3 the difference between what Britain pays to the EU and the benefits they receive (about Â£3 billion) does not occur to the likes of l'escroc and walking political corpse Gerhard Schroder. Chirac wants more subsidies to keep his career afloat, and since Britain is the only one of the Big Three European Nations that has a semblance of an economy these days, only the UK can pay for it. Blair didn't sign thanks to the efforts of the always-amusing Daily Sun, who have rented a tractor, emblazoned it with the slogan "Hands off our rebate!", and drove it through the streets of Brussels. I apologise for the lack of linkage to this, but old Sun articles require a subscription to access.
Before one gets too enamoured with plucky Britain's stand against the Continental Goons, it seems that there's much internal decay about the Sceptered Isle. It seems that Tony Blair is resorting to desperate measures to deal with the rise of youth mob culture in Britain. Calling the Army on to the streets shows that the social breakdown in Britain is reaching endemic proportions. Add this to the presence of a political-police organisation (the "Community Support Officers") and the ability of authorities to issue ASBOs, or Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that impose penalties without trial. Let this be a lesson to all those who believe that mere force exercised by the government can replace civic virtue.
On the positive side, someone has finally produced a parody of the cookie-cutter Ken Burns documentaries. It's called the Old Negro Space Program, and it's positively side-splitting. Take a look.
And, in related space news, there's a third challenger who is working towards NASA's new shuttle-replacement programme. They're called Transform Space, and they're backed by Scaled Composites. They're the dark horse group, but the seem to have their act together. Here's a link to their CXV concept. It's less Apollo-esque than Boeing's, but more compact than Lockheed-Martin's. They also have a lunar development plan. Sounds like a good crew.

Death to Anglicanism!

2005-06-15T23:38:00.000-04:00

I shall continue with my analysis of my depressing five-year old predictions in a paragraph or two, but I should like to enlighten my reader(s) with an historical review of the office of the Archbishopric of Canterbury.
One of the most famous Archbishops of Canterbury was St. Thomas Beckett, who was the first commoner of any kind to make a mark of English History (according to Simon Schama, at any rate). He managed to royally piss off King Henry II, who in no uncertain words referred to his knights as "miserable drones and traitors" who "allow(ed) their lord to be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric." Four knights took the King's meaning and departed for Canterbury, where they opened St. Thomas' skull and smeared his brains on the stones of Canterbury cathedral.
After Henry VIII founded the Church of England for the noble purpose of securing a better lay, Englishmen suffered the insufferably authoritarian Archbishop William Laud. Laud decided that the CoE would be the only religious institution of the country, and connived with the loathsome King Charles I to use religion as a political tool to fulfill Charles' dream of a United Britain. Laud's heavy-handedness led to the terrible British civil wars, and the rise of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada's favourite Protestant, Oliver Cromwell. Laud was deservedly decapitated.
Now, we find another obnoxious type in the Arch-Episcopal garments. Dr. Rowan Williams is the current proprietor of the failing Church of England. He is famous for doubting the existence of God during the latest Tsunami disaster, and creating a rift in the world-wide Anglican Communion by pushing through controversial measures about Gay Clergy. Now, it seems Dr. Williams is following in the steps of his forebear Archbishop Laud. He's recently castigated bloggers and the "new media" because he sees the wonderfully tumultuous process of internet dialogue "close to that of unpoliced conversation."
Should conversation be policed, Right Reverend? Why should we be stuck with the, as you say, "cool professionalism" of the old media when it's been demonstrated to not exist at all? The old media are just as full of Âparanoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry.Â While I think the full expression of human beings is a good thing, our political masters disagree. They want to re-create that all-important illusion of a "consensus" moving steadily in a pro-government direction. Rt. Reverend Williams is no exception to this. He's more a politician than a leader, and he's in deep with the NuLabour establishment.
I say that his church deserves to sink. Let those who love ceremony convert to Popery (and thus please many colleagues of mine), and let those who prefer the spirit and simplicity of Protestandenominationsns join a real church, not a screeching circle of activist thugs.
I, as a distant son of Britain, do wholly repudiate the Church of England and deny the preposterous claim any Monarch or Archbishop of Canterbury of spiritual authority. I deny the Queen's title of Head of the Church in England, and I must humbly ask her why half-witted activists such as Rt. Rev. Williams are being put in office as her representative. At least this demonstrates the prudence oseparatingng Church and State.
After that bit of invective, let me change the direction of the venom, but not its flow. To-day I shall focus on computers. This was a major concern of mine some time ago, and checking again, I see that my concerns were justified.
First on my list was the dominance of Microsoft. They haven't been checked, and Apple is even more heavy-handed in its dealings with those who displease His Trendiness Steve Jobs. Windows XP is still the largest operating system out there.
My worst fear in computer realms was an invasion of privacy. First, that companies would install software on your computer to put advertising on your computer. That's already come to pass. My second fear was an identifying number hard-wired into processors that identified each computer. This has also come to pass thanks to Intel. My third fear was a devil's alliance of the RIAA and Microsoft that would make it impossible to play pirated music on one's PC due to invasive copyright-protection software. This is due to happen in the next edition of Windows, Windows Longhorn. Microsoft is integrating Digital Rights Management that will ensure that every file you play is up to RIAA snuff (and, presumably, inform on you if it isn't). It adds another intrusive layer of security to benefit the thugs at the RIAA. To make it worse, Intel is in on it also, as they intend to integrate DRM into their new chips.
Looks like my next PC will be running Linux and will work from a non-Intel CPU. Will these types ever be satisfied, or must all our life be on public display for them?

5 Years' Review

2005-06-15T00:07:00.000-04:00

I recently uncovered a notebook containing some of my predictions for the future that I penned in High School, around the year 2000 or so. I set out a number of scenarios for the intermediate-term (2010 time period), organised along the lines of "good," "probable," and "bad."
Upon looking at this list, I found that most of my pessimistic predictions are the ones coming true. If I'd been in a coma since 2000 and woke up now, I'd have been in a most unfortunate state. Let's examine some of these predictions, to see how much things have changed.
The geopolitical stage was the first subject, as it is now. Given India and Pakistan's publicised nuclear tests, I predicted a worst-case scenario of 2010 would involve a nuclear-armed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Iraq went a bit different than what I predicted, but as the song says, "Two out of three ain't bad."
Regarding war, I was mostly worried about a renewed Korean conflict. I optimistically assumed I'd be an F-22 pilot in this war, though it seems in retrospect that my sight was lacking. Another scenario involved a Taiwan conflict, which is my current favourite dooms-day scenario. It seems to me a Taiwan conflict is likely in the 2008-2010 time frame.
Another key thing was computers, and I shall write about this to-morrow.
To close, here's a lovely speech by infamous propagandist Lord Haw-Haw, who properly danced from a gibbet for his treason on 3 January, 1946. He did his last propaganda broadcast on behalf of the German Reich on 30 April 1945, which you can listen to on RealPlayer. Enjoy his eloquent delivery of the sobering truth about Deutschland.

Death to the Media-Whores!

2005-06-13T23:08:00.000-04:00

Comrades, after a period of enforced retirement, I have returned to preach the revolutionary gospel that the ruling classes do not want you to hear!
I must ask my comrades the world over if they know of any greater Philistinism than the current news-media? O, how for many years we have suffered the iniquity of unending celebrity coverage and hand-wringing on subjects that are fairly minor in the world-scheme. They sit, prattling about subjects of vast insignifigance whilst literally earth-shaking events are given no coverage at all. They have spawned the Evil One, Connie Chung, and Geraldo Rivera. They made the nineties one of the most terrible decades so far. They created the toxic culture that allows disease to flourish. And people, who should be out creating the dictatorship of the proletariot, instead become unduly fascinated with a dim-witted set who embody all of NuLabour's failures living in a house.
Comrades, do you remember all of the ludicrious fads that have been perpetrated on the people by the media whores? The memory of a coven of overly-tanned bleached-blonde crones attempting to put on a concert of the "survivor" song that was so popular a few years ago is still fresh in my mind. Remember the faux-leather pants? Or the pre-worn pants? Perhaps the phenomenon of the Spice Girls?
Take, for example, the Michael Jackson case. What's my opinion? Who cares! It only demonstrates my new theory of personal worth.
It's long been taken in our society that everyone's life is somehow equal. This is not manifest in our media. Based on my observation, I think the life of a celebrity is worth about twenty whites or one hundred blacks. Worse off are Asians and Africans. A celebrity's life is worth about 500 asians and up to 2,000 africans when it comes to coverage. Of course, this is a rough estimate, but I think a mathematical review comparing position and column inches to subject matter will bear this out.
Death to the media-whores! Let us be free of their endlessly trite lives! We shall throw off the shackles of the media culture and Hollywood! All Power to the Soviets!

A Warning

2005-06-12T23:12:00.000-04:00

Be wary of those who seek to place their grand designs on everyone.

Normal posting shall resume in time.

(Insert Bitter Cackle)

2005-05-31T23:18:00.000-04:00

I don't know what it is, perhaps the non-contribution of my newly-disable ankle, but I've found many a news-item of the type that trip my bitterly evil sense of humour. O, how many times I have cackled at the pathetic irony of all the do-gooders out there! If there's one thing we can learn from the "Limp Bizkits" that the kids seems so fond of, it's that life consists of an insufferable series of tragedies, even in the most affable conditions! Here follow a few examples of humorous irony involving human suffering.
First, I'm certain that all of my readers are familiar with the silly wristbands sold for a variety of charitable purposes. Doubly so for my university friends, as certain parties that shall not be named were hocking those odious oversized rubber bands constantly. The theme seems to be that if one buys these devices, you get to save the world by giving everyone a puppy and, more importantly, gain recognition from your peers as a busily charitable soul! After all, there's no point in contributing if you get no recognition. Charity isn't being nice, nor is it a necessary act.
Any-way, my erstwhile colleague Dr. Fujiyama has been keeping busy on the subject of the Tsunami Bracelets and the Aid Programme in general. As he's found and posted on the subject in his posts on 23 and 31 May. He's found that nothing is being done with the money thanks to the bureaucracy in the afflicted areas. It seems the efforts of overly-optimistic western do-gooders are on the ropes again.
And I've found the knockout punch. It seems that these same wrist-bands are made using slave labour in China! Making the irony too much to bear, the number one seller is "Make Poverty History!" Ho-ho! Chalk one up for the "irascible human nature" crowd.
Another delicious irony is that the progressive nation of Sweden has shut down its last nuclear reactor in typical welfare-state style- two years late and twenty-five years after it was banned. The delicious irony here is that, in the same article, we learn that 80% of Swedes want to keep nuclear power, as it has enabled them to keep their virtually spotless emissions record. Their only other recourse are fossil fuels and the token wind-farms that destroy even more pristine Swedish country-side.
It seems that the decision to ban nuclear energy was taken in 1980, during the height of anti-nuclear hysteria, brought on by the over-blown Three Mile Island incident and an awful Jane Fonda movie that's as scientifically accurate as "The Core" (the title comes from the fear characters have of the reactor melting through the Earth's crust and dropping all the way to China). Has that bawdy wench done anything positive for humanity?
The more didactic amongst my reader(s) might ask what the lesson of this post is. The answer would go along the lines of "don't trust popular causes supported by actors and other assorted half-witted elites because in the end they do more harm than good." The trite campaign to end poverty ends up excaberating it, and the scientifically illiterate fear of nuclear power ends up guaranteeing a future of pollution and ravaged country-side.

C'est non pour l'europe, et les etres etrangeres!

2005-05-29T20:54:00.000-04:00

Taking a break from the theme of Modernity, I'm writing to-day in regards to France's thoughtful gift in honour of my birth-day. Though their reasons for doing so certainly weren't correct, they have nonetheless rejected the odious EU Constitution. As of this writing, it was not quite 55% "non" to 45% "oui".
Of course, Jacques "L'escroc" Chirac's government is happily backstabbing one another as French governments are wont to. It seems Jacques is going to re-shuffle his cabinet.
Of course, despite the fact that the Constitutional Treaty must be ratified by all twenty EU members to become law, Eurocrats have decided to proceed as if nothing has happened. Mark Steyn quoted in his latest column that EU Council President Juncker has decided that the failure of the French to adopt the treaty won't put an end to the process. He said that "If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said No, would have to ask themselves the question again"
Certainly it's not precisely legal, but who cares? When you are the law (and reject any silly notions of natural law) you do as you please.
I also see that the Anti-Syrian Opposition has won the latest election in Lebanon. It's a good sign for democratic politics in the region.
To end on a less earthly note, a man calling himself Prophet Yahweh claims to possess the singularly unique ability to summon UFOs at will. Where does he live? Las Vegas, of course!
Anyway, our intrepid prophet was asked by a local Vegas TV station to demonstrate his special ability on film. He agreed. After saying his special incantation ("...please send a sighting so that they know that I am not mentally ill..."), a strange orange sphere appeared over Lake Mead and moved around in the sky. It maneuvered for a bit, and then disappeared. He's promised that next week, this will occur with increasing regularity. One manned ship will eventually hover directly over Vegas sometime before July. This marks a first in the annals of UFOlogy- someone who delivered on a prediction. Only Criswell himself has achieved this feat with his famous 87% accuracy rating.
Will Prophet Yahweh deliver on his fantastic promises? Stay tuned and find out!
Here's the original news footage from the Vegas TV station in Windows MediaPlayer format.

Modernity, Chapter I

2005-05-25T23:58:00.000-04:00

My erstwhile colleagues and I have happened upon the idea of hosting a symposium of sorts, concerning the subject of subjects in contemporary society- modernity. As I suspected, it's coming together beautifully. My colleagues have posted topics that reflect their respective interests and fields as is their wont.
First out of the gate was the Grand Inquisitor, who (appropriately enough) posted on the philosophical roots of modernity. Professor Massa also posted a brief on the historical progression of modernity. These gentlemen to-day continued the trend, with Professor Massa's commentary on how modern perceptions skew our understanding of the Holocaust, a subject he has been researching much as of late. The Grand Inquisitor continues along this line with his views on the wrong-headed idea of tolerance as a virtue in and of itself, and its implications, along with a Latin title.
Coming up into the pack (much like the proverbial tortoise) is your humble scribe. I've finally been shamed into posting. However, I shall make up for it with a lengthy post on exactly what constitutes "modernity".
As the Grand Inquisitor has noted, modernity is given to nominalism. As definitions are paramount in such a system, I shall endeavour to provide a working framework that our gentle readers might more precisely understand our complaints.
Modernity is a mind-set. As the Grand Inquisitor noted, modernity is obsessed with the mind. By denying that universals (i.e. meanings that are external of the mind that are universally shared) exist, moderns have no basis on which experience might be shared. Hence, moderns can only operate from inflexible mental constructs that they construct. They expect everything to apply to these constructs, and they tend to disregard anything that doesn't fit within these. Hence, we find the root of modern ideological dogmatism.
Of course, one could regard a dogmatic defence of old knowledge and a refusal to examine new learning that is contrary to the pre-established perfect doctrine to be a symptom of a dark age. Those who think so have only to travel a short way to discover my feelings about modernism as an intellectual philosophy.
The only real key they have in interaction with the world is the doctrine of progressivism and the sanctity of trends. This suffices for their faith and moral philosophy. They have faith that, as a significant number of people do something, their growing multitude serves to justify the act and make it presentable to the great multitude of others. This then sets a precedent, and it becomes a trend. Sexual behaviour becomes more permissive, the voting age decreases, and the pernicious influence of centralised government continues its advance across all sectors of life unabated.
The justification for a trend is just that- it's a trend. Arguments in favour of the abolition of the death penalty focus not on whether it is just, or whether it is morally permissible for the state to put criminals to death (it is, by the way), but the "historical trend" towards abolition. My mother once remarked that having all of one's friends jump off a bridge constitutes a trend. The fact that many others do something is in no wise a justification. Sadly, in modern thought it is.
Why is this so? Well, that's enough material for another post, but I'll say democratic egalitarianism and the patent inability of moderns to agree on any reality is the culprit.
So we see two hall-marks of modernity. Sadly, the definition is not complete. Though it's nearly impossible to compile an exhaustive list of the hall-marks of modernity, I will hint that listening to any political wonk will betray the rest of them. I shall continue my labours in a later post, but for now, good-night.

Augustine and Modernity

2005-05-19T14:55:00.000-04:00

To dovetail into the upcoming discussion of John Paul II's last book Memory and Identity, I shall delve into yet another one of the interminable examples of the totalitarian nature of modern thought. It's becoming a regular feature, but one must be responsive to the times.
Anyway, I had the distinct displeasure of reading the 23 May 2005 issue of US News and World Report. Though the headline story is the sensational revelation that casinos have a winning edge(!), buried on page 64 of the magazine is a review of a new biography of St. Augustine. The new book is called Augustine:A New Biography by Georgetown University "classicist" James O'Donnell.
Despite the fact that O'Donnell was born more than 1,500 years after Augustine's death, the intrepid author has figured out Augustine better than anyone else in the last millennium or so. His contention is that Augustine wrote his Confessions to "convince the world" of his theological points.
Of course, many people wonder how Mr. O'Donnell figured out Augustine's secret purpose. The answer is (aside from rejecting anything that Augustine wrote that O'Donnell does not agree with as some sort of propaganda) that a "handful" of accounts are construed to characterise him as a "nerdy, calculating do-gooder."
Naturally, we're not told whether these accounts come from true friends of Augustine, or perhaps his old Manichean friends displeased at his conversion. In addition, O'Donnell characterises Augustine as a "scheming, self-promoting hammer of Donatists".
This leads to another bit of silly argument. He claims that Augustine's criticism of the Donatists was an eeeevil and intolerant act that "weakened grass-roots Christianity (so)that Islam easily prevailed in North Africa a few centuries later." Donatism, of course, was a heretical doctrine. It held that priests who had handed over materials in the great persecutions before Constantine could no longer deliver the sacraments. It emphasised the purity of the clergy as a necessary precondition for the religious service.
Naturally, the article doesn't cover that. Instead, Donatists are Christians who "accepted the practice of re-baptism for those believers who they felt had relapsed into sin." Sounds nice and tolerant, eh? It again exercises the modern dynamic of "intolerant religious fundamentalist (Augustine) vs. tolerant branch of religion (Donatism)." People respond to it because it fits with their understanding based on modern ideas.
In reality, the Donatists were not tolerant- they were extremely ascetic and they did not forgive clergy who erred during the Roman persecutions. They also considered lay people who took sacraments given by an impure cleric to be damned with said cleric. None of this is mentioned in the article, naturally. If you're really interested in Donatism, see the short-but-sweet Wikipedia Article and the longer article in the Popish Encyploaedia.
Anyway, Augustine argued against the Donatists at the great debate between Donatist and Orthodox Bishops in Carthage in 411 AD. His testimony turned the momentum against the Donatists, and they began shrinking thereafter, with the help of state suppression of their doctrine. Augustine, interestingly enough, protested against their harsh suppression by the Roman state. In any case, though "a few historians" believe that Islam took over thanks to the suppression of Donatism, it's far from established, and foolish to blame Augustine.
Finally, O'Donnell criticises Augustine's idea of Original Sin as something that "defies logic on various points." From what O'Donnell says, it seems Augustine pulled the concept of Original Sin out of his mitre. This isn't the case- Original Sin is the curse for the primal disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 3, God commands Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Life. "Ye shall not eat of it...lest ye die. (Genesis 3:1)" They do, and they are expelled from Earthly Paradise (Eden) for their offense, in addition to having numerous curses laid upon them. They feel shame ("And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked (Genesis 3:7)"), and they become self-aware as a result of this primal disobedience. Humans to-day are self-aware, and as this awareness is connected to the primal sin of the Original Parents, the blight of their sin continues.
Of course, that's not good news for the likes of O'Donnell, so he derides it as "illogical" that the curse is extended to Adam and Eve's descendants. Are we not still self-aware? Does the ground not still resist us, or women not feel sorrow in their childbirth (Genesis 3:16-17)? The curse is a multi-generational affair.
In any case, the second paragraph in brings us to the author's purpose. "Benedict XVI...has long claimed St. Augustine as his theological lodestar. Observers might reasonably wonder whether that debt can explain the central mystery of...Joseph Ratzinger: how a reform-minded adviser to Vatican II became a rigid defender of the church doctrine while through it all claiming a core consistency to his beliefs and teachings."
In answer to this "central mystery," one might quip the proposition that Ratzinger began enforcing church doctrine when it became his job to do so as head of the former Inquisition. One might also put forth the idea that a commitment to "reform" is not a permanent engagement. Perhaps young Ratzinger was satisfied with the reforms of Vatican II, and decided to keep it at that. In any case, this is another modern blunder- the idea of "reform" as a permanent (and universally good) entity. The idea of "reform" is to "re-form" something until it works properly, rather than a permanent state of affairs.
But regardless, we see the quintessential modern criticism of Benedict XVI's platform as told through the distorted tale of Augustine: if you don't commit to "reform" and get into line with our perfect understanding of things, you're deeply flawed and will destroy your organisation forever, as Augustine supposedly did. What actually happened is not relevant to their purpose.

Tranzi Watch and Irresponsible Journalism

2005-05-16T23:10:00.000-04:00

I find it endlessly fascinating how, despite the diverse batch of independent nations all around the world, comparatively minor decisions taken in western nations have such a disproportionate effect world-wide.
This is especially true with the information industry, known to everyone as the MediaWhores. Though the MediaWhores no longer have a complete monopoly over public debate as they did in the nineties (a truly nightmarish decade- remember the OJ Simpson trial?), they still wield a great deal of influence, especially amongst the chattering and lower classes. Most people still get their ideas from the MSM.
One would think that those who wield this sort of power would be more responsible in its use. Sadly, they are not, and it seems that only the most clueless and the least scrupulous take part of this endeavour. Only bureaucracy can claim a higher idiot quotient, but even the odious EU Bureaucracy has yet to produce anything akin to the Evil One.
It seems that our distinguished journalists indulged (yet again) their continuing bad habit of making up stories. This time around, Newsweek put forth a story about US interrogators desecrating the Koran. Of course, under Islamic law desecration of this sort is punishable by death. As a result of this story, there has been a great deal of violence directed against the US. At least 15 have died and many, many more have been wounded. I'd imagine this will represent an opportunity for fresh recruiting for the Iraqi Insurgency, leading to more dead Iraqis and Coalition forces.
The most irksome thing about this is that it turns out that the allegations were just a load of garbage. Newsweek has issued a retraction of the story, and it turns out that the "checks and balances" that the MediaWhores claim to exclusively possess amount to nothing- there was no verification of this sensational story, nor was there any investigation. They got a tip and printed it straightaway.
Of course, this being revelation of such grave import, it might occur to thinking people that what is being published is absolute truth, so that any consequences of the article are at least reflections of a truth. Not our dear MediaWhores, of course. They are blameless, holy creatures who cannot be held to account for irresponsible actions.
Of course, those who were more studious in University and therefore worked to receive a real degree (in contrast to our beloved journalism majors) and then became bloggers apparently cannot receive the same protection. Recently, the vapid trendies at the despicable Apple Corporation took a break from their journey into stylish mediocrity so that they might prosecute two bloggers who revealed SOOPER SEEKRIT(TM) details on Apple's next useless chunk of multi-coloured plastic. Apple won, and bloggers have been denied the status of Journalists. Once again, the special status of Journalists as the Fourth Estate has been confirmed at the expense of everyone else.
Of course, this sort of nonsense is to be expected from the ruling classes. Tranzis do not much care for alternate viewpoints, and they consider control of information vital to achieving their political ends. The tranzis world-wide have decided US intervention in Islamist nations is the Worst Possible Thing, and that any other system of government is preferable. Of course, no one consulted the peoples who would have to endure either another lifetime of Ba'athist thuggery or Islamist nuttery, but as we all know Tranzis work for the betterment of us all.
Even if the story isn't strictly true, it causes trouble, and once something is said it cannot be un-said, despite any contractions the magazine might present. It's stirred up a hornet's nest for the hopes of Democracy in the Middle East, which means they can go back to being a harmless "ethnic people" whilst the Tranzis can get back to complaining about American cultural domination by using American actors and media and other things that Tranzis consider important, such as regulating the temperature of people's bath-water.
Though I'm a bit confuzzled as to why the Tranzis hate Dubya when he should be their best friend, but one thing I've learned about Tranzis is that, in their minds, logic is bad, and form is everything.
Consider the disparate cases of the US and our erstwhile neighbour to the North, Canada. As mentioned above, the entire world is shrieking about problems in the US. People think Dubya a tyrant who shreds the constitution. Though I agree with them to a certain extent, Canada has a far worse problem. Readers might recall the Canadian Parliament passed a no-confidence motion in the government of Prime Minister Paul Martin. Under a parliamentary system, the government is obliged to dissolve and call elections. However, Mssr. Martin has decided that this vote of no confidence was not a real vote of no confidence, and has refused to step down or call elections. This is clearly a constitutional crisis, as the entire point of a no-confidence motion is to hold a government to account. If it becomes useless, parliament's chief check on a government between elections is lost. Where are the complaints about this newly minted el Presidente? I haven't found many outside of this timely editorial cartoon.
Then there's the Tsunami relief effort. The US was famously criticised as "stingy" by UN Luvvie Jan Engelund, despite heroic contributions by an ersatz coalition of India, Japan, Australia, and the United States, and the timely use of warships to deliver aid. North of the Border, Canadian PM Martin paid a a personal visit to the disaster area and famously pledged that Canada would donate at least $350 million US Dollars to the relief effort.
Well, it's been about six months and the columnist Mark Steyn has taken an account of Canada's expenditure on Tsunami Aid. Guess how much they've spent?
The answer is $40,000 US Dollars. To be fair, the expenditure is to be over a period of five years. However, at the rate of $40,000 every six months, it'll take (by my calculations) over 4,000 years to pay out the rest.
Why does Canada get tons of praise whilst the US gets slammed at every opportunity? Read Steyn's Column and see.
In short, Tranzis are very shallow. They are only concerned with the outward form of the thing. What matters to them is that you've signed the Kyoto protocol, even if ten of your fifteen members do not reach their emissions targets. All that matters is that you submit to the regime by acknowledging their competence to rule. Enforcement comes later.
That's all for this rambling up-date. Soon I shall post my review of John Paul II's last book Memory and Identity, which is a supremely thoughtful and timely work. In addition, I shall post regarding my peculiar admiration of St. Thomas More. Who needs a personal life when you have political philosophy?

Spacecraft and Margot's Holocaust

2005-05-13T22:21:00.000-04:00

I will be off visiting "Campustown" for the week-end, so expect no posts. I know that this is positively crushing news, but personal obligations come first.
Any-way, the first order of business to-day is not related to the usual Orwellian or Apocalyptic content of this blog. Instead, it's actually an interesting bit of news regarding the space programme.
NASA has put forth specifications for the shuttle replacement, known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle. It's designed to be little more than a space-taxi, which will ferry six crewmen into orbit. This will be part of a modular system designed to fulfill the President's plan for manned space exploration of the moon and Mars.
Boeing's proposal was submitted first. This is extremely modular, and (as the kids say) very "retro". Images from the excellent Projectconstellation.us site.
Here's their Crew Module:

Being a modular design, parts can be put together to form a platform capable of greater mission. Here's the crew module coupled with a trans-lunar insertion stage for a moon mission slated in the 2015 time frame:

And here's the design for the Mars Mission, with (moving from top to bottom) two resource modules, the crew command module, systems module (cooling, power &c.), inflatable habitation module, fuel tanks, and motor.

There are other configurations envisioned for launch and space stations (in lunar orbit!). Take a gander at the aforementioned Projectconstellation.us site to see them all.
The other proposal is Lockheed-Martin's. It's pretty similar to the military's 1960s-era X-20 Dyna-Soar. It's a small, multipurpose lifting body, not quite like the capsule concept of Boeing's. Here's an image from the fine Popular Mechanics article.

I am in favour of a combination of both. I don't like the idea of a return to capsules, as it obviates the need for space infrastructure. One-shot missions might be neat and they might accomplish goals quickly and cheaply, but it doesn't build an infrastructure in space for continued exploration.
The Lockheed concept would make a fine shuttle vehicle to and from future space stations. The modular Boeing concept would work well for the various missions that man is bound to try.
One thing I would like to see studied more is nuclear propulsion. There's been too much paranoia about it, and meaningful debate has been stifled. The fact is, spacecraft are an ideal medium for nuclear power, especially on long-duration missions. It also eliminates the need for an oxidiser, because the heat of the fission process is sufficient for combustion needs. More stable fuels might be used , since combustion is not essential with nuclear power. Lithium is easier to store and is safer than hydrogen, but is only marginally less effective as a propellant in a nuclear craft.
Another great development I might have covered before but will drag up again is the recent discovery that Hydrogen Sulfide gas induces a state of hibernation in mammals that normally don't. This would be of tremendous import on extreme duration missions, because food, air, and other supplies could be dispensed with for the journey to and from the target.
This opens up the possibility of extreme-range nuclear-powered missions guided by certain hyper-intelligent yet malicious computers. Score!
And, if my regular postings didn't provide reason enough for humanity to leave Earth, this might help. Vice-President of the European Commission Margot Wallstrom, who is my least favourite Swede, is continuing to exemplify the clumsy progression of the modern totalitarian state. In order to counter accusations of the EU's aloof nature, Margot didn't set about reforming the system, but instead set up her wondrous blog, setting new records for trite posting that are rarely exceeded outside of old-fashioned E/N sites.
Anyway, Margot had a major faux pas recently when she declared that, if the EU constitution was not approved, Europe would risk a new holocaust. She also had the good taste to say this in an old Jewish Ghetto to a crowd full of survivors on V-E day.
She claimed that "nationalism" was the cause of World War II, and that only a "pooling of national sovereignty" could stop it from happening again. Of course, Fascism was a multi-national ideology that embraced nationalism as a matter of course, but that doesn't matter to Margot, who has the tough job of selling the hard-to-swallow EU constitution. As one British MP pointed out, this was a "monstrous re-writing of history". Indeed. The EU has been big on this as a of late. Recently, Margot and her fellow commissioners released a statement that claimed the best way to honour the fallen of World War II was to vote "Yes!" on the new EU Constitution. The EU Parliament has also called for a single, authoritative interpretation of history, moderated (of course) by themselves.
Anyone who has a plan for humanity that involves most everyone else sacrificing things that might be dear to them must convince everyone else that any alternative is worse. There are few worse scenarios than the Second World War. This war killed off a significant percentage of the world's population and profoundly changed the world. If you want an ultimate scare tactic, there are few that are more effective than a sequel to World War II. Plus, it allows the intrepid few to denigrate their opposition by comparing them to Nazis. As we've all learned from internet message boards, comparisons with Nazis are the most effective forms of argumentation.
Going to lose your business under the new EU constitution? Not particularly enthused about the harmonisation of your taxes with places like Sweden and France? Well, you've got to suck it up, because if you don't, Hitler will pop his head out of the earth and start rampaging through Europe again! It's either-or, there is no in between. The slightest defence of national sovereignty is actually crypto-fascism. The Euro-Sceptics are just waiting for a chance to dust off their armbands. Vote for us, or else!
We need to start expanding off of this planet before the stupidity of people like Margot Wallstrom makes our lives so miserable that they aren't worth living. Mars promises a good start, as to the many moons of Saturn (many of them are covered in ice). It'd be nice to get away from this rat race, and perhaps the enormity of the project will induce some humility to our shameless human race.

Tyranny of Information

2005-05-12T19:44:00.000-04:00

Again, I have been remiss in my duties. However, I've allowed some (disjointed) thoughts to brew over the past several days.
As we are all tired of hearing, we live in the "information age". What distinguishes this age from previous ages is the easy flow of information. Early on, minarchists like myself were excited about this prospect, as this meant that there was a method of exchanging information that could not be moderated by the state. This was a heady feeling, as man could finally be liberated from oppressive regimes. Information would, like a strong current, flow with great force into the dams built by the state across our ability to know, and break them down, flooding the world with truth.
Nowadays, I'm reconsidering this thesis for a number of reason. First is the continuing trend against privacy. Personal liberty is seen in the modern world not as a gift from the Almighty, but rather a nice little fluff, a mere privilege that might be revoked for greater expediency. Indeed, the over-riding factor has become expediency.
Another over-riding factor is security. People in the modern world fear death more than any other thing. As a result, they trade everything else in order to buy a little more time. Like the proverbial appeasers trying to escape the crocodile, they toss everything and everyone else at the beast they fear in order to ensure that it consumes them last. Then, with nothing between them and the beast, it comes straight for them.
When you combine expediency with fear of death, you have the chief neurosis of the modern world. It's expressed in two ways- the security fears, which are openly manifested. You read about this every day, with such famous affronts to liberties as the infamous USA-PATRIOT act, and the recently passed de facto national ID cards in the REAL ID act. There's a good article reviewing this odious legislation here.
Aside from the obvious security clampdown on liberties, there's the more subtle and more insidious health angle. I've already crafted a rant concerning the manifold dangers of socialised medicine. One of the points I made was my fear that the government would turn into the ultimate HMO, mandating exercise, diet, and other sundry requirements for citizens.
Of course, after the disaster of HillaryCare in the mid nineties, one might be tempted to say such a programme is doomed from the get-go. Indeed, one might be correct, but that doesn't mean the problems of a socialised health care system will go away. Indeed, the bureaucrats might be more clever than I previously figured, and might take the REAL-ID approach. Here's a hypothetical situation.
After a prolonged media scare about companies not providing health insurance, the federal government passes laws mandating corporate health insurance policies for all employees. Such laws are not big programmes, and can be inserted into omnibus spending bills (as the REAL-ID act was). By doing this, congress has created a de facto national health care system, and by setting uniform standards they've become a the big, bad HMO without spending a nickel.
Companies, anxious to preserve their money, mandate minimum health standards for employees. Smokers, overweight people, and people with congenital diseases that represent a health risk become effectively unemployable, because companies will not want to take a risk for these groups.
At this point, you must be thinking "you crazy white devil! This is another one of your paranoid fever-dreams. No company would fire people for their behaviour on personal time!" You'd be wrong in this case - things like this are already happening.
I read in to-day's edition of USA Today an article which set me upon this course- many companies ban employees from smoking at all in order to save on the cost of health insurance! Sadly, the print article was not on the USA Today website, but here's a case that is very much like it.
Now, with businesses being competitive, corporations that do not partake in this will be beaten in competition by those that do. Their health-care costs will hamstring them. Furthermore, insurance providers might refuse to give insurance at all to companies that employ the new generation of lepers.
Of course, it is conceivable that genetic engineering and eugenics of some sort will be used to weed out undesirable workers. What sort of parents, after all, want to be saddled with unemployable children?
But that's another future-nightmare scenario. The fact is that we can easily be indirectly deprived of our rights without democratic debate or direct legislation. It's really quite clever, if insidious.
Normally, people like me view capital as an agent of liberation- a means by which man can be freed from purely physical toil and instead use his mind to make money to exchange for goods. Free flow of capital allows man to spend on anything he wants, giving the impression of a free society.
However, when it gets out of control, expediency determines the best choice, and things that reduce expediency, such as privacy and rights, become mere luxuries rather than essential things, with a premium price.
It's rather like how insurance has reduced our freedom. For example, many of the most odious an restrictive measures levied against my ability to do what I will are not passed by government, but rather by insurance agents. Plus, they aren't limited in the type of information they take because the contract with the insured is a private one, not in the domain of protected rights.
Information-gathering companies such as Equifax gather incredible amounts of information about everyone, and every aspect of our behaviour.
It seems that this unprecedented ability to gather information is eroding our rights, and there's not much to be done about it. The lack of virtue and love of expediency in modern society combine to harm man yet again.

A Triumphant Return!

2005-05-10T15:11:00.000-04:00

Greetings again, dear reader(s). After a considerable time of remission, I've returned to the world of blogging.
The past several days have been particularly active. First, I had to complete my last full-time semester at university. Once completed, I moved back from my forward-deployed headquarters to the homestead. I've been unpacking and fretting about grades the last several days. I also was emcee for mother's day celebrations here.
Grade-wise, I'm still on track to graduate Summa Cum Laude, so I celebrated with some range time. I took the Enfield (recently certified to be in firing condition), the Winchester, and a simple Marlin .22LR with my brother. An enjoyable time was had by all, and I found my accuracy has considerably improved, especially from the standing position.
I also read this morning that scientists, for the first time, the birth of a black hole 2.2 billion light-years away. Two super-dense neutron stars collided and disappeared, accompanied by a gamma-ray burst. Interesting stuff.
Meanwhile at the BBC, the government of our northern neighbours is beginning to crack. The vote of no-confidence is being ignored by the Liberal Government. It's set to go off to-day at 6:15 PM, and just might succeed. If the motion passes, and the government does not resign, it's a constitutional crisis for the Canucks.
A final note comes from the formidable Strategy Page. It seems that Coalition forces in Iraq have found out exactly why the Taliban has been mellowing out as of late.

O, Canada! and birth-days.

2005-05-02T21:06:00.000-04:00

It seems that the AdScam scandal and the associated Gomery Inquiry have cut into the popularity of the ruling Liberal party in Canada. Prime Minister Paul Martin was Finance Minister at the time of the scandal, which funneled billions of dollars to the Liberal party. Despite a publication ban which has halted the presses up there, American and Canadian Bloggers (most notably Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters) have revealed much of the scope of the scandal. Canadians have been reading these blogs, and are incensed. The Liberal party, already weakened by a recent electoral defeat which left them a minority government, is more deeply unpopular than ever. Conservative opposition leader Steven Harper has pushed for a motion of no confidence which, if passed, would dissolve the current government and require new elections.
The motion requires a majority of Parliament's approval. The Liberals are counting on their partnership with the socialist NDP to forestall it. However, the potent Bloc Québécois (the Quebec nationalist party), furious that the aid money that was intended to go to their province, seems to be allying with the conservatives on this one. One Independent vote will bring success to the motion.
If the motion succeeds and new elections are called, it seems likely to me that the Liberal party will have big losses. There might even be a conservative government again. Even if the Liberals do win, they'll be very ineffective.
Of course, this scandal is merely a catalyst for a massive change in Canadian politics. Like the US, Canada is fracturing. The former "consensus" which existed has given way to partisan and regional interests. The western part of Canada, rich with oil, desires a more Laissez-faire policy, where the east is more content with a socialist economic system (funded, coincidentally, by the western parts of the nation). The conservatives have been gaining in the west, but the socialist NDP has been gaining in the east at the expense of the Liberals.
This is similar to the US- the consensus is collapsing due to, I'd argue, greater freedom of expression. People who didn't fit the consensus aren't succumbing to it because they feel that nothing can be done. Political consensus, after all, is a construct that is assembled by those in power to suppress opposition. Politics is about dissent. This is a good thing, especially for those of us in Jesusland who are tired of people prattling on about the perfection of our northern neighbours.
I did another quiz, which claims to be able to tell me my personality based on my birthdate. Here it is, along with fisking.

Your birth on the 27th day of the month (9 energy) adds a tone of selflessness and humanitarianism to your life path.

Wow, wrong right out of the gate.

Certainly, you are one who can work very well with people, but at the same time you need a good bit of time to be by yourself to rest and meditate.

Did some idiot at the hospital mix things up?

There is a very humanistic and philanthropic approach in most of things that you do.

This birthday helps you be broadminded, tolerant, generous and very cooperative.
Perhaps mother has been lying to me all this time.

You are the type of person who uses persuasion rather than force to achieve your ends.

That's why I carry an ACLU card. It has nothing to do with me constantly threatening to sue people or anything.

You tend to be very sensitive to others' needs and feelings, and you able to give much in the way of friendship without expecting a lot in return.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Here's a bit of AIM dialogue:

Female Friend:hey, i have a problem
Female Friend:i know its cliche, but there's this guy i like and i don't know what to do about it
Me:Hmmm.
Me:Looks like you'll have to kill yourself to get the attention you desire.
Female Friend:that's pretty drastic
Me:Sorry hon, but it's the only way.
Sound familiar?

That's all for to-night.

Sunday After-school Special- The Padre

2005-05-01T20:12:00.000-04:00

Sunday's usual New Religious Movements feature will not be posted to-day, due to special request.
One J. Bowman, who has already extended his influence elsewhere, has requested that I do a special post in regards to one of my teachers who is leaving the profession this year. I readily agreed with this sensible proposition, but it's been difficult to figure out exactly what to do about it.
So, at the risk of sounding cliche, I'll post things I've learned from this professor, and invite others to share their stories in the comments section. I only ask that, for the sake of his future career, people not use the Padre's name or make a direct reference to his occupation. This will serve as a sort of living testament to his teaching career.
I've had the padre for three classes now, and I must say that they were all quite enjoyable. Though it proved difficult to stick to the subject matter at times, even digressions proved to be a valuable experience in my continuing education. His smart-alecky manner helped humanise what could potentially be a very dry subject. Furthermore, it generated a near-cult following. This was excaberated by the obvious tendency of people in the same major to take the same classes, until the classes were comprised mostly of "regulars." Even though the subject changed, the crowd didn't, and soon a comfortable pattern emerged. Friendships were forged, and everyone moved to occupy a certain niche of classroom conversation.
All of this was thanks to the padre's excellent approach to class-room discussion. I never thought I'd see so many people from all walks of life debating whether something was natural law or merely divine positive law. Thanks to the padre, it became a reality. He will be greatly missed.

Special Survivalist Saturday - A Planet where Apes evolve from Men?

2005-04-30T22:11:00.000-04:00

To-day, there will be two posts. First, I'll deal with the regular Survivalist Saturday feature. Later to-day will be a post of university-wide interest, so stay tuned.

To-day I had intended to deal with Escape and Evasion (E&E) techniques which will come in handy when the inevitable death squads begin roaming the post-apocalyptic landscape. However, something more topical has come up, and I will publish a guide in regards to it rather than the aforementioned death-squads.
I'll have to acknowledge the post-modern classic The Unearthly, which I viewed last night with my erstwhile colleague Dr. Fujiyama, as inspiration. This mess stars John Carradine and Tor Johnson. Essentially, a mad scientist uses a "seventeenth gland" to create monsters in the pursuit of longevity.
I've read recently that some brain-dead scientists have been mixing human pluripotent stem cells with animal embryos with some success. Perhaps it's alarmist, but the prospect of making pseudo-human creatures disturbs me in some aspect.
Any-way, if one were to combine the strength of a gorilla with a modicum of human intellect, one could conceivably get an excellent cannon-fodder soldier. It's tough and smart enough to follow orders, but at the same time not smart enough to question them. It seems to me creatures like this would be an obvious choice for any prospective evil overlords who might survive the apocalypse. Evil overlords, naturally, have an affinity for cheaply-bought and quickly-disposable henchmen. A gorilla-man would fulfill these qualifications, especially as technologies improve. Prospective overlords could also monitor blood-lines, and create a Praetorian Guard of gorilla-men to terrorise the unwashed masses.
As a matter of course, revolutionary forces world-wide are pledged to stop the rise of evil overlords. It will be their duty to defeat the mutant hordes of ape-men fielded by reactionary overlords after World War III.
How can revolutionary forces go about this task? Simple. To defeat that which is unknown, one must take a known analogue and extrapolate the differences between the two. For a race of genetically-engineered gorilla-men, one must look for something with unlimited strength, limited intellect, and problems with communication. My analogue for them would be Ahnolt.
Defeating either Ahnolt or gorilla-man hordes is not easy. The first (and best) option is heavy, long-distance firepower. Elite revolutionary formations will be equipped to deal with this eventuality.
But what about the average proletariat who is doing all he can for the revolutionary cause, but is lacking the heavy firepower of a Revolutionary Dignity Battalion(TM)? Well, there are a number of ways to defeat Ahnolt with every-day tools. First, one must exploit his inherent love of snide remarks. Ahnolt cannot kill a major opponent without dropping a phrase of dubious wit. For example, after impaling an opponent on a boiled-water tube, Ahnolt will typically say "Why don't you let off some steam?" Or, if he's just blasted down a door with a grenade, there's always the endlessly ironic "Knock, knock!" A final example would be, after using a nailgun to impale someone on a wall, telling the victim to "Stick around!" Revolutionaries are encouraged to study the witticisms of Oscar Wilde for potential comebacks, and to check your dwelling for areas where potential for macabre commando humor would combine seamlessly with a means of achieving your end. Avoid such places.
Another weakness is "the pump." All semi-intelligent muscle-bound creatures are subject to the lure of "the pump." As Ahnolt himself once described:

"The greatest feeling you can get in a gym, or the most satisfying feeling you can get in the gym is... The Pump. Let's say you train your biceps. Blood is rushing into your muscles and that's what we call The Pump. You muscles get a really tight feeling, like your skin is going to explode any minute, and it's really tight - it's like somebody blowing air into it, into your muscle. It just blows up, and it feels really different. It feels fantastic."
Get the creatures to show off, and escape.
Of course, there's always a twelve-gauge shotgun at close range. That will always do the trick.

We shall not tolerate intolerance!

2005-04-28T14:15:00.000-04:00

"...the kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing that preceeded it in the world...the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd...(it) reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is a shepherd."
Almost 200 years ago, French Aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville wrote these lines in the closing chapters of his seminal Democracy in America. It's amazing how accurate some of his predictions were. Tocqueville prophesied that majority opinion would one day provide a substitute for moral clarity, and indeed it has. There's no greater sin in the modern political arena than "extremism." Of course, one must wonder what "extremism" is.
Naturally, everyone can point fingers at "extremists." Osama bin Laden is an extremist, as the survivalist militia types who blew up the Murrah building. At the same time, they darkly draw moral equivalence to other forms of "extremism," such as religious fidelity or "Jewish Extremism". We must be just as wary of Christian extremism as of Islamic extremism, they say. In fact, the war on terror isn't a battle against a specific ideology, but rather a war on extremes in general. Extremism is the key to violence, and once we wipe them out, there will be no more violence because everyone will agree!
To take the trite-and-true route, an extremist is someone who falls outside commonly accepted ideas on certain things. For example, it's generally not considered acceptable behaviour (outside the insanity of academia, but we have to stick the anti-semites somewhere where they'll do as little harm as possible) to ram truck bombs into US Marine Barracks for Allah. That's a fine and good definition, as terrorism doesn't square with natural law. The problem with this definition is that it is also extended to the realm of ideas. For example, it's considered equally uncouth to stick to an inflexible moral code. As we all know, at midnight on 1 Janurary 2000, everything that had been held true for the previous 2,500 years of Western Civilisation changed. The mere passage of an arbitrary chronoligical period launched us into the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY! All ethical codes, everlasting covenants, and social contracts expired on that date. So, apparently, did the need for moral philosophy. The majority opinion creates morality out of thin air, human nature be damned.
So, with a new moral philosophy in place, it's high time to correct the poor, deluded souls who still believe in unchanging mores. This is where the word "intolerance" is slung around. Those who apply their "out-dated" ideas to modern life are using their standards to judge the behaviour of others. As we all know, being "judgmental" is the opposite of being "tolerant". Those who engage in judging others must not be tolerated!
The end product of this is that people become the very same self-deluded sheep that Tocqueville correctly predicted. As the inestimable Dr. Phillips (from whom I've learned we don't want either perfect justice or more democracy) has pointed out, we end up with the "herd of independent thinkers." Though each one styles themself a clever chap with above-average intellect, when they are questioned closely about their moral schemas, one finds no deeper thought than a few commonly-held platitudes such as "don't judge a book by its cover" or (for people who aren't as trite and half-witted) "it's mean to impose your culture on someone else." The commonality of answers within this herd is shocking indeed.
It has been remarked that no uniformed army in history has achieved the regularity of dress that one can find in modern society. They aren't forced to dress this way, but they do it of their own accord. This is the truly frightening aspect of Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority: people will no longer desire difference. The fact that most people do something is a self-justifying statement. It's the bandwagon fallacy gone wild! Those dissatisfied with the norm merely join a smaller group that's the same way, and consider themselves quite rebellious! In addition, the lack of complete and loving acceptance from other groups gives them a nightmarish persecution complex. They obscenely compare their pitiful plight with that of the Jews under Hitler, and make this view known on innumerable fora (Typical Query:"Why does wearing pancake makeup make you different than those who tan themselves?" Typical Response: "FUK U HITLER NAZI!!!!1"). Of course, the fact that each of these specialty groups has a niche market catered to by most malls demonstrates that they are about as persecuted as an SS trooper who's a little too enthusiastic in his duties. That doesn't deter them from thinking that they're the vanguard of what's right and the soldiers who fight the evils of society, instead of the more-depressing reality of "wannabe-popular kids who dress funny."
What's there to do for those outside of the herd? Well, nothing really according to Tocqueville. Because the majority possesses power over all branches of government, they are necessarily bent to its will. You'll eventually tire of fighting this overwhelming force, and retreat to the sanctuary of individualsim, provided by your "four corners and a square hedge." Besides, further democratisation has been Ordained by God, so you'd better ensure that you have a good fence.
I've little to add to this, as I've yet to transcend the bounds of the herd. All I can suggest is that the majority gets its opinions from somewhere. Perhaps those who are sufficiently intelligent and have such an impressive reflective capacity can use their mastery over the herd to shape its views to something more sensible, perhaps in accord with natural law. The least your types could do is make those cursed midriff-baring outfits unfashionable. I'm tired of seeing distended stomachs which are smeared with spray-on tan poking through the conveniently-placed gap. Maybe burqas will catch on as a fashion trend, and spare us the constant carnival of droopy flesh. Insh'Allah.

Energy and War

2005-04-27T17:49:00.000-04:00

Bush Says US Should Emulate France on Energy.
I'm often critical of the French (as I am of all social-"democratic" states and European nations in general), but I will give them this- they know how to make energy policy. France is one of the greenest nations on earth, and at the same time they manage to supply their national need and are not dependent on foreign oil. The reason? 78% of France's power comes from nuclear energy. France has significant Uranium deposits, and it has wisely put them to use. They've largely freed themselves of dependence on foreign oil as a result.
People often complain about nuclear power's cost and the problem of waste storage. The French have solved this also- they recycle spent fuel rods. By this process, the amount of waste is drastically reduced and costs are driven down. They have no problem of waste storage, nor are costs significant. Furthermore, new technologies such as the pebble-bed reactor drive down cost and risk.
Why haven't we embraced this solution in the US? We also enjoy access to significant Uranium deposits, and we've enough weapons-grade radioactive material that can be debased and used in reactors to last us quite some time. The problem up to now has been partly based on the twin problems of cost and storage (we don't recycle our rods, we stick 'em in oversized swimming pools). But, the greatest problem is ideology and fear.
No nuclear power plants have been constructed in the U.S. since the 1970s. In 1979, there was a double-whammy which put nuclear energy more or less out of business in this country. First came the execrable Jane Fonda movie The China Syndrome, wherein heroic reporter Jane Fonda discovers the eeevil cutting-corners going on at a nuclear power plant. Thirteen days after the film's release, the Three Mile Island incident occurred. Though no one was killed, radioactive material was vented. There was a media circus, and this resulted in the loss of the political will to invest in nuclear energy. It also provided a big boost for the nascent environmental movement. When the Chernobyl disaster occurred when incompetent Soviet technicians ran a flawed reactor at several hundred percent beyond safe operating maximums, it sealed the fate of nuclear power in the west. Plants were dismantled, with no plans for replacement. The result was more dependence on oil, which is now becoming a major problem as prices increase beyond reasonable levels.
Even oil is problematic nowadays. The U.S.'s domestic refining capacity is lacking- we haven't constructed a new refinery since the seventies (coincidence?), and we haven't the means to best utilise our domestic oil production.
Other solutions in this energy bill are worth noting- developing small diesel-fuelled cars here (they're a big hit in Europe, and more efficient than the much-vaunted hybrids for city driving), and giving out tax-credits for fuel-efficient vehicles. Another solution is liquefied Natural Gas, which is clean-burning and cheap.
The problem with these solutions is the people who should be in favour of them- environmentalists. The environmental movement is so dogmatic and inflexible that they offer no real solutions. The much-vaunted solar and wind "alternative energy sources" are not very efficient, and are often blocked in their implementation by environmentalists, who argue that they pose a threat to birds, and object to the land that must be cleared for giant wind and solar farms!
They also have a dogmatic hatred of anything nuclear, viewing it almost as a demon. New LNG terminals are blocked by lawsuits, and clean-burning diesel vehicles aren't seen as a solution. Some groups even demand that the Republic's energy production capacity must shrink rather than grow! They claim that only a return to some kind of pseudo-nomadic lifestyle (and the incidental destruction of industrial civilisation) will save humanity. Of course, this lifestyle has a few problems- high infant mortality, short and hard lives for everyone, grinding toil, and the loss of the delicate flower of higher thought. But, given that higher thought is naturally antithetical to these types, it's a bonus for them.
Of course, if things start to go under, national energy independence will be an absolute key to the survival of the Republic.
In the all-too-familiar vein, it seems that a modern thinker (Thomas L. Friedman) has argued in his new book The World is Flat that globalisation and the new world economic order have made world peace a reality. Because of the interconnectedness of world trade, no industrialised nations could possibly be so insane to declare war on one another. Multinationals, international culture, and the electronic realm that includes the internet have created a global family! We're on the vanguard of a new world order based on peaceful trade! Hallelujah!
Of course, this is bunk. A look around the world sees a planet heading further and further towards the edge of war. This sort of theory has been floated about before- it's described in the opening pages of Barbara Tuchmann's excellent The Guns of August, which describes the beginning of World War I. Back then, the book was called "The Great Illusion," but it was the very spitting image of this modern tome. Gregory Scoblete over at Tech Central Station was also reminded of this, and he does a better job than I could on the eerie parallels between these similar strains of thought in his article, The Great Illusion, Redux.
I'm just waiting for someone to shoot an Archduke at this point. I suppose I'd better get back to work on the bunker.

More anarchy!

2005-04-26T09:14:00.000-04:00

The end-time prophecy types are nearly as busy now as they were in 1999. Of course, there's more cause for apocalyptic thinking than there was in '99. For those who favour the "apocalyptic war" theory, the stakes have been raised yet again in the far east. The latest act in this drama that cannot end well occurred recently when French Prime Minister Pierre Jean-Pierre Raffirin not only guaranteed French backing for China's new "anti-secession law" which allows China to invade Taiwan at the drop of a hat, but he also called for an end to the embargo on selling advanced armaments to the mainland. Previously, the civilised world was in favour of Taiwanese sovereignty. France has broken ranks for the measly sum of 200 million Euros worth of Chinese Contracts. This break will worsen with time, and provide a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan with international legitimacy.
In addition, China has been ratcheting up the anti-Japan rhetoric. Japan, you may recall, is the top US Ally in the Far-East region. This pressure descends from WWII atrocities the Japanese perpretrated on the Chinese. Of course, these atrocities were entirely reprehensible, but as net cartoonist J.J. McCollough points out, China is hardly one to point fingers.
For those less temporally-minded, it seems that the new Supreme Pontiff has finally been linked into the St. Malachy prophecies. Remember that this Pontiff is next to last on the list. His motto is Gloria Olivae, the Glory of the Olives. Many took this to mean that he would be a Mediterranean or perhaps another I-talian. Benedict XVI is a German, confounding the expectations. However, in the Parlance of the Roman Church the Benedictine Order is also known as the "Olivetans". Though not of this order, his name is a pretty close connection. St. Benedict himself prophesied that one who follows him will fight evil in the Last Days. Of course, the Malachy prophecies are vague enough that some aspect of a person's life is bound to connect.
For those who really want to stay awake at night, here's an article that predicted Benedict XVI's name before he was elected. I checked the Google Cache of the article from April 2, and it hasn't been messed with (except where specifically noted). Of course, it also predicted that the new Pontiff would be African, but don't let that dissuade you from apocalyptic dreaming.
On a related note, one of the Cardinals of the Catholic Church has claimed that the Anti-Christ is alive and active to-day. This seems to be a common view with many, considering the onslaught of a cult of modernity.
Finally, the year 2012 is coming up, and all sorts of prophecies regarding everything from fiery doom to 5th-dimensional ascension are being applied to the year.
"Oh no," one might be heard to say, "didn't we go through all this in the lead-up to the year 2000?" The answer is yes, and these are indeed the same people who put us through that. When 2000 passed without incident, they transferred their hopes from the biiig round and scary number of 2000 to the end of the Mayan calendar on 22 December 2012. I'm sure they have a reserve date picked in case that one doesn't work out.
Though I'd caution against the 2012 theories floating out there, the 2009-2012 time frame is ripe for another world war of some sort, especially given the way China and North Korea are behaving. It seems world-wide destruction will be wrought by willing human hands again, and supernatural forces will have to wait.
Who's up for a trip on 22 December 2012 to the Mayan site of Chichen Itza?

New Religious Movements, Part II

2005-04-24T21:52:00.000-04:00

"Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy."
-Exodus 20:8

So, the Good Book says I'm supposed to do something to-day. Because I don't belong to any particular sect, I don't feel obligated to attend services. Therefore, I'm going to continue the feature wherein I talk about some sort of alternative religion that's out there. I'll outline their beliefs, cosmology, and current status so far as I understand them.

By popular request, I'm again skipping the obvious and going for the obscure. Here's an older New Age Group, entitled the "I AM religious activity"

Name:I AM Religious Activity
Type:New Age/Christian
Theology:Hierarchical/Theosophical
Prophets:Guy and Edna Ballard, real physical entities
Purpose:"An "I AM" student, in conjunction with the teachings of the Ascended Masters, can use the Presence to eliminate evil and bring justice to the world."
Religious Services:Meditative and Formal

This group goes back to 1932 formally. Their founding story goes something along the lines of the following- Founder Guy Ballard was climbing the slopes of New Age-er magnet Mount Shasta in California when he became quite thirsty. A man then appeared, identifying himself as eighteenth-century French alchemist and mystic Comte Saint Germain, who offered him a frothy liquid that he claimed came from the "Universal Supply". Thus refreshed, Ballard was taken on a tour of the inside of the mountain. Saint Germain explained that he and other ascended masters formed some type of spiritual hierarchy which watches over the earth. He made Ballard, his wife Edna, and later his son Donald the messengers of the Hierarchy. Ballard died in 1939, and Edna and Donald continued the movement until Donald resigned in 1957 and Edna died in 1971.
The focus of the movement is connecting the individual with the "mighty I AM presence," which was freed by Jesus (also an ascended master) during His Ministry. They use a "violet flame" to cleanse their spirit also. This seems to be a common belief among new-age groups, as I've seen the special powers of violet advertised else-where.
Apparently this group was somehow involved with hollow earth theories early on, though a cursory inspection of their web-site reveals no such belief now. They do put on a Passion Play of sorts entitled "I AM COME" which covers the Life of Christ near Mount Shasta.
This group I'm particularly fond of for a number of reasons. First, I've actually seen one of their churches during a visit to Calgary. Second, despite their New Age overtones, they do identify themselves as a Christian group. Third, they're a patriotic group and look to be civic-minded. As I understand it, George Washington's picture hangs in each of their sanctuaries behind the altar. Finally, unlike so many other New Age groups, they don't seem to be obsessed with money. They charge for books and materials, but a quick perusal of their on-line catalogue shows prices that are quite reasonable ($10 soft-cover, $25 hard-cover). Though in my opinion their theology is a bit off, they certainly aren't harming anyone and I don't believe them to be a con job, so unlike much of the new age movement.
If you're spiritually responsive to the colour Purple, you might deign to examine their official web-site here.

Survivalist Saturday II- Surviving World War III

2005-04-23T23:34:00.000-04:00

It's another Saturday, and time again for another Survivalist feature, where I expound the useless (for now, at least! Little do you know...) knowledge I've gained in the realm of getting through various calamities without being killed, maimed, zombified, or worse.
To-day, I'll address a pressing topic- World War III. Though it might be tempting to state that World War III might be merely another conventional conflict between major powers (say the US and China), such a supposition is mistaken. Everyone knows that it's not officially World War III until mushroom clouds rise over well-known American landmarks accompanied by dramatic music of some sort. In addition, such a nuclear exchange must be unlimited in scope, and against purely civilian targets for maximum dramatic effect.
Naturally, one's first concern in surviving this apocalyptic war is getting through the nuclear strikes. If you live in a city, forget it. There's a nuclear warhead sitting in a Russian/Chinese/Islamic silo with your name on it. The only preparation you can engage in is the time-honoured paratrooper tradition of "putting your head between your legs and kissing your ass good-bye." Besides, if you live in the cities, chances are you're a metrosexual, and the world would be better if we were rid of the whole lot of you.
For those in the suburbs, you have to worry about proximity effects of a nuclear detonation. It's likely you're far enough away from the blast centre, which will be right over an instantly-recognisable landmark in your city, to be safe from the initial blast effects. Overpressure might still be a factor, but if it doesn't crush you so you resemble your shriveled suburbanite spirit you have a good chance.
The best case scenario is if you have a fallout shelter prepared. You should keep about 30 days of supplies for all those you intend to take into the shelter. There should also be an appropriate ratio of females to males (10:1) for re-populating the Earth after the radiation dies down. This will be covered further in the "getting things back to normal" section in the coming weeks.
Spending 30 days in a fall-out shelter is not fun, even with ten women to look after you. You'll need a shotgun of some type, because desperate survivors will undoubtedly come to your shelter. You have no choice but to shoot them because they're either a)insane with hunger and want your womenfolk or b)zombies of some sort. It's the end of civilisation: you don't worry about impressing Miss Manners because she's probably an atomic zombie anyway.
If you don't have a fallout shelter, then shame on you! You can still survive by sealing off a room in your house and keeping in the centre. Gamma (deep-penetrating) radiation only usually accompanies the blast. Fallout particles emit primarily alpha and beta radiation. Both of these can be blocked by a thick wall. The chief problem with fallout is letting it into the body by breathing it or eating it. Canned foods and HEPA filters, combined with an air-tight room, fix this problem. Alternatively, you can make your bed into a fallout shelter in its own right with the bullet-proof, chemical-resistant and fire-retardant Quantum Sleeper for a mere $100,000 or so. No word on zombie-proofing yet, though you could fit your shotgun near the integral DVD player.
In the country, you have a few days before the wind brings the fallout from the cities to your area. This gives you some time to prepare. There are some emergency shelters you can throw up, even in under 24 hours, which should protect you fine. Plus, since you're an unenlightened rural denizen in "flyover country", you don't represent the same level of threat to our new Soviet/Islamic overlords as do the herd of independent thinkers on the coastlines. Regardless, zombies to get hungry, and there just aren't that many braaaiiinnnnsssss in the city to go around. Keep pa's shotgun handy.
The next question is "am I a target?" In the short version, the answer is yes. Remember, during the cold war threat of nuclear bombardment kept people in line, so no matter where one lived, one was always about #5 on the "to hit" list kept in the Kremlin. Why #5? Why not? A high position on the nuclear strike list is a tacit admission of your relative importance, and serves as a vehicle for local pride. Insert the name of a moderately-significant industrial facility in your area, and the answer becomes quite clear! Just don't look at the real list, where #5 is probably a US Nuclear Submarine Base or some other strategic military target. It does nothing for local pride.
Of course, if you live in Los Angeles or Berkeley, don't count on getting hit. Our new Soviet/Islamic/Robotic and/or Zombie overlords need a version of the French Vichy government to keep the population in line, and you're just what they need! The same deal goes for Singapore, even if it isn't in the US and therefore doesn't really count for anything.
Remember, keep in the shelter for 30 days, and then prepare for the next step in your adventure- surviving the death squads which invariably arise in any post-apocalyptic situation!
Here are some plans for fallout shelters of every sort for your perusal: Fallout Shelters

Bureaucrats

2005-04-21T21:34:00.000-04:00

It seems the university is being plagued by some sort of "stomach virus" which has mysteriously infected a large section of the population. Naturally, the bureaucrats have assured us that this is not the result of shoddy sanitation practices at the cafeteria, but rather a "widespread outbreak" in the "(local) community". Of course, where this epidemic came from is still a mystery, but it seems a few people have had their stomach contents pumped at the local hospital. Many others have had the same effect, though in a much more crude and natural way. I'm certainly glad I don't share a bathroom with them.
Any-way, this post doesn't concern stomach flu or green diarrhea. It does concern bureaucrats, which is a fairly close subject to the latter. More specifically, this post concerns their philosophical background, which frames the parallel reality bureaucrats seem to occupy. When one deals with these types (i.e. always in modern society), one must be ready to predict their behaviour. Only then can one fight them with any chance of success.
The golden rule of bureaucrats is "panic and disorder are the worst things possible." This thinking runs their entire existence, and all of the rules which govern their meaningless lives extend as spokes do from this central hub. Sadly, the wheel which results from this combination has the nasty tendency to run everyone else over.
Another key to bureaucracy is the magic of rules. Though bureaucrats don't believe in natural law, bureaucratic regulations are little less than commandments delivered from On High. All those who depart from them are headed to certain doom. Tales of customers who failed to follow the rules and then fell victim to some terrifying fate are the stories which illuminate the hours spent at the water-cooler, like the epic poems of the ancient Vikings.
The second key is obviously related to the first. Another of the spokes which fits into the central hub is the animal instinct which governs bureaucrats. It's not the sort of wild and passionate animal instinct which is so admired to-day, but rather a hyper-exaggerated instinct for self-preservation. Bureaucrats do not take responsibility for anything. Instead, they like to a)send people all around massive structures in between massive offices on a fruitless quest for wisdom or b)lie their heads off.
This leads to my theory concerning the formation of bureaucracy. Bureaucrats, who lack any manly (or womanly) characteristics, exercise self-selection and forge a group comprised of people with similar issues. They then expand and create nebulous job descriptions. Finally, they convince the movers and shakers in society that they can relieve them of some of the menial tasks which accompany governance or whatever task is at hand. When they screw up and said movers and shakers try to hold them to account, they merely point to their nebulous job descriptions and claim that the problem is not within their jurisdiction. The fruitless search begins, and anyone searching for answers wanders aimlessly about until they give up, finding that no-one in any bureaucratic positions is actually responsible for anything.
Though this is an interesting survival strategy, it's essentially parasitic, as bureaucrats cannot exist unless they have a productive host to support them. Eventually, the bureaucracy expands to such a point that it over-whelms the host and it slowly strangles to death. This phenomena can easily be observed in most European countries, or Washington D.C.
Stay tuned for my newly-regular "upcoming apocalypse" feature to-morrow, concerning Papal Prophecies and the upcoming world wars.

Hitler's Second Book

2005-04-20T23:30:00.000-04:00

I've been reading Hitler's Second as of late, thanks to a certain tricksy kraut. This one's a doozy. Thankfully, it's about half as thick as Mein Kampf, though apparently it's not as popular as the original in Turkey. This book, found in an Army Archive in the 50s and apparently the real deal, lays out 'dolf's crazy plans for world domination. More importantly for me, it puts his philosophical cards on the table. After reading only the first two chapters, this was disturbing enough already.
Hitler's Philosophy is actually little more than commonly accepted ideas, even to-day. It's the implications that he draws from them that led to his murderous reign.
First, there's his Malthusian economics. This is common thought to-day, it's the idea of limited resources leading to a collapse of human civilisation or some kind of ecological disaster. Thomas Malthus created this idea when he noticed that human populations expand geometrically, agricultural stocks expand only arithmetically. According to Malthus, this would eventually lead to human populations out-stripping their food supply. Malthus defended a "lifeboat ethic" as a result, and believed it was necessary to kill off inferior populations to save one's own. Malthus was one of the principal architects of the Irish Potato famine that killed millions.
Hitler merely combines this with another modern idea- that civilisations are solely the product of races. This started with the kooky "racial sciences" back during the Victorian ages. His belief was that all races that do not continuously expand eventually reach the Malthusian breaking point where they don't have enough land to feed themselves. They then collapse. Hitler's quest for Lebensraum was merely acting on this principle.
For a subject which most believe is useless, it seems bad philosophy has drastic consequences for the world. Perhaps if more people were a bit more cautious about embracing bad philosophy, we'd have a less violent world.
At any rate, it's amusing to see two of Hitler's first principles are alive and well in contemporary thought. It shows that World War II didn't dislodge the poisonous thought which created him.

In other news, I'm ruminating on how much I hate Jerry Bruckheimer. First, we had to watch his post-modern 2-hour trailer "Armageddon." Then, his awful "CSI: Miami" engulfed his one decent creation on a special. Finally, the excrutiatingly silly "gone in sixty seconds" is on to-night. Memories of "Pearl Harbour" sneak into my consciousness too. This joker is the Bert I. Gordon of modern times.

And, as if it's any great surprise, here's how I'll probably vote in the upcoming UK General Election on 5 May from whoshouldyouvotefor.com.

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Conservative

Your actual outcome:

Labour -20
	Conservative 55
Liberal Democrat -58
	UK Independence Party 19
Green -38

You should vote: Conservative

The Conservative Party is strongly against joining the Euro and against greater use of taxation to fund public services. The party broadly supported the Iraq war and backs greater policing and ID cards. The Tories are against increasing the minimum wage above the rate of inflation, and have committed to abolishing university tuition fees. They support 'virtual vouchers' for private education.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

Habemus Papam

2005-04-19T19:12:00.000-04:00

Cardinal Ratzinger elected Pope Benedict XVI
So the media's predictions were correct, and Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope, elected on the fourth ballot in two days. I'd like to first express my relief that it wasn't one of those whack-job Latin American liberation theology types. This papal election signifies the future direction of the Roman church, and I think they've made a good decision.
Though I disagree with the new Pope on a large number of issues, I do appreciate his ability to take a moral stance and hold it. Right now, Europe is a land in flux. The bureaucracy of the EU is expanding ever steadily and taking over more and more aspects of life on the Continent, and at the same time demographic and religious changes are creating a continent that is largely hostile to Christianity.
To me, this situation is reminiscent of the latter stages of the Roman empire. At its height, the European Empires conquered most of the world. Now, population pressures from the east and a decline in the spirit of the European civilisations is leading to its collapse.
My expectations for Europe in the future is similar to what happened to Anatolia (what is now Turkey) after the Roman period. During the Roman era, Anatolia was the major Christian centre, along with North Africa. In addition, it had been one of the centres of civilisation from time immemorial. Hellenism had thrived there, and it had become a centre of Roman learning too. When the Roman Empire collapsed in the west, the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire held on for another thousand years. Its decline was slow and gradual, brought about by expanding populations from the east (starting with the Huns, then the Seljuk and finally the Ottoman Turks). In 1453, they had no empire, and the capital of Constantinople was taken by the forces of the Ottoman Turks.
The same thing is gradually happening to Europe. Their culture has become debased- the relativism which plagues modern culture leads to widespread apathy. People in the west no longer consider their culture worth fighting for, and people elsewhere are actively hostile towards the social and political (if not the popular) culture, rather than anxious to join in. This is akin to the fatalistic stoicism so prevalent in the late Roman empire. The process of EU integration, for example, is pushed on the basis of its "inevitability". People in the west are no longer proactive, and indeed reactive instead, especially in Europe.
European Catholicism is one of the victims of this trend. Attendance for mass is dropping like a stone all over the continent. Even in Ireland, fewer than half of the population (44%) attends mass, and even this number is high for most "Catholic" countries. Secularisation is not so much an alternate ideology as it is a sort of apathy. It's not as if these nations are switching from system of belief to another, they are merely not believing in anything. They have no interest in self-sacrifice, civic virtue, or the benefit of anything aside from material goods. This is bad, because it does not engage man's higher nature like religion or philosophy does. They only operate on purely animal instincts in pursuing goods.
There have been many calls for the next Pope to "engage with the modern world" and make certain concessions to modernity. However, this is over-simplification. What constitutes "modernity"? Is it the creeping modern materialism? How can a spiritual institution such as the Roman Church make concessions to a thing that is inherently alien? The answer is that it can't.
Many who want the Roman Church to "modernise" offer a familiar series of suggestions such as "ordain women" and "allow priests to marry." Indeed, these seem to me prudent suggestions, but their implementation should be based on philosophical and theological basis rather than "the modern world demands equality." More dangerous is the claim that the Papacy should get involved in political issues such as third world debt and "social justice". This is also dangerous, as it functions as a distraction play of sorts. While the Pope is playing petty politics, he isn't looking after the spirituality of his flock. It also emphasises the primacy of the material over the immaterial, and this is fundamentally at odds with a spiritual institution.
Ratzinger is a good choice for the job because he stands up rather than lays down. The EU has been trying to bring everything in Europe under its influence. As I understand it, there was a movement to have EU founder Jean Monnet canonised. His "miracle?" That France and Germany haven't fought since World War II. Thankfully, the Vatican resisted this pernicious idea. Even Switzerland is being corrupted by the EU! They've resisted foreign integration since the age of Napoleon, but now they're falling into line, with a proposal to become a full member of the EU on the table. It's up to the tough Benedict XVI to ensure that the Vatican doesn't slip into this orbit.
Thomas More is famous for turning his back on his King, his nation, and his countrymen because of his conscience. Though such an act is considered insane to-day, More's refusal demonstrated that trends are not inevitable. Furthermore, the easiest route is not always the best. "We cannot go to heaven in featherbeds."
The Roman Church has chosen to stand for principle rather than expediency. This will not be a comfortable position to hold. Already, the media is reporting on the fact that Ratzinger was apparently in the Hitler Youth (which was compulsory), and his former position as head of what was once the inquisition. This type of character assassination can be expected, as modernism lacks a core which can support it. Rather, it justifies its existence by denigrating any competition. For example, when politicians argue a case that is contrary to their ideas of "progress" they're labeled as "controversial." The entire reason politics exist is because there's a controversy in the first place.
Bah. Here's hoping the new Pontiff does well in his new office.

Socialised Medicine, Europe News Roundup

2005-04-18T16:55:00.000-04:00

Many people have asked me why I vociferously oppose socialised medicine. They ask "how can you oppose something which gives free health care to everyone?" and the like. Aside from the fact that I honestly don't care for others because I'm an evil WASP (buzz buzz!), there are a number of political and practical objections to this scheme. A few points briefly follow.
First, there's the political point regarding government regulation. Any socialised medicine scheme involves government intervention in how medicine is delivered. Of course, to many this is a wonderful thing because the government has lots of money to give out to take care of our poor widdle ones.
But there's always a second side. People love federal money for education, but hate the "No Child Left Behind" act. What they don't understand is that one follows from the other. Once the federal government pays money, it demands accountability. This means the federal government will become the ultimate HMO. Imagine the coercive power of the state applied to a programme of enforced healthy living- mandatory calisthenics, dietary restrictions, &c. Sound outrageous? Many groups are proposing exactly these sorts of ideas because they view obesity as an "epidemic" which is somehow a sweeping health crisis. Socialised medicine gives these maniacs exactly the sort of platform to regulate public health. All that's needed is a public health scare. The same thing is happening in Britain at the moment.
Practically, the quality of health care delivered by a nationalised system is far lower than our eeeeeevil capitalist system. Socialised medicine is marked by long lines, waiting lists running into months for critical surgeries, and sub-standard care. In addition, there's currently an MRSA plague in Britain which is killing people in hospitals. This plague stems from improper sterilisation procedures. It's become a major election issue, with the Tories promising to clean up the hospitals.
Another concern is cost. I don't like taxes, and most people join me in this sentiment. However, when health-care spending is the providence of the state, everyone has to pay for it. I've heard that health care spending represents 15% of the GNP. This necessitates an increase in taxes that would dwarf any previous ones. This leads to a decrease in disposable income, especially for younger people who don't have as great a need for medical services. It's another way of sapping the productive forces of society to prop up the unproductive ones. It also discourages individual responsibility, as it's yet another thing the government does for you and another section of life you don't have to plan for.
Continuing on the eternal theme of my dislike of statism, to-day it seems that the tide of Statism is being stemmed as France is looking to vote "non" on the upcoming EU Constitution. Though the reasons for the rejection mostly stem from the proposed constitution not being socialist enough, I'll take victories where I can get them.
On the side of defeats, it seems my prediction about the increasing insanity of so-called "artists" in the modern era is coming true. An artist in London has keyed 47 cars randomly and declared it to be "art". Of the victims, he said that they should be "glad to be part of my creative process." No compensation is forthcoming.
When is somebody going to point out that the emperor of "fine art" is wearing no clothes? These people really are something else.

New Religious Movements

2005-04-17T11:48:00.000-04:00

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."- Exodus 20:8

So, the Good Book says I'm supposed to do something to-day. Because I don't belong to any particular sect, I don't feel obligated to attend services. Therefore, I'm going to start a feature wherein I talk about some sort of alternative religion that's out there. I'll outline their beliefs, cosmology, and current status so far as I understand them.

For the first column, I'll skip the one I know most about and pick up on a more curious one. This religious movement is called "Ashtar Galactic Command."

Name:Ashtar Galactic Command
Type:New Age
Theology:Pantheistic
Prophets:Ashtar-Athena (yes, that Athena), channeled through a medium
Purpose:"assisting at every level with Earth and Humanitys transformation and paradigm shift into the fifth dimension and seventh Golden Age"
Religious Services:Meditative

I first heard about this group in the always-interesting "Sedona:Journal of Emergence" magazine, which is a veritable smorgasboard of New-Age groups. This group caught my attention because their article was based around pictures of clouds that Ashtar Command claimed were spacecraft. The name "Ashtar Galactic Command" is a real eye-catcher also. They claim to be the "Airborne Division" of the "Great White Brotherhood," which are beings from a higher dimension known as "Ascended Masters." There is no set membership to this "Brotherhood," so the list varies from group to group. The "ascended master" that the AGC follows is a combination of one being, called Ashtar, and the old Greek Goddess Athena. These two are non-corporeal beings which are combined together in the eighth dimension. Ashtar is described as a "Ray emanation" of Jesus, and they believe Ashtar continues Jesus' Ministry from his spacecraft.
There's a helpful over-view here, which puts down the fundamentals if the Ashtar group. Apparently it was started in 1952 by a George van Tassel, who received the first communique from Ashtar/Athena. There were a lot of UFO-based groups founded in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Apparently it's a sizeable bunch- their MSN Group has 423 members, and is extremely active, rating only below "Commercial Space Development" in its section. Their current leader is called "Commander Aleon" (original, eh?). However, there seem to be splinter groups. I've found one Captain Lyur who claims that Ashtar Command is very much like Starfleet from Star Trek, and says of Commander Aleon's bunch in the US "Real Ashtar Commanders work as team, there is no 'chief' some high place. So I will not report to that chief, if some around, just forget it."
From what I can tell, Commander Aleon seems to be based in the earthly section we call "Connecticut", and has a weekly radio show Sundays at 11AM, which can be heard here at WESU-FM.It wasn't on to-day, sadly. Another alternative view can be had here, for those of you who can read Norwegian.

Always be ready

2005-04-16T19:03:00.000-04:00

Given this author's near-obsessive tendency to watch anything which might lead to revolution, social disorder, or some other type of apocalyptic happening, it only seems natural that I prepare a guide for some of these eventualities. Here's the first in the series.

Dawn of Doom, or How to deal with the upcoming zombie holocaust.

One of the most likely problems facing society to-day is some kind of Zombie mutation over-taking the general population, creating a terrifying army of the un-dead out of everyday people. With all sorts of chemicals and radiation all over the place, it's only a matter of time before some terrifying combination of the two emerges. When spread by a zombie's bite, this chemical/radioactive mutation instantly reduces the most vigorous specimen of human intellect into a brain-craving Homunculus which spreads terror and follows the scent of fresh blood.
After viewing a highly technical film retailing the habits of Zombies, and how to combat them successfully, I've decided the following measures are in order:
First, though Zombies generally prefer to attack England and the American Southwest, they can attack anywhere. This means that everyone should be prepared for zombie attacks.However, your preparations must fit the laws and customs of your area. Be certain to stay within the law, as you don't want to be in prison when the zombies hit, because you'll probably have to fight your way out alongside Ice-T and Steven Segal, and endure their attempts at snappy dialogue.
In the U.K.
This seems to be a popular target for Zombification. The best weapons to counter zombies (i.e. firearms) are prohibited by law, as is self-defence. In this case, take no preparation, as a Zombie invasion is still preferable to living under a Labour government. After all, zombies don't reproduce, and they don't need council houses to live in or wide-screen TVs to watch whilst they're on welfare, nor do they need an army of shysters to steal your money to pay for these initiatives. In actuality, it's entirely possible that quality of life will improve under a Zombie government. At least the Evil One will be less annoying. If you plan to escape to a nation that's not governed by half-wits, I'd recommend a cricket bat or golf club.

In the E.U.
This change might not be as traumatic as other nations, since Europe is already ruled by an army of blood-sucking creatures, so any change along these lines won't be too hard to get used to. At least the undead version of the Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom won't be quite as trite as she is now.

In the United States
Thanks to the Second Amendment, the politicians in the US have yet to deprive us of the best zombie-hunting tools. Here are a few suggestions:
For the gentleman or lady concerned only with short-term defence, I recommend a fine twelve-gauge shotgun. For those on a budget, go with a pump-action- either a representative of the fine Mossberg 500 series or the well-reputed Remington 870. There are a number of aftermarket parts that will add to anti-zombie utility and good looks, such as pistol grips, heat shields, and other aftermarket parts can be found everywhere. One place to look is here.
For those with a bit more cash, I'd recommend an auto-shotgun such as the Remington 1200 or maybe a Benelli for those with plenty of cash. Loads would be 00 buckshot, or perhaps birdshot if you're concerned with penetration and will only be working at short range. You can easily take off limbs with this potent weapon, and use them as clubs when you run out of ammunition. Alternatively, they can serve as a grim warnings which might be placed about your residence to scare away future zombie attacks.

For gentlemen and ladies who wish to go on the offensive, there's always the "Heston" option. A fine semi-automatic rifle allows one to bring the pursuit to the zombies, and is an effective deterrent to other not-so-undead problems such as idiots who take the mufflers off of their dirt-bikes.
For those on a budget, might I suggest the legendary M1 Garand? It's available for $500 from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which is proof that the Good Lord loves us and wants us to be happy. It's insanely reliable, it doesn't look scary (so it won't scare relatives, children and pets), and it's a little bit of history. Its .30-06 ammunition is cheap to obtain, and has incredible knock-down power.
For those with a bit more cash, there are really two options which depend mostly on personal preference. If one likes the heavy option, that is high knockdown power at the expense of high weight, the logical extension is the M14 model. Since there are no surplus M14s directly for sale to the public, your options are either some cheap Chinese copy, the fine Springfield Armory M1A rifle (for $1299 and up), or the penultimate M14, the Fulton Armory M14 for $1799. Again, the 7.62x51mm NATO round is powerful, and the detachable magazine is an advantage over the Garand.
For those with less taste for kick and heavy weight, there's always the .223 Remington caliber. Options include the Ruger Mini-14, which is an excellent little rifle. For those with extra cash and a desire for flexibility, the AR-15 is the best. There are many manufacturers, though again I'm partial to Fulton Armory. Furthermore, the AR-15 community stands ready for Zombie invasion. They've already published a guide on how to deal with this eventuality. Since the AR-15 is a commonly-used platform and ammunition is cheap and readily available, it's a good choice for zombie combat. In addition, the AR presents the quintessential "evil black rifle" silhouette. Even in their undead state, zombies may still retain a primal fear of such weapons.
For SEALs, other sorts of commandos, or people who have more money than braaaaiiiinss, go with the insanely awesome Fulton Armory Mk. 14, Mod 0 EBR, which is an uprated M14 with all sorts of handy combat capabilities. Another route is the excellent Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel which is powerful and light. It has another advantage of fitting in standard ARs, requiring only a new upper receiver.

In addition to rifles, you might want assorted survival stuff, such as food. But mostly rifles, and lots of ammo, because food doesn't keep zombies away from the brains they so much desire which happen to be encased in your pretty little head.
Anyone who wishes to contribute to the defence against zombies by making a donation to my 6.5 Grendel fund is more than welcome.

In Singapore
You noticed the difference? Sounds like you'll have to kill yourself, just to be safe. Besides, maybe the zombies might be less uptight than the current administration. Instead of inspecting for chewing gum, they seem to be content in wandering about aimlessly. However, given the paucity of brains in the island, one must "bevare", as even an average brain will look like Albert Einstein to the zombies.

Until next time, remember: firearms make you more manly.

Light Blogging

2005-04-15T23:51:00.000-04:00

I'm not much given to whining, but the fact is there are certain things which piss me off. There has been a convergence of a number of these factors lately, and I've found myself more an more impatient and ready to leave.
I've been reading about a relative of mine who served with the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment in the 82nd Airborne Division during the Normandy campaign in the Second World War. He was a Private First Class, and he died during the Normandy campaign. His date of death is marked as 17 July 1944. Of course, this is after the Regiment returned to England. His jump-mates (or men reporting to be such) spoke to his immediate family, and claimed he was hit on the way down in on 6 June. Either some bureaucrat recorded this date incorrectly, or perhaps he was wounded and it took more than a month for the end to come. In either case, it's unlikely he died as a result of non-combat injuries later on, as he's listed as KIA here. The name is Ralph Tooley.
More impersonal blogging later.

Reasons why I hate the New Deal, Part I

2005-04-11T09:31:00.000-04:00

As a conservative-libertarian, it's only natural that any programme of massive government interference in everyone's lives draws my ire. The two biggest packages of this interference were Presidente-for-life FDR's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty". Thanks to these two, we can no longer claim to be living in a capitalist nation.
Of course, people ask me why they should work towards the abolition of these odious programmes because they "help so many disenfranchised people." My contention is that they don't.
To-day in the always sharp EU Referendum Blog,they describe the destructive effect of New Deal Era subsidies on third world agricultural producers. Because US Farmers (along with their similarly pampered EU counterparts) are subsidised to literally grow nothing, they can afford to "dump" their excess products at low cost in developing markets. This drives prices down, and third-world producers out of business.
The upshot of this is that third world nations don't have the chance to create their own agricultural production, and what agricultural production they have is dragged down by the subsidised western industry. All of this results from FDR's programme of farm subsidies which has gone unchallenged since his dictatorship-in-all-but-name.
Interestingly enough, we discussed the very issue of farm subsidies in our American Congress class. It seems that neither of the major parties ever investigate this waste, and only representatives from states that have a vested interest in these policies sit on the appropriate committees.
Well, it isn't just wasting government money anymore. It's wasting third world nations, and no one does a damned thing about it. Instead, we get the constant prattle about debt relief and more aid money. Bah.

Range Report and Rural Misadventures

2005-04-09T19:06:00.000-04:00

We discovered a range nearby, and resolved to pay it a visit. We decided to test Levi's new Mini-30 rifle, and put some ammo through the Mauser as well. We also decided it would be nice to take a drive and see new places.
To make a long story short, it took two hours of searching to get there. We drove all over the county, literally from one end to the other. There were innumerable turn-arounds to boot.
To make a long story short, we finally arrived at the range. The facility was very nice. We set up a target at 50 yards. There was also a stop at 100 yards. We started testing Levi's Mini-30. It shot poorly at first, with two jams in the first ten rounds. Afterward, for the next 50 or so rounds, it shot flawlessly, at least for a time. Sadly, it began seizing up again. It seems there's a problem with magazine seating, or perhaps the recoil spring. In any event, it turned into a straight-pull bolt-action rifle. Nevertheless, we managed to expend 160 rounds of 7.62x39 on our trip. It was accurate, putting several holes in a one-inch wide wooden post that was under the bull's eye of our 50-yard target. The Mauser performed well also, and its recoil was considerably less than what I remembered.
The return trip was uneventful, though we did have to turn around a couple of times when we headed down the wrong roads, followed by a quick stop at McDonald's. All told, a fairly successful day.
A replacement mag is in the works. Ruger factory magazines can be purchased for a pittance at the local Cabela's. I smell an upcoming sequel, but hopefully with more ammunition expenditure.

Cliche survey

2005-04-08T22:41:00.000-04:00

I've managed to locate Eric Mena's blog. He has a fondness for surveys, so I thought I'd give it a try. I ended up taking the Famous Dating Quiz. Here's how I ended up as follows:
Your dating personality profile:

Intellectual - You consider your mind amongst your assets. Learning is not a chore but a constant search after wisdom and knowledge. You value education and rationality.
Practical - You are a down-to-earth individual who is not impressed with material excess. You care about the stuff of like that really matters.
Adventurous - Just sitting around the house is not something that appeals to you. You love to be out trying new things and really experiencing life.Your date match profile:

Shy - You are put off by people who are open books. You are drawn to someone who is a bit more mysterious. You want to draw her out of her shell and get to know what she is all about.
Practical - You are drawn to people who are sensible and smart. Flashy, materialistic people turn you off. You appreciate the simpler side of living.
Intellectual - You seek out intelligence. Idle chit-chat is not what you are after. You prefer your date who can stimulate your mind.

Your Top Ten Traits

1. Intellectual
2. Practical
3. Adventurous
4. Conservative
5. Wealthy/Ambitious
6. Big-Hearted
7. Religious
8. Sensual
9. Stylish
10. Shy
Your Top Ten Match Traits

1. Shy
2. Practical
3. Intellectual
4. Religious
5. Adventurous
6. Conservative
7. Traditional
8. Funny
9. Big-Hearted
10. Stylish

Take the Online Dating Personality Quiz at Dating Diversions

I'm primarily Intellectual, Practical, and Adventurous. I suppose that fits, though I'd stop short of calling myself an intellectual though, as I dislike immoderate behaviour. I seek a woman who is shy, practical, and intellectual. Sounds good I suppose, given that I do not enjoy the company of boorish types. I don't think that the mark of a liberated woman is uncivilised behaviour. Indeed, I think that a truly liberated woman would have self-confidence and lacking the need to be boisterous. Of course, what I consider to be a liberated woman is sorely at odds with what I see on a daily basis. Let's examine a list of traits I believe to be desirable in a woman:
1)Independence. A woman who lives as a slave of fashion or passion is as much a slave as the much-maligned "house-slave" so looked down upon by contemporaries. In truth, I believe modern women to be far more enslaved than their progenitors. Though in previous generations women were physically, legally, and morally restricted, modern women are subject to a much more insidious influence. As if descended directly from one of Tocqueville's visions, modern women are bent very much to the desires of popular opinion. Rather than wearing the restrictive clothing, they restrict themselves in order to better fit into revealing modern wear. There is a national obsession with dieting, and tomes promising a quick-fix rocket to #1.
2)Non-trendy. As you've probably figured, I hate trendy people. They follow ridiculous fads with the sole justification that many of their peers are pursuing the same ends. The trend in modern times seems to be "individuality", though it's interesting to note that this "self-expression" has led to a uniformity of clothing style that is unmatched even in military units. Furthermore, even people class themselves as "non-trendy" end up following a slightly different trend. It's amazing to see those who thoroughly trash the "shallow commercialist establishment" spending hours accessorising entirely unnecessary bits of personal decoration they picked up at a store that is specifically designed to cater to their needs.
3)Studious. No social event is worse than sitting across the table and staring at them because they know nothing except the latest gossip and drivel produced on television. It's impossible to communicate with these people, as nothing they say has any weight. Their communication is akin to a low-quality internet, dependent on a few movers and shakers who engage in amusing antics to keep the system going. In the end, it's all the same trite garbage. Nobody cares how much liquor Cooter consumed at the last social event.
What makes it worse is that there's no exchange of ideas. I've found the most profitable friendships come when both parties have new ideas to offer. For example, one might take a person who is interested in philosophy and another who is interested in biology. They can combine their respective fields of knowledge and perhaps hatch new and bold ideas.
This discourse, of course, is entirely dependent on both parties having something to give. I've found that many people have nothing to offer intellectually, and any communication ends up being dead space. Is it any wonder so many married couples stop speaking?
4)Inculcated with Western Civilisation. Seeing as how western civilisation is the dominant civilisation, and the one I prefer, it is always a plus for anyone to be conversant in its basics. Sadly, this is another rare quality, as modernistic multi-culturalism denies that people of many races can participate in one tradition of civilisation. It's an interesting aside that this was based on old Victorian racist theories which denied that people of African descent were capable of participating in civilised life. The Western Tradition, founded on Hellenism and Roman Culture, is the opposite: people of many races, creeds, and backgrounds participated in one common culture. That's the reason the Roman Empire was so successful- its culture, laws, and way of life promised people around the world a better way.
5)Spiritual. To me, denying the human spirit is like denying the heliocentric solar system. One can manage with a geocentric model, but it is less elegant. So it is with so-called "scientific monism", which holds man to be a sum of chemical reactions. With this view, all of man's actions have no significance save those which contribute to reproduction. That's not how I live, and it's not what I want to see in others.
6)Libertarian or Conservative. Yes, ideology is part of a successful relationship, any relationship. If there is a fundamental disagreement between both parties about the basis of human nature, there is little common ground.
7)Self-sufficient. Damsels in distress get annoying. A grand rescue every once in a while may be romantic and proof of how far one party will go for the sake of the other. Constant bail-outs are tiresome on the nerves and put great strain, as it banishes the sense of equality from the relationship.
This also relates to control issues. As we learned from the Wife of Bath's Tale, what women really want is control (" 'My liege lady, generally,' said he,/'Women desire to have the sovereignty/As well upon their husband as their love,/And to have mastery their man above'"). Women who seek to change their man generally embark on a fruitless quest that embitters both parties.
8)Not Blonde. Society has had an obsession with women who have yellow-coloured hair, but for the life of me I can't see why. Perhaps I might clarify here, and state "not fake blonde. Women who are so obsessed with social conventions that they bleach their hair and erase its natural beauty are not worth keeping.
9)No tanning booth. Ever. Another one of my numerous quirks is I hate tanning beds or booths. The Good Lord was considerate enough to provide great natural beauty to women of all skin colours. Beauty indeed can be seen to exist in nature, or at least as I see it. When women radically alter their natural state of being, ugliness occurs. A woman who weighs 600 pounds is obviously not in a natural state for a human, hence the consideration of ugliness. The same goes for a girl who fries herself with ultraviolet radiation so that she might look more like her comrades. Little Miss Cracker's skin was not built with enough melanocytes to withstand long-term exposure to ultra-violet radiation. Attempting to jump-start them with a hefty dose ends up giving the most un-natural and hideous skin tone. Furthermore, it makes the participant look like a damned lobster fresh out of the pot. When social conventions over-rule common sense, one cannot expect reasonable behaviour.
10)No weird fetishes. In the internet age, man has experienced a great liberation and has seen the ability to express himself multiply. Sadly, this is a double-edged sword. Some things better kept underground have been exposed to the light of day. I'm referring specifically to the twin plagues of furries and the so-called "big babies" (note: this is not a reference to nine pound infants). If you get off by dressing in a fur suit, or a diaper, you need to stay away from me and other civilised company.

Well, that's it. As you can see, I have pretty high standards, and honestly I don't think it's worth a trade-off. This is why I don't intend to get married or have children. With my fortune, I'd get a daughter who would bleach her hair blonde and a son who would be a "fur-son". Besides, as Tocqueville pointed out, the influence of the tyranny of the majority (especially regarding fashion) is nearly totalitarian in our society, and as a result those who would meet this sort of qualification are exceedingly rare.

Papal Prophecy & Probable Power

2005-04-07T10:55:00.000-04:00

Well, this has been a hell of a week for fans of my favourite talk-radio show Coast to Coast AM The big subject has been, like in all other sectors of life, the death of the Pope.
As the world watched John Paul's health decline, a gentleman from Trumpeter's Mission decreed that the Pope would be cured by a "group of mystics" who would gain great influence in the Vatican. Of course, this didn't happen. The gentleman in question now attributes his erroneous call on other "mystics" who gave him false information.
Coast-to-Coast listeners are also making a big deal about the fact the Pope was born under an eclipse, and that his funeral also coincides with another eclipse. This is an interesting bit of trivia, and many predictions for the future of the Catholic Church are coming our way. In the meantime, I'll keep my up with the coming Conclave and hope that some of those Marxist Latin American cardinals don't get elected.
Of course, there's always the St. Malachy Prophecies. This interesting set of Latin phrases is supposed to describe the Pontiffs from the reign of Celestine II in the Twelfth Century all the way to the "Last Pope", described as "Petrus Romanus". A recent guest on Coast-to-Coast, self-described "rogue" astrologer John Hogue. Mr. Hogue wrote a book about said prophecies, entitled The Last Pope. According to these prophecies, we only have two Pontiffs left before judgment day. Here are the recent pontiffs described:
Pastor angelicus (An Angelic Pastor) Pius XII: 1939-1958
Pastor et nauta (Shepherd and Sailor) John XXIII: 1958-1963
Flos florum (A Flower of Flowers) Paul VI: 1963-1978
De medietate lunæ (From the Half Moon) John Paul I: 1978
De labore solis (From the Suns Labor) John Paul II: 1978-2005
Now, some of these are rather convincing - Paul VI had three lilies on his crest (hence the flower), and his Papacy represented the flowering of knowledge as Vatican II came into force. The John Pauls are also convincing- John Paul I lasted about a month, from one half-moon to another, and JPII's title can also be construed to mean "Laborer of the East", hinting at his Polish ancestry.
Conversely, a lot of them don't fit. Pius XII is known as the "Angelic Pastor". The Jews might wish to contend that, considering Pius XII horrific failure to condemn the Holocaust. John XXIII's title of "shepherd and sailor" only fits in the most cursory fashion- John was the pastor of Venice before he became Pope. This sort of cursory fit seems more or less typical of this list.
Given my cursory knowledge of Renaissance Popes, let's examine them:
Præcursor Siciliæ (A Forerunner from Sicily) Innocent VIII: 1484-1492
Innocent VIII was Genoese, not Sicilian, though he did spend time at the Neapolitan court. However, this court was in Naples, not in Sicily. His forerunner, Sixtus VI, was also Genoese, not Sicilian. A cursory fit at best.
Bos Albanus in portu (An Alban Bull in the Port) Alexander VI: 1492-1503
My least favourite renaissance pope (which is saying a lot), Alexander was a Spaniard named Rodrigo Borgia. Albanus might be a reference to Britain, which makes no sense. Amusingly, his successor refused to say mass for the departed Alexander, saying "it is blasphemous to say mass for the souls of the damned."
De parvo homine (From a Little Man) Pius III: 1503
Reigned for only twenty-six days. I know little about him, except that he tried to reform the corrupt Papacy after Alexander VI's orgies and nepotism. I have no information about his height.
Fructus Jovis juvabit (The Fruit of Jupiter Will Help) Julius II: 1503-1513
My favourite renaissance Pope, Julius was more a soldier than a priest. His operative quote might be his remark before riding off to meet the King of France in battle- "Let's see who has bigger balls." Julius was very king-like, and sought the unification of Italy under the Papacy. Jupiter is usually associated with kings, though an association with Mars might be more appropriate.
De craticula Politiana (From a Politian Gridiron) Leo X: 1513-1521
Leo X is the archetypical renaissance pope. A Medici, he remarked upon his accession to the Throne of Peter that "God has given us the Papacy. Let us enjoy it." He was corrupt, nepotistic, and used his anal fistula as an excuse to engage in hunting and mock poetic triumphs involving elephants. He came from a political family, which might make sense, though the Latin phrase is rather confusing.
Leo Florentinus (A Lion of Florence) Adrian VI: 1522-1523
This makes no sense whatsoever. Adrian VI was the last non-Italian pope until John Paul II. He was a Dutchman, not a Florentine. His priestly career focused on Spain primarily, and the Spanish Emperor Charles V was instrumental in his election. He attempted to re-form the Church and was known for his modest habits. This didn't please the Italian noble families, and they were glad when he died after a short Pontificate. Most of his papers disappeared. My second favourite renaissance Pope, Adrian claimed that the Pope could err in matters of faith (haeresim per suam determinationem aut Decretalem assurondo). This doesn't sit well with many Catholics who like the Vatican I doctrines. It sits very well with me, however.
Flos pilæ ægri (From the Flower of the Ball) Clement VII: 1523-1534
Another Medici. This phrase actually fits well, as Clement was the better of the two Medici popes. The Medici family coat-of-arms has balls (palle in Italian) on it, and is still visible in many Florentine buildings. Was Pope during the Sack of Rome, during which he hid in the Castel Sant'Angelo and was almost killed by French musket-fire. He was a shrewd diplomat, but didn't fit in well. During his reign, Henry VIII broke off with the Catholic Church and formed the Church of England.

As you can see, this list is pretty spotty when it comes to predictions. Here are the last two Popes:
Gloria olivae (From the Glory of Olives) - ? : 2005-?
If taken at face value, it sounds like an Italian will re-capture the throne of St. Peter and will be well respected and do much for the Church. Though I'd prefer an African, anyone who continues in JPII's tradition will be respected. More reforms of the Roman Church would be nice though.
Petrus Romanus- In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, & Iudex tremêdus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.
"In extreme persecution, the seat of the Roman church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will pacify the sheep in many tribulations, at the end of whose term the city of Seven Hills will be destroyed and the whole world (literally "populace") will be judged by the Great Judge. The End."
Doesn't bode well for the chances of the planet, does it?

On a happier note (and also on Coast to Coast), an extremely clever Australian has solved the efficiency issues regarding wind power by sending the windmill to 15,000 feet! The efficiency of this machine might be as high as 90% in some areas, and it's completely clean. It uses electric motors to stay aloft, which run off its own power. The rest of the power is transmitted via cable to the ground. There's no fossil fuel, no nuclear waste, and it's cheap.

Admiralty FAQ

2005-04-05T21:20:00.000-04:00

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm writing a personal FAQ. I'll update as needed.

Who the hell are you?
The Admiral.

That doesn't tell me anything. You have a name?
'deed I do. Unfortunately, given the current tendency of governments to regulate blogging, I'm keeping my identity under wraps. Those who need to know do know.

What do you do?
Professionally? Nothing. I'm more or less a permanent student.

I've read your blog. It's all political stuff. Do you have a shred of a personal life?
Yes, but nothing to write about. If something remarkable happens, I'll point it out.

What are some things you like?
Political events, bad movies, some good movies, philosophy, history, war, and firearms.

Anything else?
Maybe. When I think of it, I'll update.

What do you not like?
Don't get me started.

People say you're a bit of a hermit. Why is that?
Mostly because I don't like people. More specifically, I'm quite deliberate in the type of company I keep. I don't see the point in speaking to people who truly have nothing to say.

Why don't you drink? Everybody's doing it
All the other nations are using the metric system. This goes to show that popular arguments tend to be wrong.

Are you the weirdo who walks around all the time?
I am said weirdo.

What do you do it for?
I'm working.

Why don't you have a girlfriend?
Don't want one. Girls tend to be expensive, and I'm not given to compromise.

But what about love?
Love isn't a big part of most relationships I've seen, though perhaps I'm mistaken, he really loves you, and it really is "more than just physical".

People seem to ask you about relationships often. Why?
I'm as puzzled as you are.

Do you have any relationship advice for me?
I can supply someone else's:
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So from my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you
A pretty woman makes a man look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he married her
Then she starts doin' the things that will break his heart
But if you make an ugly woman your wife
You'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks your meals on time
An she'll always treat you kind
-Jimmy Soul

I hear you're a war nut
You've heard correctly. War is the only real sport. Everything else is just a pale imitation.

I also hear you're a gun nut
I don't think a sixty year-old surplus rifle qualifies me for that exalted state, but I'll try harder.

What is your future career?
I'm going to law school eventually, but I've no desire to be a barrister.

Why do you have to be such a smart ass?
Better a to be a smart ass than a dumb ass.

You don't look so tough. I could take you on.
You don't sound too smart. Strength is not the sole virtue in conflict.

What's a "Tranzi?"
"Tranzi" is short for Transnational Progressivism, a philosophy which is based on "emerging international norms" which can be defined as "what the Europeans are doing". Tranzis are inherently anti-democratic. They believe society must be managed from the top down, and individuals entirely subject to the discretion and needs of the state. Rights are gifts from the government rather than part of man's nature, and the state can abridge them for convenience's sake. They're also virulently opposed to the free market and personal discretion. Embodied most purely in the United Nations and the European Union. Also prevalent in the major news-media.
Term shamelessly stolen from Samizdata.net's blog. See their concise definition here.

Since you hate the international standard so much, what government do you want?
One where I can live without fear of foreign invasion, and without fear of my own government's excesses. Basically, I want to be left alone.

What do you believe?
I am fairly religious, though my religion is free of Popish Superstition and other similarly undesirable elements.
With regards to philosophy, it's a more difficult question. Let me just say that there's an unseen world which exists alongside ours that we've not the nature to perceive, yet still affects us.

How Sexy Are You? Grroowwwwllll.
Those who should know do. Those who don't will probably be disappointed.

What Should I get you for your Birthday?
Anything from Fulton Armory.

What's your ideal day?
Spend the day out-of-doors, and the evening indoors with a good book and a fire. Trite, isn't it?

Why doesn't anyone comment?
Good question. Get to work before I have to tell you twice.

And just for Tom:
You need to convert to Roman Catholicism. Oo-ee-oo.
I'll convert to Catholicism when its doctrines coincide with my own. Until then, the answer is nyet.

Any suggestions for future questions will be entertained. Submit them in the comments section, s'il vous plais.