Ramblings of an old paladin

Conservatives and President Obama

2012-01-04T20:51:00.004-05:00

Long time no post, but I've been musing on something lately. Writing helps me order my thoughts, and as long as I'm writing on this topic, it might as well go on the ol' blog. This is much in the same vein as my post on conservative opposition to John McCain four years ago.

I've noticed something about the Obama administration since 2009. Republicans in general tend to hate the man (see my point on party loyalty being the ultimate factor in the post on McCain), of course, but at least the neoconservative wing of the party, marginalized as it is presently, really shouldn't.

Why? They (we, I would have said a few years ago, though I've changed ever so slightly since) are basically getting what they want out of him. Osama bin Laden is dead at the hands of the American military, the Iraq war is being honorably ended according to the schedule President Bush agreed to with the Iraqis without a precipitous withdrawal, the Afghanistan campaign has been robustly supported (more so than it was under Bush, I might add) with substantial measurable progress, the United States is standing up to Iranian threats regarding the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear program, democracy is indeed sweeping across the Middle East, and American and NATO assistance has helped to overthrow one of the most noxious dictators of Northern Africa in the person of Muammar Gaddafi without having to put a single boot on the ground. In short, the neoconservative position, that American power should be used in furtherance of liberty throughout the world, is being more or less obliged by this President, and good on him for that. (As I said, slightly.) Since neoconservative philosophy properly referred to is a foreign policy philosophy, without regard to domestic issues, this should be making that part of the Republican establishment essentially headed by Dick Cheney and the (now largely defunct) Project for the New American Century extremely happy; I daresay that Obama has been more effective at implementing their policies than Bush, who it must be said did a deeply flawed if enthusiastic job of it.

It won't, though, because Obama is a Democrat. Party loyalty, you see. This is why I've been a lifelong independent; I don't have to feel obligated to anybody's tribe over the issues. But that's another rant.

The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

2010-03-22T22:16:00.004-04:00

Despite the fact that it has been over for 143 years, the American Civil War's causes, the motives behind the secession of the Deep South, and even the legality of secession itself are still matters of hot debate in historical circles. There has been so much historical revisionism on the subject (on both sides, no less), that it has become difficult to get a clear account of the reasons behind it, although the facts of the actual events are widely available.

In this post, I'm going to lay out the facts as I see them. I freely admit to being a Unionist and ardent anti-Confederate, but feel that these are positions borne out by the objective facts of the matter rather than damaging biases. Make of that what you will.

First, the motives behind secession.

Too often, you will see apologists for the Confederacy claiming that the South did what it did because they saw that Abraham Lincoln was a despotic tyrant in the making, that he would subjugate the rights of the people and crush the states beneath the boot of the federal government. "Lincoln the Tyrant" is a popular trope, spurred onward by the usual grain of truth that gives such things their lasting appeal: Abraham Lincoln did, as President, suspend habeas corpus, raise an army without the consent of Congress, and, yes, ordered the forfeit of property on the part of Confederates (i.e. freed the slaves, though it's not often put like that in a criticism for obvious reasons). You see this repeated over and over in neo-Confederate and anarchocapitalist circles; for instance, a look through the titles of Thomas DiLorenzo's essays shows an obsession with writing extensive character attacks on President Lincoln, and while probably the most prolific, he's not the only one.

There are obvious problems with this approach, however. The most glaring is that none of the things that Lincoln did that earn so much scorn could have been done outside the context of the Civil War. In other words, far from predicting Lincoln's behavior and seceding to avoid it, the southern states were the catalyst for his behavior! After all, had there been no insurrection, there would have been no need to arrest insurrectionists, raise an army to suppress the insurrection, and emancipate the slaves in Confederate-held territory as a war measure. (More on the scope of the Emancipation Proclamation later.)

The other problem, of course, is that there is no shortage of primary source documents from the Confederate governments themselves stating exactly why they seceded. These documents are occasionally selectively quoted, but not often, since the discerning Confederate apologist realizes that quoting from one invites the reader to find the rest of the declaration, which utterly destroys the secession-as-proof-of-tyranny argument.

Common quotations used to argue that secession was prompted by northern tyranny and aggression are:

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

Well, here we have Texas accusing the federal government of incompetence and dereliction of duty in defending its territory. Seems a reasonable complaint, doesn't it? After all, if the federal government were truly remiss in its duties in defending its territory, then Texas, having once been a sovereign republic itself and having agreed to become one of the United States presumably with the assumption that it would be defended, might actually have legitimate cause to question continuing as part of the Union.

However, a summary reading of the full text quickly shows that the "property" referenced in the first paragraph was, in fact, slaves, and that the bulk of the document is dedicated to railing against abolitionist sentiment.

South Carolina also chimes in, with this gem.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

A noble sentiment; after all, if several parties to an agreement are flouting that agreement with abandon, why continue it?

Of course, the statutes referred to all involved the treatment of escaped slaves.

And most egregiously, Mississippi:

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity.

So, assuredly they saw Lincoln's tyranny coming, with a statement such as that, right?

Wrong.

At least not the "tyranny" so often complained about in the modern day. Here's what it is they saw: Quote:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Source.

And just to give the "escaping tyranny" falsehood its death-blow, here is an excerpt from an address given by Alexander Stephens, member of Georgia's secession convention (where he argued against seceding on the grounds that the Union would militarily crush the South) and vice president of the Confederate States of America:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

From the Cornerstone Address. And to expand further on it, the following is from a post-war passage in Stephens' memoirs:

Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.

So, I should think that this lays to rest claims that the southern states were benevolently attempting to avoid general oppression; they rather acted in order to keep a large segment of their own populations oppressed.

Ah, but regardless of their reasons, moral or immoral, it was the right of the states to end the compact of the Constitution, cries out the Libertarian circle! It was never the intention of the Founders to forever bind the states against their wills, and they intentionally left the door open to secession by not explicitly banning it in the Constitution! Lincoln's actions, therefore, forever and improperly removed a natural right of the states, a safeguard against future tyranny.

Well, no. Let's look at the intentions of the Founders. Secession did indeed occur to them; after all, many were still alive during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s. There are therefore many writings from several Founding Fathers to draw from. At random, let's start with James Madison. From this letter to William Rives.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.

Madison actually considered the idea of secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to. He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny. Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it.

And now for the thoughts of the man commonly referred to as the father of our country, George Washington, chairman of the Constitutional Convention and first President. This is from his Circular to the States.

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and<

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.

Ouch. That one's got to sting, especially since many neo-Confederates actually hold Washington as a hero. There was in fact a portrait of him dominating the front wall of the hall in Montgomery where the Confederate Constitution was drawn up.

Well, if Washington wouldn't support dissolving the Union, then surely Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, that man who more than any other spurred the sundering of the American colonies from British rule, who called for regular revolutions to avoid tyranny, would!

Hate to disappoint, but Jefferson wrote to George Washington in 1794:

I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.

And in another letter, this one addressed to a third party and talking about a discussion Jefferson had had with Washington that day:

That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried a great deal too far; there might be desires, but he did not believe there were designs to change the form of government into a monarchy; that there might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but that the main body of the people in the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in the southern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to the Excise law, according to information he had received from General Hand. That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government.

But... but... Whether they intended it or not, secession isn't disallowed in the Constitution, and the 9th and 10th amendments allow the states to do things that they aren't specifically barred from doing, one might say. And for that, we turn to the Constitution itself. You may recall Madison's letter bringing this up. United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it. United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it? United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction? United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Speaks for itself, I think. United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, which is the one Madison referred to in his letter to Senator Rives. United States Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So where is the right to secede? I'm certainly not seeing it. Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution. They did not. In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is the Preamble:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

So much for the right of secession.

Now, none of this is to say that the North was all sweetness and light. It was not. While slavery was the proximate cause of the initial secessions, and therefore the ultimate cause of the war, freeing the slaves was not the North's motive in prosecuting the war. Rather, the North was motivated primarily to preserve the Union; while Lincoln was personally an abolitionist, he did not believe it within his power as President to free the slaves. (Ironic, since he did take several powers normally reserved for Congress - namely, suspension of habeus corpus and calling out the militia to suppress insurrection - upon himself.)

The Emancipation Proclamation was indeed a great step, but it was first and foremost a war measure. Slave states which did not secede from the Union were permitted to keep their slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment. In fact, prior to the Proclamation, Lincoln rescinded orders by General John Frémont and General David Hunter freeing the slaves in areas of the Confederacy they had captured; he dismissed Frémont when the general refused the President's orders to reverse his decision.

It was political reality that making the war about slavery would likely have cost Lincoln the war (Ulysses S. Grant said he would resign if he thought the war's objective was to free the slaves, and the border states would likely have simply seceded themselves), but that doesn't change the fact that the Union's prosecution of the war was not to free the slaves; it just makes it more excusable.

However, what is not excusable is the South's behavior prior to and during the Civil War. The initial secessions were without doubt motivated by a desire to continue chattel slavery (secessions after Lincoln took office were motivated by an unwillingness to contribute troops to fight the South, but again, without slavery none of it would have happened), and that is what matters to the causes of the war.

I apologize if some of this essay seems incoherent; it was written in one draft in the post form. I may revise it at a later time.

The War of Southern Aggression

2010-03-21T03:26:00.002-04:00

“The War of Northern Aggression” is a popular phrase among Confederate apologists, referring to the supposed outrageous aggression shown by the Union to bring the otherwise peaceful Confederate States back under its rule. But how true is it?

I have dealt at length in previous essays about the motivations of the Slave Power and with the constitutional issues of secession itself. Here, I will concentrate on what the states of the Deep South did in the decades leading up to the Civil War and their part in bringing war upon the United States.

The Nullification Crisis and John C. Calhoun

On November 24, 1832 a so-called Nullification Convention of South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification, unilaterally declaring the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and void within the boundaries of the state. Concurrently, Governor Robert Hayne began military preparations to resist federal enforcement, raising a volunteer minuteman army of 2,000 cavalry and 25,000 infantry. The famous Force Bill authorizing military action against South Carolina was passed by Congress in February 1833, but a compromise tariff acceptable to South Carolina was also passed at the same time, prompting the withdrawal of the Ordinance and defusing the military crisis. Although violence did not result, South Carolina's willingness to use force to resolve internal political disputes was well established.

One of Nullification's chief architects was John C. Calhoun, a leading South Carolina politician and Andrew Jackson's vice president. The split with Jackson over nullification prompted Calhoun's resignation and run for the Senate in 1832, but his long career of political blackmail against Northern interests and particularly abolitionists extended back even into his days as a loyal vice president. In 1826, when confronted with the prospect of recognition of the independence of Haiti (which had recently undergone a revolution against French colonialism led by free blacks and the island's slaves), Calhoun had dire warnings for his government. To Secretary of the Navy Samuel Southard, he wrote:

It is a delicate subject, and would in the present tone of feelings to the South lead to great mischief. It is not so much recognition simply as what must follow it. We must send and receive ministers, and what would be our social relations to a Black minister in Washington? Must he be received or excluded from our dinners, our dances and our parties, and must his daughters and sons participate in the society of our daughters and sons? … Small as these considerations appear to be they involve the peace and perhaps the union of our nation.

The implicit threat achieved the hoped-for result: The United States did not recognize Haiti until 1862, with the Civil War in full swing and its agitation of the Deep South long past relevant. Nor was this the last time Calhoun would use the tactic of predicting the destruction of the Union as a result of a proposed policy to thwart its implementation. On March 4, 1850, less than a month before his death, Calhoun prepared a speech for the Senate floor which was read by Senator James Mason of Alabama, due to Calhoun's failing health leaving him unable to speak. In it, he extensively laid the blame for Southern discontent directly at the feet of the North, speaking in broad terms of the sections as wholes and warning of disunion should the North not agree to Southern demands. In his conclusion, he stated:

The North has only to will [the preservation of the Union] to accomplish it—to do justice by conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired Territory [California], and to do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled—to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide for the insertion of a provision in the Constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South in substance the power which she possessed in protecting herself. ... But will the North agree to do this? It is for her to answer this question. But, I will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the love of the Union which she professes to have... At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the North, and not the South.

The speech was a rhetorical masterpiece, methodically (and intentionally) laying the North and South at odds with each other, alleging a crisis, and then laying all responsibility for solving it upon the North. Calhoun sent a copy of the speech to Henry W. Conner, accompanied by this letter:

My speech, of which a copy will be enclosed to you by the mail, which takes this, was read today in the Senate. My friends think it among my most successful efforts, & that it made a profound impression. I, trust, that our friends in Charleston will give it a wide circulation. You will see, that I have made up the issue between North & South. If we flinch we are gone; but, if we stand fast on it, we shall triumph, either by compelling the North to yield to our terms or declaring our Indepen[den]ce of them. Truly, J.C.C.

By this, if by nothing else he wrote, it is clear that Calhoun was intentionally engaging in political brinksmanship, aggressively gambling with the Union itself to achieve his political goal of spreading what he saw as the positive good of slavery. The “equal right” in California he referred to in his speech was the right to hold slaves, which he conflated with the rights of the Southern section in general as a rhetorical device; the point of contention was whether or not California should be admitted to the Union as a free state without a counterpart slave state to keep representation in the Senate equal. Far from the typical picture of a reluctant South seceding as a last resort to escape Northern oppression, Calhoun was quite willing and even eager to destroy the Union for political gain.

Threats and Violence: California, Preston Brooks, and the House (Divided)

Such tactics and sentiments were hardly unique to Calhoun, and not all those who agreed with him were so subtle. On the issue of California, Congressman Albert Brown of Mississippi said on the House floor:

The southern States ... will devise means for vindicating their rights. I do not know what these means will be, but I know what they may be ... They may be to carry slaves into all of southern California, as the property of sovereign States, and there hold them, as we have a right to do; and if molested, defend them ... We ask you to give us our rights by non-intervention; if you refuse, I am for taking them by armed occupation.

In response to Calhoun's speech, James Hammond, a fellow South Carolinian planter and slaveholder, wrote to the Senator two days later, saying:

Our only safety is in equality of power. We must divide the territories so as forever to retain that equality in the Senate at least … I would infinitely prefer disunion to any thing the least short of this … If the North will not consent to this I think we should not have another word to say, but kick them out of the Capitol & set it on fire.

Of course, California was admitted and none of these things came to pass, but not for lack of concessions to the Slave Power. As part of the compromise for the admission of California (the aptly named Compromise of 1850) the remaining former Mexican territories (Utah and New Mexico) enacted slave codes, the infamous Fugitive Slave Act was strengthened (barring free states from requiring trials for alleged escaped slaves and requiring the assistance of their law enforcement in capturing fugitives, removing much of the nothern states' right to self-government), and California even sent one pro-slavery Senator to Washington to maintain “balance” in the Senate despite such views not representing the state's population.

These tactics of threatening disunion and war if this or that policy was not acceded to by the free states continued throughout the 1850s. During the presidential race of 1856, the candidacy of Republican John C. Frémont was vehemently opposed in the South for his party's anti-slavery views, leading Senator James Mason of Virginia to write to Jefferson Davis, who would later become the president of the Confederate States and was then the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce:

I have a letter from [Virginia Governor Henry] WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will—this in your most private ear. He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. … Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation."

Senator Mason directly requested the Secretary of War to arm the southern states for war against the United States, a full four years before any actual secession, based on the possibility of a Republican president. This did not come to pass, of course, because Frémont lost the election (in no small part due to the specter of the threat of war), but even the asking is telling.

But that's child's play compared to the election of the Speaker of the House in 1859. In that year, a Republican representative from Ohio by the name of John Sherman was a candidate for the Speaker's gavel. That he was a Republican was bad enough for the delegations of the slave states, but the real rub was that Sherman had endorsed Hinton Helper's controversial (in the South) book, The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, in which Helper, a virulently racist North Carolinian, argued against slavery on the basis that it destroyed property values and otherwise retarded the economy of the South, to the detriment of non-slaveholding whites. Nevermind that Sherman had withdrawn his endorsement after learning the full extent of Helper's views, or that Helper was not a morally-motivated abolitionist; he was an abolitionist nonetheless, and no one who had ever endorsed his book would be Speaker if the Congressional delegation of South Carolina had anything to say about it.

As it happens, they had quite a bit to say, and every word scathingly treasonous, even by secessionist standards. Because they did not propose secession, peaceful or otherwise, should Sherman win the seat; rather they were prepared to initiate a bloody coup on the House floor. Representative William Porcher Miles of South Carolina was prepared to do anything to prevent Sherman's taking of the Speakership, and asked Governor William Gist of South Carolina whether the legislature there would support the Congressional delegation's plotting. In response, on December 20, 1859 (one year to the day before South Carolina's secession) Gist posted a letter to Miles. While he cautioned against rashly provoking the free states, advising that a bloodless revolution would be preferable, he placed the matter in Miles' judgment, saying:

While I advise against the ejection of Sherman if elected, I do not wish to be understood as not desiring the war to begin at Washington; but as I would prefer it should begin in sudden heat & with good provocation rather than a deliberate determination to perform an act of violence which might prejudice us in the eyes of the world. … If however, you upon consideration decide to make the issue of fire in Washington, write or telegraph me, & I will have a Regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time.

To be clear, this wasn't a matter of national slavery policy, or even of lasting legislation at all; the government of South Carolina was prepared to use military force to influence the internal political workings of the federal Congress over what amounted to personal dislike of the candidate for an action the candidate had since disavowed. Once again, this crisis was defused by the free state delegations acceding to Southern demands; Sherman was withdrawn from consideration as a candidate for Speaker.

Even when not threatening violence and rebellion, Calhoun's mode of threatening secession and disunion continued to be popular with slave state politicians throughout the 1850s. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, nullifying the Missouri Compromise by permitting the slavery question to be determined by popular sovereignty (and setting the stage for Bleeding Kansas, in which opposing sides attempting to gain a majority of the electorate simply by killing the other side's voters), was passed under such threats, and when popular sovereignty failed to deliver a slave state in Kansas, threats of secession were again made if the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was not accepted as the governing document of a new state of Kansas. “If Kansas is driven out of the Union for being a slave state, can any slave state remain in it with honor?” asked Senator Hammond of South Carolina (who, readers will no doubt recall, advocated burning down the Capitol if California was not made a slave state). These threats prompted President Buchanan to urge acceptance of the Lecompton document, saying that if he did not, the slave states would “secede from the Union or take up arms against us.” In the end, the Lecompton document was rejected and sent back for a new referendum, which failed; Kansas would not become a state, slave or free, for quite some time yet, removing the immediate crisis.

But no account of 1850s slave state aggression would be complete without mentioning Preston Brooks, representative of South Carolina, and his armed assault against Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor on May 22, 1856. Senator Sumner had in the preceding days given a speech denouncing the slaughter in the Kansas territory over the slavery issue, and had scathing words for Senator Andrew Butler, a relative of Brooks. In response, Brooks, along with two companions, walked into the Senate chamber, briefly addressed Sumner, and then commenced beating him with a heavy cane, cudgeling the Senator until he broke his bolted down Senate desk from the floor, rendered Sumner unconscious, and continued beating the unfortunate Senator until he broke his cane.

The incident was instantly infamous. Brooks was roundly censured by the House, but nearly unanimously reelected by his constituents. He received new canes from all over the South, including one bearing the inscription “Use Knock-Down Arguments” and another saying “Hit Him Again.”

The Crisis Comes: 1860-61

By the close of the 1850s, the long string of Southern aggressions had long since begun to wear thin on the patience of the free states, and especially the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln, by now a candidate for President, said in an address to the Cooper Institute in New York, intended to be read by Southerners:

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

Of course, Lincoln's candidacy was successful. This was the first time anyone since Andrew Jackson who had shown any backbone in standing up to their threats had taken high office. The Deep South's secessions were swift. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all seceded before Lincoln even took office. I have extensively covered their stated reasons for doing so elsewhere, but preemptive secession (and accompanying seizure of federal property, notably forts and armories) is not a passive act, to put it mildly. On January 11, 1861, the day of Alabama's secession, Lincoln wrote to a Republican congressman who proposed an emergency compromise to forestall and reverse the secessions:

We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices. In this they are either attempting to play upon us or they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum. A year will not pass till we shall have to take Cuba as a condition upon which they will stay in the Union.

Compromise at this stage was impossible. Lincoln saw, with more clarity than his predecessor, that the South would never cease holding threats over the heads of the free states until the question was solved. “The tug has to come, and better now than later,” he wrote in December, 1860. All that remained now was the tug itself.

That came at Fort Sumter. The fort was a federal installation, manned by federal troops, which the state of South Carolina had by statute voluntarily surrendered all claim to in 1836. In short, it was thoroughly the property of the United States, even if one is so generous as to presume the legitimacy of secession through the means used by South Carolina. As every high school student in the United States knows, South Carolinian forces fired on Fort Sumter from the batteries of Fort Johnson, Fort Moultrie, and Cummings Point starting at 4:30 am on April 12, 1861.

This was, of course, the ultimate aggression of the South: Southern partisans bombarded and captured a manned United States military fortification, touching off a war that killed more Americans than any other war in history, almost as many as all other American wars combined.

Conclusion

The American Civil War was thoroughly of Southern construction. Between the administrations of Jackson and Lincoln, the federal government and free states had bent over backwards at every threat of the slaveholding South to prevent disunion; every single threat of secession and war was met with compromise and backing down. The so-called War of Northern Aggression is a fictional construct by the defenders of the fictional country known as the Confederate States of America, a thorough distortion of well-documented historical fact.

Author's Note: This essay's title, “The War of Southern Aggression,” is shared by an essay by James M. McPherson, a fact I discovered while conducting research for this article. Dr. McPherson's work is extremely well-written, and I recommend it to anyone with an interest in this subject. His book of essays containing his work by this title may be found on Google Books here, but I recommend purchasing the book, as I did after discovering it. No infringement is intended.

Fighting the good fight

2009-05-25T11:09:00.001-04:00

Against spam, that is.

http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/spam/

Have a nice day, spambots.

The Sri Lankan civil war is at its end.

2009-05-18T23:15:00.004-04:00

BBC, Prabhakaran's obituary

The Sri Lankan civil war, which has raged for as long as I have been alive, is finally at its end. Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the Tamil Tigers and longtime de facto dictator of the territory the rebels and terrorists controlled, has been killed by the Sri Lankan Army; may he rest in pieces.

Since I've never before discussed Sri Lanka in this space, a brief outline of the conflict is in order. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, more commonly called the Tamil Tigers, are (or now, hopefully, were) a radical guerrilla army, hellbent on carving out 40% of Sri Lanka's land area as a homeland for the Tamil minority population of the island, which comprises less than 10% of its people. The Tigers invented suicide bombing as it is known today, as cited by the New York Times, and used it extensively in their terroristic campaign against the Sri Lankan government and people. They also, at the height of their power, managed to become a conventional threat, with artillery, a naval flotilla, and even a small air wing, which they used to conduct aerial bombings until just a few months ago, when the last of their planes were shot down.

The Tamil Tigers negotiated many ceasefires and truces with the Sri Lankans during the course of the war when strategically convenient for them, using each one to rearm and then breaking it when they were prepared to resume their offensive. The current Sri Lankan government, to its very great credit, decided enough was enough, and pressed on to destroy the Tigers once and for all despite international calls for another ceasefire. The LTTE stayed true to form even in their last days, resorting to using their remaining artillery to shell civilians behind their own lines so that they could attempt to blame the Sri Lankan government and step up international pressure for a truce.

The world is better off without this scourge. May the rebuilding move swiftly and without recrimination towards those ethnic Tamils who did not take up arms.

Ralph Hayes, Jr. is a coward and a fool.

2009-05-16T23:17:00.002-04:00

It's not often that I do this; after all, writing a post for everyone who commits a logical fallacy in a debate would fill this blog to the exclusion of all else. However, argument through appeal to force is something I feel the need to write about.

The subject of today's rant is known as Ralph Hayes, Jr. Mr. Hayes is the illustrator and author of a couple of excellent webcomics, in addition to several mediocre to outright bad ones, hosted at his site which I linked to in the title.

This has little to do with my problem, however. What it has more to do with is the fact that he is an outspoken social conservative, and happens to advocate revoking all funding for AIDS research and treatment, in favor of quarantining the victims of the disease. I virulently disagree with his conclusion, but even that's not why I'm writing this.

No, I'm writing this because, after I wrote a long reply detailing just how bogus his money-saving rationale is, due to the fact that a quarantine would require cutting off international trade to prevent the virus from being re-introduced into the country, which would cost the economy an amount of money that makes the $13.7 billion he complains about seem paltry by comparison, he deleted my reply and banned me from commenting on his blog.

That's some way to win an argument there. Don't like what someone has to say? Destroy the evidence and get rid of him! Comrade Stalin would be proud.

As you can (currently; I don't know how long it'll last) see, he did not delete all my replies. Earlier ones based on the immorality of locking up so many people who had done nothing wrong were dismissed on the basis that quarantine would save lives, and he simply claimed I was wrong when I pointed out that quarantine in the modern world, with modern travel, isn't as effective as he would like, but when I destroyed his flimsy rationale, he got rid of me. Guess I struck a nerve.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when discussing it with him, but I'm sure as hell not going to now. The method of controlling the disease that he advocates is ineffective by every single measure - cost savings, preventing the spread of the disease, easing the suffering and extending the lives of the victims - except the measure of punishing those who engage in what he, as a social conservative, sees as immoral behavior. Sure, it's costing us boatloads of money and not advancing medical research in any way, but at least we get to lock up THE GAYS!

There. I said it. He hasn't, but that's the only purpose his proposed solution would serve, so there it is.

Mr. Hayes, if you ever read this, I want you to know: Censorship is the act of a coward. Public censorship, openly removing material after it has already been published and read, is the act of a fool. You have revealed yourself as a foolish, pathetic little man who, given a modicum of power, is quite prepared to use force against those who disagree with him. I also want you to know that argumentum ad baculum may make you feel better, but it has yet to ever win a debate.

"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him. It means you recognize his superiority to yourself." - Joseph Sobran

Arlen Specter switches parties

2009-04-28T12:40:00.003-04:00

Wall Street Journal, MSNBC

Well, the news broke barely five minutes before I started writing this (hey, I think that's a new record on me covering something in this space), and already the wailing and gnashing of teeth has begun. Senator Arlen Spector, R-Pennsylvania is now Senator Arlen Specter, D-Pennsylvania, and I saw the complaints starting even before I had read enough to be able to open this tab and write about it.

My analysis: This is powerful symbolism, but ultimately it doesn't matter in practical legislative terms. Cloture will remain the same as it was before; Specter won't suddenly vote down every Republican filibuster because he's now registered as a Democrat. If he'd have done it before, he'd do it now, and if he wouldn't have, he won't. It really just doesn't change anything.

I really don't have a whole lot more to add, but thought I'd better get my (very small) voice of reason in anyway. Beyond the political ruckus, I don't care who's got what letter behind his name in media reports on Congress. Our representatives and Senators are individuals, and should be judged and elected as such. I know that's not what happens, thanks to both the primary system and the large proportion of the electorate who simply vote their party line when it comes time to go to the ballot box, but hey, I can dream.

Stephen Hawking hospitalized

2009-04-20T20:50:00.002-04:00

Associated Press

Dr. Stephen Hawking, world-renowned physicist famous for his work on black holes and quantum mechanics, has been rushed to the hospital with a chest infection that he has apparently been fighting for some weeks. I do not know his status beyond that, but Professor Hawking has Lou Gehrig's Disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which has left him paralyzed and presumably more vulnerable to infection due to his body's inability to exercise.

My thoughts and prayers are with Dr. Hawking tonight. His work is invaluable to science, and he is currently our best hope for reaching a unified theory of general relativity and quantum physics, the goal of which is to explain both quantum and what we see as "normal" mechanics within a single framework. Here's to his pulling through.

Thought Reform at the University of Delaware

2009-04-20T20:40:00.004-04:00

I could write a big ol' post about this, but I think I'll let the students tell their own story.

"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him...You must love BIG BROTHER. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him." - O'Brien to Winston in 1984, by George Orwell

Spread this far and wide. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this malignancy at the heart of our university system needs disinfecting.

Since I've apparently accidentally encouraged a "Truther..."

2009-02-06T19:29:00.002-05:00

Well. In my last post, I embedded a video of a debate between the makers of the film Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine. Unfortunately, I failed to realize that some people are too dense to recognize a good intellectual thrashing when they see one, and instead side with the guy who shouts the most (when in actuality, being reduced to shouting in a debate usually means you've lost), so I've decided to correct that oversight.

So I am posting to promote the "9/11 Debunked" video series by R.K. Owens. These lay out, in simple format, precisely why the various 9/11 conspiracy theories do not stand up to the facts. I heartily recommend watching at least some of them to anyone interested in the issue, whether you believe the conspiracy theories or not.

The videos may be found here. Highlights include this video on why the fires in the World Trade Center didn't have to melt steel to collapse the buildings, this one handily shows that the towers did not fall at free-fall speed as frequently claimed by conspiracy theorists, and this one showing that the damage to the Pentagon is entirely consistent with a 757 hitting the building.

Be warned: Many of the videos, including the first two I linked, show the World Trade Center's collapse multiple times from multiple angles. If this is an emotional subject for you, as it is for me, you may wish to not take it in all at once.

Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics

2008-08-09T13:21:00.002-04:00

I know this is old news, but I've compiled the complete debate between the filmmakers of the conspiracy nutjob "documentary" Loose Change and the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine, which ran an excellent piece debunking the conspiracy theories into a playlist on YouTube. I'm presenting it now as a public service, as well as for its immense entertainment value.

My, but the Iranians love Photoshop.

2008-07-10T19:09:00.002-04:00

First, Iranian stringers Hezbollah had a hand in the Reuters fake photo scandal.

Then, Iranian state-run news agency PressTV presented a photoshopped protest sign as the genuine article.

And now, Iran is photoshopping images of their missile tests of the past few days.

I think this is hilarious. It's grim that the Iranians are threatening Israel and American interests with missile tests, of course, but that they feel the need to alter images of their tests for whatever reason is just funny. Do they think that Photoshopping a double of the missile will make a missile defense system miss or something? Because I can't find a practical purpose for altering the pictures in such a way, especially for such a bad job of it. (The editor could have at least sourced the duplicate smoke cloud from a different frame so it didn't look exactly the same.)

And that's about all there is to say. The more aggressively Iran behaves, the more likely they make it that Israel or the Unites States might attack. I suppose they're having difficulty figuring that out.

Today we celebrate our Independence Day

2008-07-04T13:51:00.000-04:00

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

I am shamed: An open confession

2008-06-26T18:11:00.004-04:00

There is no easy way to do this, but it must be done. I have broken my vows, and the first step to amends is to air my transgressions and motivate myself to not allow it to happen again.

I should explain before I go further. When I was in college, I was in the Society for Creative Anachronism. This is the world's largest medieval reenactment organization, and it is highly organized into kingdoms, baronies, and so forth.

As befits medieval reenactors with that kind of organization and scale, the Society has titular kings, lords of various grades... and knights.

I confess, I dearly wished to earn knighthood in the Society when I was still active, but it takes years of participation and dedication, years that I didn't have. Partly I wanted it for the sheer, nerdy glory and fun of it, but it was also partly because my temperament is such that it needs a restraint upon it that I care about, and I felt that the vows of knighthood would be just such a one.

As I said, I never earned the authority and responsibility of a knighthood, but as I knew the time when I would have to move away, too far away to feasibly participate any longer, was drawing near, I took the vows regardless, not bound to any lord or king, because none knighted me, but binding myself to the virtues of knighthood, as a safeguard against the fouler side of my temper.

The vows are many, but at their essence, they are outlined in this, the statement made by a knight before he is invested:

I swore to "ever be a good knight and true, reverent and generous, shield of the weak, obedient to my liege-lord (which I interpret as loyalty to my country and my vows, since I swore to no lord), foremost in battle, courteous and truthful at all times, champion of the right and the good."

I do my best, but I have of late failed and failed miserably at one: Courtesy. After a hard and frustrating day at work, I allowed my temper to gain the better of me and, without provocation, flamed a non-native English speaker for his poor spelling. I was mortified afterward, but pride motivated me to keep my silence for a time.

No more. I have made amends to him and obtained his forgiveness, but I have thought long and hard on it and realized that if I do not make a stand with myself, give a motivator to stop it here and now, I will continue to slide, and eventually what I promised to myself will mean nothing to me. I know of no better way than to write an account of my failure and place it up as a reminder that I expect better of myself, and shall keep a level head.

At the end of a knighting ceremony in the Society, it is traditional for the king to strike the new knight hard upon the chest after he has risen a knight, and to tell him to let the blow remind him that knighthood will bring him pain as well as honor. It has brought me pain these last two weeks, and I hope to return to honor. It may seem silly to people reading this, but this is important to me; I must reestablish shamefastness, the fear of shame, to keep myself from straying like that again. I renew my vow, and go forward with the virtues of chivalry at the forefront of my mind.

Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban

2008-06-26T11:36:00.003-04:00

MSNBC, CNN

Today the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Washington, D.C. ban on firearms, issuing a definitive ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the first time in the court's history.

Justice Scalia's opinion written for the majority affirms that the Second Amendment outlines an individual right to keep and bear arms, unrelated to service in a government militia.

The court's ruling still permits what they call reasonable restrictions, such as banning concealed carry, but trigger lock requirements, disassembly requirements, and general bans on weapons ownership are now effectively over, and none too soon.

Speech Code of the Month widget

2008-06-26T01:37:00.004-04:00

Just throwing this up to note that I've decided to add the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Speech Code of the Month widget to the site sidebar.

The Speech Code of the Month is selected at the start of each month by FIRE, and is intended to highlight particularly egregious offenses against individual liberty and the rights of students by universities, in the hopes that they will remove or revise their rules; for several schools this has been successful. See the Speech Code of the Month archive for more information.

D-Day

2008-06-06T12:39:00.004-04:00

This date is the anniversary of the day in 1944 that marked the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany. On this date, June 6, the greatest men of the Greatest Generation landed on the beaches of Normandy, France, beginning the Allied invasion of northern Europe.
Thousands upon thousands of servicemen died that day, fighting to rid the world of the horrors of the Third Reich. Soldiers and Marines of the United States, United Kingdom, Free France, and Canada all stormed the beaches of the Normandy peninsula in the wake of overnight air and sea bombardment and paratrooper landings. Casualties were enormous, but the invaders won through.

Thanks to their sacrifice, the free world continued to exist and flourish through the rest of the 20th century. But it was not the final battle for liberty; none ever is.

Gone, but not forgotten. Remember their sacrifice, and never forget what it means. Remember so that it need not be repeated, for history doesn't like it when we forget a lesson, and tends to teach it again when we do. Remember too, to honor the memory of the fallen as well as those that lived to see their victory.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

Remember the blood of heroes.

Venezuela's new school curriculum

2008-05-10T20:54:00.004-04:00

NPR (audio), Global Voices

Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, is currently attempting to ramrod a new school curriculum into place, one that, unsurprisingly, is focused primarily on creating "young patriots," by which he means citizens who support him and his social policies.

The program, opposed by many Venezuelan parents as an attempt to indoctrinate their children, glorifies Latin American socialist revolutionaries, teaches that capitalism is a tool to subjugate the common people, and blames the United States for Venezuela's ills. Private schools would also be required to follow this curriculum under the plan.

This is an outrage against individual liberty and academic freedom. The place of an education system, particularly one that is publicly funded, should be to teach students factual information, not to feed them propaganda designed to make them loyal to the current ruler and to stir up hatred against that ruler's perceived enemies (in this case, the United States). Of course, it has been plain for some time now that Chavez has no interest in actually maintaining civil liberties in his country; quite the opposite, he aims to become a socialist dictator. He's already well on his way, nationalizing entire industries left and right, most recently the cement industry. He is unfit to lead, and one can only hope that his people will realize that before it is too late.

Hezbollah tries to take over Beirut

2008-05-09T12:30:00.003-04:00

BBC, Reuters

The terrorist group Hezbollah has launched an all-out assault on the government of Lebanon, seizing the western half of Beirut, attacking pro-government and anti-Syrian media outlets, and firing rocket-propelled grenades at ministers' homes and government offices.

Hezbollah also happens to lead the minority opposition in the government. That they respond to political problems within a government they are a part of with violence against that government is incredible, or would be if they didn't have a history of it. They have thrown aside all pretense of caring for the Lebanese people, as though they hadn't already during their recent conflict with Israel.

The Bush administration has stated support for the Lebanese government, but the support Lebanon needs right now is the absolute crushing of Hezbollah as a fighting force. They have thoroughly demonstrated that no other measure will keep them from using terrorism as their first resort in political disputes.

Indiana's Primary Elections

2008-05-07T11:10:00.004-04:00

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was a precinct inspector for the Indiana primary on May 6. I'm sorry this report was not written on the 6th as I'd promised; I was held up for so long at the courthouse afterwards that all I wanted to do was go to bed.

Setting up the polling station was simple enough; the biggest problem was the fact that the legs didn't want to stay in their sockets on one of the voting machines. The same machine caused problems later in the day because it had a dark spot on its screen that made it hard to see one of the ballot entries.

It is against Indiana election law to campaign within 300 feet of a polling place. When I arrived at the polls, there were campaign signs stuck all over the ground outside the building; I had to remove and confiscate them when the polls opened. After that, though, there were no further problems with electioneering.

After that, the day was mostly long and boring. Voter turnout for my precinct was about 35%, which is high for a primary in this state, since we usually don't matter for the presidential election.

Since the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's law requiring photo identification at polling places in order to vote, my job mostly consisted of asking for ID at the front door. Voters kept cracking jokes about being illegal immigrants and/or having fake ID, but other than that, it went off without a hitch in my precinct. (Some nuns in South Bend were turned away for not having proper ID; I'm not clear on whether they were permitted to fill out provisional ballots as is required.)

There was one interesting thing: With the exception of the presidential ballot (for some reason, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul are all still on the ballot) all the Republicans ran unopposed. They didn't have enough candidates to go around, apparently; they were not contesting the judge's seat, and were only running two candidates for the county council (when the ballot allows voters to vote for three).

Voting was busiest at the end of the work day, as expected, but it trickled off well before closing time. We had one voter at the end of the polling time; there was nothing like the rush we were told to expect before closing.

All in all, it was a good day, and a new experience. I'd do it again if asked, though I couldn't resist informing the Democratic chairwoman of the irony of her choosing me to do it afterwards, so I don't know if I'll be asked again.

Indiana primary coverage tomorrow

2008-05-05T21:57:00.004-04:00

Tomorrow I'm going to write a report on the Indiana primary from the perspective of a precinct inspector and post it on this blog. I won't be able to do ongoing updates, since I won't have Internet access at the polling station, but I will keep notes and write a full account. Watch this space tomorrow night.

Well, I'm a poll inspector now

2008-05-02T17:49:00.004-04:00

With only a few days' notice, I've been tapped to be a poll inspector for the Indiana primary on Tuesday. The precinct they've put me in charge of is a small one, but this is still an incredible responsibility. I have the voting machines in the trunk of my car as I write this; I'm responsible for their security from now all the way until I turn them in at the end of Election Day.

I'm deeply honored to be entrusted with this, but it's funny at the same time. I was called by the head of the county's Democratic Party Committee to do this because my mother is on the committee; I suppose she assumed everyone in the household was also a Democrat. I am, obviously, not, but it doesn't matter; I'm committed to the integrity of the electoral process and will execute my duties to prevent voter fraud and other shenanigans the very best of my ability, and that's all the job requires. It's just highly ironic that the Democrats would unknowingly tap a Protest Warrior to run the polls.

It's also kind of unnerving that so little security goes into choosing who will run the polls; it would have been easy for them to have asked someone who is both less than principled and has a stake in the primary. I suppose we're simply fortunate that they did not... this time.

Paizo Publishing announces Pathfinder RPG

2008-03-23T16:28:00.002-04:00

Back to my gaming roots for a moment.

Paizo (who has, to take a guess, grown tired of Wizards of the Coast's shenanigans with the D&D 4th Edition developers' kits) has announced the development and open playtesting of a D&D 3.5-compatible tabletop RPG called Pathfinder, after the adventure path series they started publishing after Wizards pulled their licenses to publish Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

Rather than convert their Pathfinder line to 4e, Paizo is developing their own ruleset based on 3.5e, and are conducting open alpha and beta tests. The alpha version of the rules may be found at the title link.

Having looked over the alpha version, I find what they have so far mostly good. I especially like the changes to combat maneuvers, but what I like most is the open testing; being able to see production in progress and possibly even influence it is exciting to me.

If you're into d20 tabletop gaming and aren't comfortable with the direction of 4e (or even just have a large collection of d20 sourcebooks that you'd like to keep using, like me) then I highly recommend checking out Paizo's initiative here and joining in the testing. Maybe we can keep up support for our game after WotC abandons it.

Indoctrinate U

2008-03-11T14:31:00.004-04:00

This is an unusual step for me on this blog. Today I'm writing a film review.

I have not chosen to write about just any movie. Something like, say, Meet the Spartans (or even 300, the movie it parodies), to name a recent example, isn't even worth my time to watch, much less review. I am undertaking this step for Indoctrinate U, which I honestly feel is one of the most important films certainly of the decade, and possibly within my lifetime.

Why do I feel this way about an independently produced documentary about academic bias? It's simple. Education, and the academia that is responsible for a large part of it and is the subject of the film, is the very heart and soul of the future; without it, we have nothing.

With the above as my premise, it is easy to understand why I consider Indoctrinate U an incredibly important film. The documentary delves deep into the issue of political bias in academia and, far more importantly, the issue of political repression of students and faculty who do not conform to the prevailing biases of a given campus.

For years, anecdotes of political correctness gone wild in universities have circulated around the rumor mill. Most people probably don't pay them much mind; I never did until I actually went to college, started to become politically aware, and ended up as a civil libertarian and classical liberal (as opposed to the more modern variety). Then, I experienced it firsthand.

But this post is about the film, not my own experiences. While I underwent significant vigilante censorship in college, my case is nothing next to some of the ones Evan Maloney, the filmmaker (whose own blog, Brain Terminal, may be found here), covers in his feature-length documentary. Two of the victims of campus political repression he interviews, one a professor and one a student, underwent harassment and abuses of administrative power so severe that they had to seek remedy in federal court. Perhaps not coincidentally, both of those cases arose from the California State University system at California Polytechnic, and several other cases of severe political repression covered in the film concern other California schools, notably UC Berkeley and San Francisco State.

But it's not limited to California's famously far-left and proud of it university system; the problem extends nationwide, with the documentary touching on incidents at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Yale, Brooklyn College, Michigan State, Bucknell University, and several other schools, effectively putting an end to the era of mere isolated anecdotes of collegiate abuse of liberty. This film exposes the root of the problem for what it is; a systemic and institutionalized campus orthodoxy completely contrary to both individual liberty and academic freedom.

I am once again adding my voice to the call for reform on college campuses, as I did when I was still in school. The sort of widespread academic orthodoxy that Indoctrinate U exposes is poisoning the nation's very future, and must not continue. As Maloney calls for in his film, there needs to be another campus free speech movement, as there was in the 1960s, if students are to gain their freedom of thought and overcome the intellectual sloth that is fostered by rooted orthodoxy. For that is the real danger; in growing to think of its current mode of thinking as the only correct one, academia risks stagnation and complacency in the testing of its ideas. Thank you, Evan Maloney, for your clarion call to action.

The Conservative Opposition to John McCain

2008-02-13T19:32:00.002-05:00

As should be perfectly clear by now, Senator John McCain of Arizona is set to be the Republican nominee for President. As should also be perfectly clear, a lot of the Republican Party hates him.

Why is this? Well, ask and you'll get many reasons.

McCain-Feingold, for one. Hey, I didn't like it either when the Federal Election Commission tried to apply the rules meant for big advertisers to private bloggers, but we came through that all right. Still, it's a sloppy piece of legislation.

McCain-Kennedy for another. Amnesty for illegal aliens? Get out of here, and take your bill with you.

Then the opposition to Bush's tax cuts. John McCain opposed the tax cuts, it's true. But let's look at why he did it: There were no spending cuts to accompany them, which means that he was opposing cutting revenue while not cutting outlays, i.e. going further into debt. Is this not a fiscally conservative position?

However, the same commentators who lambast McCain tend to love George W. Bush. So for comparison's sake, let's talk about Bush's positions on these same issues that conservative pundits are taking exception to.

First, campaign finance reform. Fine, McCain pushed it and it can be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech. However, these same pundits love the PATRIOT Act, which Bush fervently supports and if anything is a larger infringement on civil liberties than campaign finance reform could ever conceivably be.

How about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill? Oops. Bush pushed that same bill harder than John McCain ever did.

And sure, Bush cut taxes, but he did absolutely nothing to curb federal spending; in fact, he increased it to higher levels than any other post-Cold War President. And yet, for all this, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the other big-name talk radio pundits love the President.

No, the real reason is none of those. It is this: Look at the other names on the bills I mentioned above. Notice anything?

Yes. Kennedy and Feingold are Democrats. And that's it right there. This is not about the issues, it isn't about conservatism, and it isn't even about McCain himself. It's all about party loyalty. McCain will occasionally cooperate with Democrats to get things done on Capitol Hill, and to the hard-line Republican wing, this is an unforgivable sin greater than any of the many non-conservative indiscretions Bush has committed in office. Sure, he shot the national debt through the roof, signed the PATRIOT Act into law, and did absolutely nothing to curb Congressional pork spending (it took the man how long to veto even a single bill?), but he never cooperated with Democrats on any meaningful level. So he's good.

What does it say about American politics when party loyalty is the determining factor in an election, rather than the candidates' positions on the issues, capability to act, or even political skill? (For the record, the ability to cooperate with Democrats across the aisle marks McCain as a consummate politician; someone with the ability to exercise great influence in Washington. If anything, it should be a qualification.) There's nothing wrong with opposing McCain based on the issues (despite writing him in as a protest vote in 2004, I do), but doing so simply because he will actually execute his legislative duties when doing that requires being civil to a Democrat is an ideologically and intellectually bankrupt position to take.

The U.S. primary elections: Super Tuesday, late voters, and Party shenanigans

2008-02-06T13:26:00.001-05:00

CNN, BBC

Yesterday was the biggest primary election day in United States history. Twenty-four of the fifty states held their primary elections on that day, popularly dubbed "Super Tuesday."

Hillary Clinton edged out Barack Obama, though just barely. Neither one yet has a majority of the Democratic convention delegates, meaning that far from deciding the primary as was widely expected, Super Tuesday has left the race still open, making the primaries of states that have late primary dates still relevant, a rarity in U.S. politics. (Incidentally, this is why I advocate simply holding all primaries on the same day; more on that below.)

Similarly, the Republican primaries on Tuesday gave John McCain a lead in the number of delegates, but he still only has a little over half of the necessary delegates to guarantee him the nomination. His lead has many conservatives running scared, since his popularity among the conservative wing of the Republican Party is not high, to make an understatement. A separate post on my take on McCain will follow this one.

The upshot of all this is that primaries in late-voting states (such as my own) might actually matter this time out. As I said a couple paragraphs above, this is rare; usually by the time the latest primaries come around in May and June, there have been enough delegates assigned by earlier primary elections to some candidate or another that the primary results in those late states are completely irrelevant to the outcome, causing candidates to neglect the concerns of the voters in those late states, since their votes cannot influence the nominating conventions.

The primaries are staggered the way they are to deliberately give some states more clout in comparison to others. Namely, Iowa and New Hampshire go first because doing so supposedly gives "small states" a say in the race. Which is completely wrong; it does not give "small states" a larger say in the race; it gives Iowa and New Hampshire a larger say in the race. That the Democratic Party is refusing to seat Florida's delegation to the convention because they dared to hold their primaries earlier than they were "allowed" to in order to uphold this fiction is abhorrent and a massive violation of Floridians' right to equal representation. (Incidentally, allowing Florida's delegates to be seated might bring on a result that I really don't want to see; namely, their support for Hillary Clinton's candidacy, since she won the Florida primary nearly uncontested because the other candidates did not bother to campaign there, but it doesn't matter; their rights to representation trump any such considerations.)

In fact, I'm not even sure just why it is that the political parties get to dictate primary dates to the state governments. The parties are not supposed to have that kind of authority, or indeed any authority of their own over the governance of the nation. This is different from politicians who are members of political parties running the governments; this is the party committee itself telling a state government that no, it may not exercise its Constitutional authority to set the date of the election, which is just wrong. The current rush to hold elections first is stupid, but denying entire states their representation for it is inexcusable.

Civil Rights Making Progress

2008-02-03T16:17:00.002-05:00

No, it's not what you think. No, really.

The state assemblies of South Dakota and Arizona are currently considering bills that would make it legal to carry firearms on public university campuses. I expect much whining from the anti-gun lobby in the days to come as the bills go to votes before their respective assembly houses. They'll say how it places our children in danger, how there will be deadly shootings by students who are legally carrying weapons, and other such nonsense.

And it's just that. Nonsense. If someone wants to shoot up the University of South Dakota, then he will attempt to do so. A would-be murderer is already setting out to break one of the most serious crimes on the books; he is not going to care about whether or not a campus is a "gun-free zone."

I don't usually cite other bloggers' work, but as a college professor I feel that Glenn Reynolds has some insight into this particular issue. That op-ed was written in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. I encourage you to read it; he raised the obvious points, but it's worth seeing.

Here's to these bills passing. University students are legal adults, and if they can show themselves competent to carry a firearm, there's no reason why their college campuses should be any different than the rest of the country.

And to quote Freud:

:p

Hail Xenu!

2008-01-31T21:55:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a long time, but recent events have conspired to jolt me out of blogging "retirement," as it were.

For years, the Church of Scientology has been engaging in litigious behavior towards their critics, and now a lot of people have had enough. February 10 is a national day of protest against Scientology.

Event locations may be found here.

Why do this, you ask? For one very simple reason: The Church of Scientology is an oppressive, fascistic, brutal organization that suppresses, extorts, controls, and sometimes even kills its members. A good overview of Scientology's dangers may be found here. If you don't have time to spend an hour or so reading the Operation Clambake site, watch this. Don't believe those critics? How about a court brief?

In addition to this, the "church" has engaged in espionage, perpetrating the largest infiltration of the United States government by any organization in history, foreign intelligence agencies included, during their "Operation Snow White."

Still not enough? According to Scientologist doctrine, L. Ron Hubbard described himself as the Antichrist and charged that Jesus was a child molester and prone to violent fits of rage. From the OTVIII Scientology document:

"No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned Is a brief period of time in which an arch-enemy of Christ. reforred to as the anti-Christ, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This anti-Christ represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the "light bearers" or "light bringer"), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief anti-Christ period. During this period there is a fleeting opportunity for the whole scenario to be. effectively derailed. which would make it impossible for the mass Marcabian landing (Second Coming) to take place. The Second Coming is designed, among other things, to trigger a rapid series of destructive events.

With the exception of the original Buddhism, virtually all religions of any consequence on this planet, mono- and pantheistic alike. have been instruments to speed the progress of this "evolution of consciousness" and bring about the eventual enslavement of mankind. As you know, Siddhartha Gautama never claimed to be anything more than a man. Having caught on to this operation, he postulated his own return as Metteyya, part of which prophecy will have been fulfilled upon the passing of L. Ron Hubbard.

For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on. let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men. he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It Is historic fact and yet man still clings to the ideal. so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting."

A word of warning, though: The Church of Scientology is utterly ruthless to its critics. Their Fair Game doctrine specifically says that "Suppressive Persons" (their term for their enemies), quote, "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Those who wish to participate in this should know that they are taking a risk. Scientology will use and abuse the legal system in any way they can to shut their critics up. They have in the past intentionally provoked picketers at their churches to attack them by getting up in their faces and then had their critics jailed. If they find out who you are, they will attempt to sue you if they can find any recourse at all, including the use of any of their symbols. I, for one, intend to stand up anyway, because it has to be done, but I don't want to bring anyone into this unaware of the risks.

If you do decide to go, stay together with fellow protesters (unless they're about to do something stupid), do not give out your name, do not allow yourself to be tempted to physically engage a Scientologist or even give the appearance of doing so. See you in the field.

Addendum: I am aware of the current DDoS attacks against the Church of Scientology's websites. While I detest Scientology for the brainwashing cult that it is, I do not condone illegal actions of this sort or any other. Scientology should be opposed within the legal system and with peaceful demonstrations, not hacking or vandalism.

Washington, D.C. gun ban struck down

2007-03-09T23:01:00.000-05:00

I've missed a lot of things that I wanted to post about over the past month or so, but I might as well start here now that I'm back rather than inundate everyone with my take on old news. So instead, here's a story that just broke today.

Washington Compost, text of the court decision. (Warning: 195 kilobyte PDF.)

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (how's that for a mouthful?) overturned the decision of the District Court for D.C. (the full title of which is a similar mouthful) in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, in which the plaintiffs were denied their Constitutional right to bear firearms by the lower court. The appeals court overturned the district court's decision, declaring Washington, D.C.'s 30 year old, near-total ban on firearms to be unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit covers only Washington itself, not any of the states. (If Chicago's gun ban had been struck down in this manner instead, gun bans would be illegal throughout the entire 7th Circuit, but this covers only the capital city.) I don't really see the point of a circuit court that covers only one city (where do they circulate between? Courthouses on opposite sides of the District?), but there it is. Nobody ever expected government to make sense.

The city is likely to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, but I don't know whether or not they'll agree to hear it. The Court has more conservative justices now, but to quote a friend of mine, "the Country Club Republicans especially tend to have a certain elegant disdain for the rabble bearing arms." We'll just have to wait this out and see.

In the meantime, I feel like celebrating a little. Party time.

It's official. Hugo Chavez is now a dictator.

2007-01-31T16:19:00.000-05:00

Well, I haven't posted in awhile, but this has jolted me back into bloggerdom.

BBC, The Times

Venezuela's governmental assembly has granted President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for the next eighteen months. What this means, in rough terms, is that for the next year and a half, the gigantic socialist weasel gets to do pretty much whatever he wants.

What he wants is to nationalize (read: steal the resources of) the oil and gas industries, rob those who have earned affluence in order to give it to those who have not, and remove term limits on the Presidency so that he can effectively remain in power indefinitely. Given that he was just handed nearly absolute power, I would not be surprised in the least if he decreed himself more time to rule by decree at the end of the 18 months.

To quote Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how democracy dies. To thunderous applause." Though it would be entirely accurate to say that, ironically enough, this is an example of democracy (as opposed to republicanism as in the government system, not the party) in action.

National Guardsmen overrun by gunmen on Mexican border

2007-01-05T08:16:00.000-05:00

I wondered when this would happen back in March, when the National Guard was first ordered to the border. Seems my question has been answered.

Breaking from local Arizona News 12

A patrol of four National Guardsmen was overrun by armed men at the border somewhere between Nogales (AZ or Mexico; they're right across from each other) and Lukeville, AZ, a 120 mile stretch of desert in the western part of the state's border with Mexico on the night of January 3rd. No one was hurt and the gunmen retreated back to Mexico when Border Patrol reinforcements were called. It's unclear whether shots were fired. The Guard is currently deployed along the border on orders from the Arizona governor, and is in an observation and support role, supplementing the Border Patrol rather than directly acting against border incursions.

I will post updates later today as information warrants. I haven't slept all night and am too tired to go hunting for additional sources at the moment.

Update: MSNBC now has a more detailed article up.

Historical perspective on Saddam Hussein's execution

2007-01-01T08:18:00.000-05:00

I'm making this post to link to this entry in the American Thinker blog. I have nothing further to add.

Thanks to John Cox and Allen Forkum for bringing this to my attention.

Happy New Year!

2007-01-01T06:16:00.000-05:00

Just ringing in 2007, and resolving to post to this blog more. Happy New Year, everybody!

Why Middle Eastern Muslims deny the Holocaust

2006-12-16T18:44:00.000-05:00

Los Angeles Times op-ed by the illustrious former Dutch Member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I wish I could say that what Ms. Ali says in her op-ed essay is a surprise, but I find that it isn't. I didn't specifically know that knowledge of the Holocaust is suppressed in the Islamic world, but now that I have the knowledge, I find that I fail to be shocked.

So Islamic theocracies don't teach their citizens about the Holocaust, call it a lie, which causes both the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf to be bestsellers in many Arab countries, and teach the former as fact in their schools. I knew about the popularity of Kampf and the Protocols already, which is a large part of why this revelation wasn't particularly surprising.

And that's scary. It's frightening that so many in the Arab and Muslim worlds are avid readers of Hitler and of anti-Semitic fabrications (that have been known to be such since the 1920s), but knowing that they could read these, particularly Mein Kampf, which details Hitler's plans, and then not accept that Hitler would, in fact, kill millions of Jews, shows a frightening form of doublethink. Arab culture and failing Arab governments wishing to distract their citizens from their failures blame the Jews for their ills, saying that a group of people that Muslims worldwide outnumber by 75 times is wholly bent on the destruction of Islam and is on the brink of bringing it about, without setbacks. This is creating such an awesome hatred of Jews and Judaism that the citizens of those Arab states simply will not believe the historical fact of the Holocaust, even when it is presented to them in all it's unholy horror.

And that, dear readers, is what's most frightening of all. An entire culture is convinced that it must destroy an entire other culture in order to survive. That is a recipe for war eternal.

Germany to jail gamers

2006-12-16T18:14:00.000-05:00

Like I said in my introductory posts on this blog, I am, among many other things, a gamer; that is to say, I play tabletop and video games as a hobby. I consider this a normal, non-harmful thing and an enjoyable social activity.

Which is why stuff like this really pisses me off.

Evidently, we did too good a job of pacifying Germany after the Second World War. The Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle, their ratings board, is evidently so emasculated that they won't rate games that feature violence of any kind, even violence against zombies. While not giving a rating doesn't officially ban a game, it does mean it cannot be sold in most stores in the country.

But evidently, that's not enough. Noooooooo, now the states of Lower Saxony and Bavaria want to toss people who commit "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters," along with the developers who make the games that let them do so, directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

This is a disgrace. Such restrictions on the freedoms of expression and association should not be perpetrated by any government, and a Western democratic government has no excuse.

In response to this treatment of their industry, the German game developer Crytek is threatening to relocate to a different nation. Good luck with that, Crytek. Far Cry isn't exactly my favorite game, but you guys deserve better.

Hugo Chavez to try to remove term limits on his office

2006-12-08T03:44:00.000-05:00

Seattle Times, Bloomberg

Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, recently won reelection with 63% of the vote, giving him his second, and under Venezuela's current constitution final, six year term in office.

But that's not good enough for him. He's following through with his pre-election threat: He is now moving to remove term limits from Venezuela's constitution so that he can be reelected continuously.

I don't care whether you're left, right, up, down, or center; screwing with your country's constitution to suit your needs once in power is an idiot, power-grabbing thing to do, especially when done as a step towards implementing a failed economic and political system. His efforts are failing already, if a move to devalue the bolivar again is any indication. When you have to actually make a law banning your citizens from buying foreign currency to prevent outflow of capital, then maybe it's time to rethink your economic situation.

North Korea pisses me off

2006-12-05T19:57:00.000-05:00

Okay. On most days when I decide to post to this weblog, I try to post my opinion and analysis of important current events, and to do so with a level head. On those days, I try to stay objective and offer rational discourse. Today is not one of those days. Today, I'm posting a rant. General warning: This post contains profanity.

Pyongyang Chronicle.

How dare the North Koreans? How fucking dare they? Kim Jong-Il's government is literally starving the North Korean people, even instructing them to breed fucking rabbits for food, and now they go and not only tell their citizens that they have power and heat when they clearly do not, they tell them that we the people of the United States are not only without power ourselves, but are stealing oil from South Korea and causing thousands to freeze to death? The gall of the North Korean propagandists is just fucking appalling. Seeing this and yet being unable to do anything about it is possibly one of the most frustrating things I have ever faced, and this does nothing but rub it in.

And what's worse? The people buy this. It's drilled into their heads from birth that North Korea is the most prosperous country in the world, and that all others are far worse off. And what's even better? There are people over here, in the United States, who like North Korea. I've heard it said. If you're one of them, click here. Fucking Communists...

In conclusion, the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il can take his propaganda about how bad I have it and shove it up his ass, along with his entire government, economic policy, and ideology. That is all.

Man, I needed that.

Muslim lawmaker to take oath of office on the Qur'an

2006-12-02T23:11:00.000-05:00

Ireland Online, USA Today

To summarize: Keith Ellison, newly elected to Congress and soon to be the first Muslim to take high federal office in the United States, wishes to take his oath of office on his own holy book, the Qur'an, rather than the Christian Bible. For this, he has come under fire from Dennis Prager, a conservative columnist and talk radio host.

For this, I have to say that Mr. Prager is, with all due respect, manufacturing a controversy where none should exist. His Townhall column, which may be found here, appears to be simple pandering to his normal audience. At least, that's what I should hope it is; I would hate to think that someone in his position should be so profoundly ignorant of his own country's actual laws.

Because yes, not only would requiring a lawmaker to swear in on the Bible be unconstitutional; it is factually incorrect to say that it is so in the first place. Several points:

First and foremost, the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution guarantees religious liberty without interference from the government for all citizens, even Congressmen.

Secondly, the oath taken is to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible. What the oath-taker's hand is on doesn't change the nature of the oath. If it did, officials would be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution, which I think would be a better idea anyway.

Thirdly, forcing someone to take an oath on a book he does not care about would, if anything, cause the oath to have less effect; traditionally, to swear upon something is binding upon the oathtaker to give that thing up should he break the oath; hence swearing on one's honor. Symbolically, forcing Representative Ellison to swear on the Bible would mean he was saying that he would give up the Christian faith if the oath were broken. Since he has already done this (he converted to Islam from Catholicism), such an oath would mean nothing to him, and have no hold on him whatsoever. This is the last thing that someone who wishes to see an oath fulfilled should want.

Lastly, and most damaging to Prager's assertions, Congressmen are not sworn in on any book whatsoever, Bible or otherwise. Newly elected and reelected Senators and Congressmen simply raise their right hands in unison and swear to uphold the Constitution in a summary mass swearing-in. They can bring in any book to swear on that they wish, or none if they don't wish to swear on a book. The occasional photographs that one sees of a Congressman being "sworn in" on a large Bible by another official are simply photo-ops; they pose for the picture and are done, the official swearing-in having already been accomplished in the House chamber.

Therefore, this is all much ado about nothing. Representative Ellison can bring his Qur'an to the ceremony if he pleases, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it, not that anyone should. He is free to exercise his religion as he sees fit while serving in Congress as long as it does not interfere with his duties as a Congressman, and those duties do not include swearing in on the Holy Bible.

Incidentally, it shouldn't: The Bible itself forbids the taking of oaths.

Lopez Obrador goes and claims Mexican presidency

2006-11-20T21:22:00.000-05:00

AP, via Yahoo News

Well that's just great. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has gone and proclaimed himself President of Mexico after losing the presidential election, demanding and getting multiple recounts, a ruling against him from Mexico's election court, and a massive political temper tantrum wherein his supporters jammed the streets of Mexico City with protests on his behalf. He has set up a parallel government to compete with the legitimate and duly elected government of Mexico in a bid to take de facto control of the country.

I don't know whether this illegitimate parallel government will gain any traction or not, but if it does, it could tear Mexico apart; they may even be facing another civil war. And it'll be happening on the doorstep of the United States. More on the situation as developments warrant.

Update: I missed this on my first reading of the news story. Obrador has vowed to stop the December 1st inauguration of the winner of the election, Felipe Calderon. I don't know what he means by that, but it can't be a good thing no matter how he plans on making sure it doesn't go forward.

Update 2, 11/22/2006: International Herald-Tribune

I can only say that it's a damned good thing Obrador lost, if this is his idea of policy. Instituting government price controls and basing those controls on matching prices in other markets with different market conditions is a recipe for economic disaster. The Mexican government might be able to mandate that businesses not charge more than they do in the U.S. for delivering the same service with greater difficulty, but they can't mandate that those businesses stay in operation when the costs start to sink them. No one runs a business when it's no longer worth it to him.

Charlie Rangel introduces draft bill, AGAIN

2006-11-20T17:29:00.000-05:00

International Herald-Tribune

Well, dear ol' Congressman Rangel's at it again, putting a bill to reinstate the military draft before Congress. How this man keeps getting reelected in Manhattan, of all places, would be just beyond me, were it not for one factor: Tom DeLay, as Speaker of the House, actually scheduled Rangel's 2004 draft bill for a vote right before the election, the only way one of them would ever make it out of committee. Faced with the prospect of a vote on his own bill, Rangel did the only thing he could do: Show his true colors and vote against it.

Yep, Rangel doesn't want a draft, unlike Jack Murtha and Pete Straw, the only Congresscritters to actually vote in favor. It's a cheap political trick that he uses to try and get people to think that the Republicans are going to institute a draft. (Incidentally, Murtha and Straw, along with Rangel, are Democrats.) And it's worked like a charm; constant draft bills in the House keep frantic anti-draft groups operating and, in most cases, throwing money at Democratic candidates. (Mothers Against the Draft is one such group that I have something of a history with.)

In the end analysis, I can only say one thing to Mr. Rangel: Go to hell.

On a personal note, sorry for the lack of posts recently. I lost my job in October and am still looking for a new one.

And I should add that spambots are not welcome on this blog. So far there only seems to be one, but if the problem persists I'll just have to turn on registration.

Cuba, Venezuela call for democratization of the UN

2006-09-17T11:07:00.000-04:00

Tell me, why am I laughing so hard that I'm in danger of falling out of my chair right about now?

There's all kinds of hilariousness going on right now at the summit of the so-called Non-Aligned Movement in Havana this week. First, as linked above, the world's dictatorships are calling to make the United Nations more democratic. As long as they don't have to do the same for their people, why not, right? One nation, one vote, no matter how authoritarian that nation may be internally, sure sounds great to them, I have to imagine.

In other news at the summit, North Korea blamed the United States for the lack of world peace yesterday, a truly hilarious proposition coming from a nation that refuses to formally end it's state of war with the United States even though the armistice that ended the fighting of the Korean War was signed in 1953. It has been over 50 years and there's still no peace treaty. Talk about your barriers to world peace.

But the best of all, I think, is when the summit declared that democracy is a universal value, but also stated that "no one country or region should define it for the world." So yeah, a republican form of government is great, as long as we get to employ Newspeak to redefine the term.

Here's a crazy idea: Let's democratize the UN. We can go about it like this: When a nation is democratized, they get to sit on UN councils and have a vote in the General Assembly. Until then, they get to have all the voting and participation rights their citizens have. How's that for a proposal, Fidel?

The government has been infiltrated by... Owls?

2006-08-28T20:59:00.000-04:00

And now, for a brief moment of levity. Evidently, the government of Nassau County, NY has been infiltrated by the famous O RLY Owl. Link.

Iran inaugurates heavy water reactor

2006-08-26T06:07:00.000-04:00

Oh joy. Just days from the deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium, they fire up a reactor that produces plutonium as a reaction byproduct instead. Great. Now they can stop enriching uranium all they want; they can just churn out plutonium devices instead. Like that's so much better.

This has got to stop. Nobody, least of all Iran's regional neighbors, can afford a nuclear-armed Iran. The current regime compounds the problem, but there are too many factors that make a powerful Iran dangerous no matter what.

First, Iraq. The United States inadvertently did Iran a huge favor when it eliminated Saddam Hussein; we removed their biggest local military rival. Now the Iranians have a vested interest in making sure that Iraq remains unstable or, worse, falls under Iranian influence so that it can never again pose a serious military threat. A democratic, Westernized, and militarily powerful Iraq with the backing of the United States is the Iranian government's worst nightmare. Nuclear arms are a sure way to make sure Iraq remains cowed no matter what happens.

Second, Israel. Even without Ahmadinejad's standing threat to wipe Israel from the map, Iran has never been a friend to the only remotely Westernized state in the region, and never will be. A nuclear standoff there would be frightening, especially as it would be less likely to remain a standoff with the ayatollahs and their puppets in charge.

Third, Afghanistan. Much like Iraq, the Taliban was no friend to the Shi'ite Iranian government. The Iranians similarly have a vested interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never again presents a threat, which means that they exert destabilizing influence directly counter to Coalition and NATO objectives.

And we can't forget the direct enmity that the Iranians have for the United States. There's a reason the Swiss embassy handles all of our diplomatic business in Tehran, and it isn't because our own embassy staff is too busy enjoying the pleasures of the city's night life, if you know what I mean.

I just hope they realize that the more they do this, the more crosshairs military strategists paint on their facilities.

It seems I may owe France an apology

2006-08-25T20:53:00.000-04:00

After seeming to back off of it's previous commitment of 2,000 additional troops for the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) under the UN ceasefire resolution for the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, lessening it's commitment to 200, France has once again changed it's mind and raised it's commitment back to 2,000 men. I had previously blasted the French government for chickening out in this post, and for that I apologize.

However, while I can't accuse France of reneging on it's commitments, I can say that Jacques Chirac doesn't quite realize the task before the peacekeepers, if he considers the 15,000 troops called for in the resolution "excessive." If anything, 15,000 won't be enough. If the force is to do anything at all, it must be robust.

I must give him credit, however, for pushing for robust rules of engagement for the peacekeepers. All the troops in the world won't help if they aren't actually allowed to do anything to restrain the people they're supposed to be pacifying.

Hilarious video re: the Reuters fake photo scandal

2006-08-24T17:56:00.002-04:00

I'd been leaving the whole deal with Reuters and other news agencies faking photos from the Israel-Hezbollah war alone because it'd already been done to death by the bigger blogs before I got back to blogging. (I especially like the analyses done by zombie, found here and here.) But the Jawa Report recently put out a video that I found too great to pass up, so here it is.

84 Hollywood celebrities sign statement condemning Hamas; Islamists call for harassment

2006-08-22T19:48:00.000-04:00

On August 16th, 84 Hollywood celebrities signed a statement saying that they are "pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," and ran it as a full-page magazine ad. (You can read the full statement with signatures here.) Almost immediately, one Akram Awad researched the addresses of the signatories and posted them in a call to action on his blog entitled Bonsoir | يسعد مساكم: ActionAlert :: Nicole Kidman Shame on You!, calling for his readers to write the celebrities en masse to tell them that they are wrong, and that all the ills in the Middle East are, in fact, the fault of Israel.

Now, I don't usually involve myself in celebrity dealings outside of their jobs (that is to say, I watch movies), but this is too funny to pass up. Jules Crittenden almost immediately fired off an editorial in the Boston Herald calling for Israel supporters to go to his blog and use his list to mail the celebrities to thank them for their stance. As I think this is a positively wonderful idea, I'm posting this to add what little exposure I can to his plan. Go forth, and write letters of appreciation. I'm going to do mine now.

Iran to continue uranium enrichment

2006-08-20T17:41:00.000-04:00

Well this is just great. Not that it's a surprise. Iran has refused the UN's incentive package in favor of enriching uranium suitable for nuclear weapons.

With negotiations still pending, there is some hope that Iran's statement that a halt to enrichment is "not on the agenda" is a bluff in an attempt to gain a stronger bargaining position, but given that Iran's government is crazy, I wouldn't bet on it. The only question now is what does the world do about that?

Okay, I'm back. For real this time.

2006-08-19T06:37:00.000-04:00

Well, after a brief scare in which HP gave me the wrong tracking number and managed to convince everyone (themselves included) that they'd shipped my computer to Albuquerque, it came today. I'm back, this time for sure.

It's late and I'm tired, so I'll only put in a little bit about the late conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. (I promise, barring major new developments, I'll start harping on something else soon.)

I'm sorry to say it, but strategically Hezbollah won. Just barely, and in such a Pyrrhic fashion that they can't stand to "win" like that again, but the so-called "Arab Street's" expectations are so low by now that merely surviving against Israel for more than a couple weeks is seen as a massive victory, and that perception is enough of a boost for Hezbollah to make it worth it to them. Tactically, Israel won every battle, but in the end none of it's objectives were achieved. Hezbollah is not disarmed, it is still present on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and the kidnapped soldiers whose capture sparked this whole thing were not recovered. And to top it off, the real losers in all this were the Lebanese people, bombed back into Third World status after Hezbollah used them for cover.

And in the meantime, France is chickening out after promising to lead the UN peacekeeping force, outdone by an order of magnitude by Bangladesh in troop numbers committed. Good luck to the Lebanese army in disarming Hezbollah. I sincerely hope that this turns out all right, but as usual the prospects seem dim.

Be back soon

2006-08-01T08:52:00.000-04:00

Ordered a new comp yesterday. I'll be back to blogging when it gets in, though not for very long before I take yet another four days off to go to GenCon. See you then.

In the meantime, here's to Israel kicking Hezbollah right in the bollocks. But do try to not shell the crap out of villages hours after the rocket launchers have left, mkay?

...or not.

2006-06-30T18:33:00.000-04:00

My apartment's kitchen caught fire on Saturday morning. I lost my computer to all the soot floating around. I'll make yet another "I'm back" post when I get a new comp.

But as long as I'm here, Hamas evidently wants a war with Israel. Do they actually think they can avoid getting curbstomped by the country that defeated Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq at the same time and in less than a week?

Well, I'm back

2006-06-23T20:40:00.000-04:00

After a significant interruption in Internet access, I'm back. I should be updating regularly again now.

Got an Xbox!

2006-03-28T13:09:00.000-05:00

My brother, roommate, and I went in and split the cost of a used Xbox off of Ebay, with ten games including Halo 2. WOOT! In a related note, I probably won't be online quite so much for a few days. ;)

That is all.

Hamas declares war

2006-03-25T14:42:00.000-05:00

Reuters, ISN

Well, bloody hell. Hamas' new Interior Minister has all but declared war on Israel, not only stating outright refusal to arrest any Palestinian for "resisting the occupation," but declaring intent to coordinate his security forces with Palestinian terrorist organizations. This means open war with Israel. You'd think Hamas would have learned this was a bad idea from the examples of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan in 1967, but it seems that they have not.

Mahmoud Abbas is continuing his attempts to further the peace process, but it seems that the PA parliament's new ruling authorities (and, as the PA is run on a parliamentary system wherein the parliament appoints the Cabinet, his own ministers) are determined to wreck any attempts at peaceful coexistence. How long before the return of open attempts to push the Jews into the sea? As I said when Hamas won the elections, this won't end well at all. I would take credit for calling it, but that's not a very difficult feat.

Mmmmmmmm, tax time.

2006-03-16T09:52:00.000-05:00

Well, Tax Day is precisely one month from yesterday. (I'm a procrastinator. So sue me.) On Tax Day, I plan to have a long rant about the complexities of the tax code, arising from me having just done my taxes, which, yes, I have yet to do. To preview: The damned thing needs to be simplified. Big time. The only problem is how to do it without throwing out the mess and starting over... if that isn't what needs to be done in the first place.

Look on the bright side. On the other side of all those tax forms is probably a refund of some of the money the IRS has been screwing you out of for the past year.

Arizona National Guard ordered to Mexican border

2006-03-10T11:40:00.000-05:00

Associated Press

'Bout damn time. The border is about as effective as a seive. I just wish a border state governor had grown some balls sooner. Border security is essential.

Of course, I've been told Phoenix can't function without illegal immigrant labor. My solution to that: Expand legal immigration while locking down the illegal crossings; make it easy to come get a job but hard to bring in drugs or other criminal enterprises.

I'm just waiting for the inevitable shootout between Guard infantry and drug smuggling Mexican army units.

Chinese Communist Party members take censors to task

2006-03-10T10:38:00.000-05:00

Well, a friend of mine asked me to render my opinion on this a couple weeks ago, and I suppose late is better than never. (Sorry about the lack of updates; this is directly due to my current lack of reliable Internet.)

New York Times (registration required to view)

Several members of China's Communist Party, including a former propaganda chief and a former secretary to Mao, have circulated a joint letter condemning the recent forced shutdown of the popular Chinese newspaper Freezing Point by the party's Propaganda Department. (Yes, the government agency is actually called that.) The letter did not reference the recent censorship of Google China or Beijing's other online censorship campaigns.

This is significant not because of the protest itself (Chinese editors and reformists have been protesting censorship for years, sometimes at the cost of their own freedom), but because it is in fact senior Party men who are doing the protesting. This could indicate that the winds are changing in China; if Party officials are attempting to curry favor with the reform movements, then it could mean that they feel threatened by them, which is wildly significant. If my (admittedly cynical) interpretation is correct, and they're doing this out of what they perceive as their self-interest rather than a sudden libertarian change of heart, then it means that Communist control is seriously weakening in China to the point where several of the Party's core members feel that their chances are better opposing the Party than standing silent.

Let's all hope so.

...and chaos ensues.

2006-02-12T06:01:00.000-05:00

Melbourne Herald Sun, USA Today

Well, chaos did ensue, but not immediately from the source I predicted in my last post. Evidently, a Danish newspaper ran some political cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in the course of criticizing the violence of Islamic extremists. Those same extremists decided to object to being characterized as hyperbelligerent thugs by... acting like hyperbelligerent thugs, torching embassies (without regard to what country the embassy was from, as long as it was Western), attacking U.S. military bases, and threatening to continue if the Danish government did not apologize, evidently due to a failure on their part to comprehend the nature of a free press, that is to say, the government is not responsible for it.

The basis for all this offense is supposedly that depicting the Prophet is blasphemy. Of course, there are two problems with this:

1.) The cartoonists in question are not Muslims and do not claim to be so far as I am aware, and therefore can't very well be held guilty of apostasy against Islam. Of course, not being subject to Islamic law is something that your average jihadi doesn't comprehend.

2.) Muslims don't seem to have much of a problem with such depictions in other places, at least when they aren't critical of Islam.

Of course, the irony is delicious.

And also of course, the Onion called it years ago.

Hamas wins Palestinian Authority election; chaos to ensue

2006-01-31T03:06:00.000-05:00

BBC, CNN

Well, this is a lovely state of affairs. Known and acknowledged terrorists who hold as their primary principle that Israel should be pushed into the sea and not dealt with as a sovereign nation are now in charge of the Palestinian territories. Hamas, the organization best known in the West for blowing the hell out of Israeli civilians, has won parliamentary elections in the Palestinian Authority, exceeding all expectations (including their own, I gather) and gaining a majority government instead of the expected strong minority and coalition government. (For those not familiar with proportional representation in parliamentary systems, and hence the concept of coalition government, click here.)

To be fair to the Palestinian voters, Hamas is also known within the Palestinian territories as a provider of several social services, and the votes of many were influenced more by opposition to the corruption of the former ruling party, Fatah, than for any particular support for Hamas, but they are still a terrorist organization that Israel (rightly) will not negotiate with until they fundamentally change their charter and methods, and hence the election results will destroy any attempt to move the peace process forward. In fact, this puts Hamas in the interesting position of being a ruling government engaged in multiple acts of war against Israel; if Hamas' armed wing continues terrorist operations after the Hamas-led government takes power (as I have very little doubt they will), then Israel would have every right to consider such activities as acts of war and respond accordingly. "Accordingly" involves declaring war on the Palestinian Authority, with all of the actions that such a declaration entails. In short, the West Bank and Gaza would be completely occupied again in a remarkable hurry should the most likely scenario play out.

Some pundits, reporters, and world leaders have expressed the possibility, even the expectation that Hamas might change it's ways now that it has gained legitimate power. And pigs might sprout wings and fly tomorrow. Hamas leaders have stated that they will not alter their positions one whit from their extremist stance that precludes negotiation with, or even the existence of, Israel; nor will they renounce terror tactics.

I wish the very best for all involved in this, but I cannot help but think that the Middle East is in for yet another war.

About me

2006-01-31T02:03:00.000-05:00

Well, I suppose I should introduce myself, after a fashion.

As my partial list of interests in the previous post probably shows, I'm a gamer (of the tabletop pen-and-paper variety as well as more conventional computer gaming), a music student (bassist, to be precise), and political junkie. I do my level best to keep up with current events, and try not to form concrete opinions on something without thoroughly researching that thing first. I used to maintain a blog of sorts at my web forum, found here, though I updated very infrequently.

To address those interests in order, my gaming specifically consists of vast quantities of Dungeons & Dragons, a game I thoroughly enjoy and incidentally inspired the name of this blog (or rather, one of my characters did); some Halo and Halo 2 on other people's X-boxes, and several real-time strategy PC games, including Dawn of War and Warcraft 3. In D&D, I'm most fond of playing paladins, a preference that partially reflects my general outlook on life.

I am, as I mentioned above, a bassist, and a reasonably accomplished one if I do say so myself. I play in both the jazz and classical styles, though I got my start in bluegrass and actually started reading for bass from treble clef parts and guitar chord lines. Before taking up bass, I was a trumpet player of enough skill to sit at the top of the trumpet section of a state championship marching band (Forest Park Marching Rangers, Indiana class D champions, 2001 to be precise), but lost my ability to play over the course of having braces. I am also a bass singer.

Politically, I'm all over the map; if one was to take an average of all my positions on various issues, the result would probably be center-right (as most of those online political tests make me), but that isn't nearly the sum total. I suspect that I'll be making many politics-related posts over the course of my sojourn in the blogosphere, and know that I'll be making one or two today, so I'll let my positions come out there rather than make this the Longest Blog Post Ever™ and ensure that no one reads it thereby.

One other note before I go on to my next post: In keeping with the blog title, I do tend to ramble and have rather purist viewpoints on a lot of things. Just remember, patience is a virtue, and I will eventually get to the point... and if you disagree with that point, I just may decide to smite you.*

*This last comment was made entirely in jest.

Grand opening

2006-01-26T01:34:00.000-05:00

This will be a mixed bag sort of thing. I'm not one to write much about my personal life aside from ranting when things suck, so this will mostly follow news, politics, and things that interest me, such as gaming developments and the wonderful world of music and music education. This is probably just as well, since blogs about people's personal lives (with a few notable exceptions) tend to suck mightily.

For now, guest replies will be accepted by the blog so that people don't have to sign up if they just want to leave a comment, though this will change quickly if I get a lot of spam. Enjoy reading. Or don't. Not like it makes a difference to me anyway.