joyfulchristian

Melanie Phillips makes an important point

Which is worse?

I think this exchange still fails to answer the big question: why is the US, which (apart from Israel) is the principal victim of war by terror and has chosen to fight it in defence of everything the free world believes in, treated as an 'evil empire' because it has done so? And why is it blamed for 'unilateralism' when Europe on the one hand and the UN on the other made it crystal clear that they were not prepared so to fight? What in the circumstances was the US supposed to do -- sit on its hands and wait for the crop sprayers in jihadi colours to deliver clouds of nerve gas to Washington or Manhattan? Is multilateral suicide really preferable to unilateral defence?

Sure, the Americans' bombast and arrogance have meant they have made mistakes in Iraq which have brought the defence of the free world to the edge of disaster -- and we may yet topple right over. But without the US, there would have been no defence. And it is a dangerous blindness to brush that vital fact aside. (Emphasis in original.)

Indeed. While it is true that we have not been completely without help, it seems certain that without the US in the lead, no action of consequence would have been taken against the Islamicists.

I disagree with Philips on one point. I don't think it was our bombast and arrogance that caused our mistakes in Iraq. I'm not saying that we're not arrogant and bombasitic; we often are. (And most of the time it's actually rather well founded.) Our mistakes in Iraq were largely caused by the inability of some elements in our government to adapt to the new situation and the inability, or unwillingness, of our President to over rule those segments. In short, our mistakes were largely a result of lack of foresight and lack of will.

Give me a break

Ben Domenech aptly responds to claims that the gay marriage issue is really just a publicity stunt orchestrated by the President.

Oh, THOSE WMD's

A sarin bomb went off in an apparent attack on US soldiers in Iraq today. Fortunately no soldiers were hurt. I'll let Bryan Preston fill in the blanks.

Is Bloglines too efficient?

As I mentioned yesterday, I started using bloglines yesterday. I'm now wondering if it's not too good.

There's a couple of reasons that I say that. The first is that I've found that I'm able to keep up with almost all the blogs (a few don't have feeds) that I usually read plus a few I don't usually read every day in an amazingly short amount of time. I'll keep adding more I suppose, but I don't know if I can find enough blogs to fill all the time I used to spend perusing blogs.

The second reason is that I've noticed that a lot of blogs I've subscribed to (especially those on Blogspot) send out the entire posts on their feeds. As a result, I'm able to read whole posts without actually visiting the blog. So, while more people may be reading what the blogger is writing, they may not be able to tell since their counters and trackers won't record a visit. Even with blogs that only send out a small sample of the post, it's often enough to tell me if I don't care to read the post. In short, it seems that RSS feeds may actually disguise how many regular readers a blog has. (This problem wouldn't apply to special links to a particular post so you'd still be able to spot when a single post caused a readership spike.)

Now, that's not to say that I intend to stop using the service, but I did find these items interesting.

Ecological absurdities

Last week I went to watch Van Helsing with a couple of friends. During the previews the friend sitting next to me leaned over as the trailer for The Day After Tomorrow came on and said, "This looks pretty good too."

To which I said something like, "Except for the premise being absolute bunk?"

Patrick Michaels explains the myriad problems with this film. Here's my favorite part:

Is a Gulf Stream "failure" that would be sufficient to produce an ice age even possible? Ask MIT's Carl Wunsch, the world's authority on oceanic currents. He's very upset at these silly scenarios and believes they can harm efforts to reduce industrial emissions by subjecting the entire global warming issue to ridicule. (After all, Gore is the pitchman.) Wunsch recently wrote in a letter to Nature magazine that the only way to trigger a Gulf Stream-caused ice age "is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the earth's rotation, or both."

On a more pessimistic note (Well, more pessimistic from my standpoint that is; I have no idea what his view on the subject is.) Michaels finishes by saying that it's far more likely that this film could result in a new president being elected than it is that any of the ecological nonsense in the film might actually happen.

There is no doubt that many on the left are hopeing just that.

(The link came from Juan Non-Volokh.)

You'd think

... that this point by Matthew Hoy would be obvious:

There can be no peace in a world where millions of Muslims' only desire is the death of all infidels -- Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

Unfortunately, lots of people seem to be having trouble grasping this concept.

Going wobbly now?

Mark Steyn points out that that a crucial factor in dealing with the Arab world is the appearance of being the strongest. He worries that as of late, the Bush administration is appearing weaker and weaker.

I share this fear. I want to believe that what I'm seeing is a temporary hitch in Bush's full steam ahead approach. After all, we've had plenty of these before and he's always come out of them OK. But I've got this horrible rumbling in my gut that's telling me it's different this time.

While it's true that what happened at Abu Ghairib was horrible, it really shouldn't have been able to get this much traction. But the Bush administration has backed off and gon on the defensive. Now, matters are worse.

Additionally, we're now seeing rumblings that we might pull out immediately if the new Iraqi government asked us to. While I don't agree with Spoons that this is evidence that Bush isn't all that interested in the future of Iraq, I do agree that we're seeing a way of thinking that is deeply troubling.

The State Department's way of thinking appears to be in ascendancy in the administration. If this keeps up, a lot of people are going to die that didn't have to and our chances to remake Iraq will grow much smaller.

If this pans out

... I have no idea what we'd do about it.

Syrian technicians accompanying unknown equipment were killed in the train explosion in North Korea on April 22, according to a report in a Japanese newspaper.

A military specialist on Korean affairs revealed that the Syrian technicians were killed in the explosion in Ryongchon in the northwestern part of the country, according to the Sankei Shimbun. The specialist said the Syrians were accompanying "large equipment" and that the damage from the explosion was greatest in the portion of the train they occupied.

The source said North Korean military personnel with protective suits responded to the scene soon after the explosion and removed material only from the Syrians' section of the train.

I have no idea what to make of this. It's not encouraging though.

Cold water on the face

Those of us in the blogosphere (even a lot of non-political or only marginal political bloggers) tend to get so engrossed in the political scene that we tend to forget that most of America doesn't operate this way.

Today I went and picked up my sister. We hit the road and just drove around for a few hours. At some point I mentioned something John Kerry and she said, "Who?"

Me, "John Kerry."

Her, "I have no idea who that is?"

Me, "He's running for president. He's the Democratic candidate."

Her, "Never heard of him."

Now, keep in mind my sister is a pretty smart person and has a college education, yet she had no idea who John Kerry is. I'm betting she's not the only one.

Why do I bring this up?

Just to remind us that most Americans won't turn their minds to the election for quite some time yet. The stuff that happens now is important, but it's not yet that important.

What was I waiting for?

For over a year I've put off signing up for an RSS feed. For some reason it always seemed like too much of a pain.

Last week a friend of mine told me she'd just signed up for Bloglines and it was really great. After pondering that for a few days I signed up this morning.

She was right. Again.

So much holiness, so little time

Kristin Hoppe wants to know:

How come every city or place we attack is a holy city or holy ground or the third most revered mosque?

No Kristin, it's not just you. I've noticed the same thing.

Tolkien musing

Something has just struck me that I'd never thought of before. In both the books and movies of The Lord of the Rings Isildur is portrayed as having defeated (temporarily) Sauron by cutting off the finger on which Sauron wore the One Ring. However, as we all know, the One Ring conveys the benefit of invisibility on the one who wears it. So, just exactly how was Isildur able to find Sauron?

Just asking.

Remarkably

After more than 2 years of blogging, I got my first genuine piece of hate mail today. Say hello to [email protected].

You think you know the truth? Do you talk to god? Why are you blindly supporting bush, and his boys? Because bush is a christian? That's the problem with christians. They take a fairy tale (the bible), and make it the truth. Since you know the truth, this is a waste of my time writing you. But I had to vent, because you people (all religions) are ****** up this planet.

Well, on the bright side he's got better grammar than your average hate mailer. But here's a tip, he complains that it's a waste of my time talking to me because I think I already know the truth, yet he makes no arguments of any kind. What exactly do I have my mind made up about? Well, obviously he dislikes both Bush and God, but we have no idea why.

Oh well, I'm officially hated now. Must be doing something right.

Woo-hoo

For several days now I've been feeling down and listless. All of the sudden I am in an incredibly good mood and I have no idea why. I don't think I'm going to worry about it though. I'm too busy feeling happy.

Those of you who think we're living in a fascist state

... remind me again how many foreign reporters have been expelled for insulting the President?

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) - President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva came under criticism Wednesday for deciding to expel a New York Times correspondent who had written a story saying the Brazilian leader was a heavy drinker.

The newspaper protested the order against correspondent Larry Rohter and said it ``would take appropriate action to defend his rights.''

Rohter's visa was canceled and he was given eight days to leave the country - the first expulsion of a journalist since the 20-year military dictatorship ended in 1984. The last time a foreign journalist was expelled was in the 1970s.

``It's a political mistake. The government managed to transform a victory into a defeat - it went from victim to villain. There is no precedent for this during democracy,'' said Sen. Jefferson Peres of the left-leaning Democratic Labor Party.

Oh, that's right. The correct answer is none.

And no, I don't consider Brazil a fascist state either, no where close. But this isn't exactly encouraging.

Nasty shock

I've begun to realize in the last few days that I am a far more selfish being than I had previously known. Don't get me wrong; I wasn't suffering from the illusion that I wasn't selfish. I just had no idea how truly deficient I was in this area.

I mean, I always try to be nice to people, and feel horrible when I fail. I give, if not generously, at least more so than many. (That's always a dangerous game to play. Unfortunately, as a tax accountant I'm exposed to the giving habits of a lot of people. It is, therefore far too easy to find myself saying, "I'm better than they are.) When I find out an acquaintance is in trouble I try to help, or at least lend a kind word.

As such, I've tended to think that I'd been doing a pretty good job in the business of being less selfish. What I didn't realize is that I was only be generous when it didn't really cost me anything. (I don't really count money. Yes, money is necessary and I'd like to have more of it if possible, but parting with money has never caused me any serious heartburn.)

But recently, when I found my own silly priorities coming into conflict with the very serious concerns of a friend, I let my petty wants outweigh my friend's much more important needs.

In other words, when it really mattered, when it really cost me something, I was unable to be selfless.

I keep asking myself, "What came over me?"

I don't have a good answer. All I know is that I was unable to control my own pettiness in order to make things easier for a friend.

I really didn't know I was that selfish. Realizing it has been quite a shock.

Now I've got to figure out what to do about it.

I know that for starters I've got to learn some impulse control. Far too often lately I've expected that whatever I wanted was just there for the taking. I haven't seen a need to restrain myself. I've got to re-learn some basic control.

I've also got to learn to listen to others better. It seems lately that I find myself knowing what people said, but not really understanding. As a result, I end up with the basics of what people are looking for, but not really understanding their motivations. Consequently, I've found that I'm not always able to tell just how important something is to someone until it's far too late.

I pray God will grant me the wisdom to know how to defeat my selfish nature, the ability to recognize when I'm in danger of placing myself before others, and the strength of character to stay the course.

An most excellent point

David Frum lists several reasons why Donald Rumsfeld should stay in office. Most of them have been mentioned elsewhere, but this point is rather unique:

So be aware: A Rumsfeld resignation would settle nothing. It would simply open the way to further accusations against the United States – to demands for the closing of Guantanamo and US-style trials for the inmates there; to placing the terror war under the supervision of the UN; and so on.

Ever since 9/11, there have been those who argued that it was the United States that stood accused in the war on terror. If Rumsfeld goes, the United States will be confessing that these accusers had at least some justice on their side. The country needs him. It’s his duty. He must stay.

I think he's got a good point here. To many people Rumsfeld is symbolic of our entire approach to the broader war against terrorism. If he were to resign or, worse still, be fired many would take it as an admission that everything we've done as far back as October of 2001 was one huge blunder.

One of the worst feelings in the world

... comes from knowing you've treated a friend badly.

One of the greatest reliefs is when they forgive you.

Although it doesn't make the regret go away. Nor, should it.

Why didn't we think of this earlier?

D'oh! Why didn't I think of this?

We have normality. I repeat, we have normality1

I thought I'd be posting more while I was out of town, but I had a horrible headache all day Saturday and it really put a crimp on a lot of my plans. Any way, I'm home now. Posting will return to normal as soon as I can determine what exactly is normal anyway.

¹ If you don't recognize it, I feel sorry for you.

Steyn on Kerry's blame game

Mark Steyn has a great column on Kerry's new habit of blaming his speech writers for anything that he says that turns out to be unpopular:

Got that? When Kerry talks about ''any Benedict Arnold CEO or corporation that takes American jobs overseas,'' he's not referring to someone who ''takes jobs overseas.'' Perish the thought! He's all in favor of taking jobs overseas. It wasn't him who attacked all those ''Benedict Arnold CEOs,'' just his ''overzealous speechwriters.'' And the minute he discovered it was going on, he called them to say, ''Look, that's not what I'm saying.''

I mean, OK, it was what he was saying in the narrow technical sense of words emerging from between his lips, day after day, night after night, all through primary season. I had a quick rummage through the Nexis database, and found a mere 746 citations for Kerry and the expression ''Benedict Arnold.'' I myself have personally been present on three occasions when he attacked ''Benedict Arnold CEOs'' who ''take jobs overseas,'' and on two of them he didn't have a TelePrompTer or even a script. He just stood in front of us and the words came out of his mouth, almost as if they were what he himself believed.

Almost.

And this is one of the many reasons why I don't trust Kerry. There have been a few times when, shamefully, the Bush administration has misled people. (The cost of the prescription drug benefit comes to mind.) But, at least when Bush stands up and says, "This is what I believe," you can be certain that it's what he believes. With Kerry, it could just be those overzealous writers again.

Jane Galt is not quite right

She says that the ketchup heiress was the first to actually attack someone's patriotism. I believe that honor actually goes to Wes Clark who said:

On patriotism, he spoke of his memories of the Korean War and his service in Vietnam. He asked the crowd to applaud all the veterans in the room.

"But I don't think it's patriotic to dress up in a flight suit and prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier," Clark said. "That's not my idea of patriotism."

Which, of course, is the exact moral equivalent of saying that John Kerry was really stupid to vote against the F-16. And yeah, I know, Kerry's people dispute that claim. But for some reason, the aren't doing it very loudly. If they think his record is being misinterpreted, that's what they should be screaming about. This, "He's questioning my patriotism," bit is getting really old.

On the road again

I'm about to hit the road and go see my folks. Probably no more posting today. See ya'll later.

Repeat after me

... tax cuts don't cost a dime.

The House approved the Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Bill of 2004 (HR 4227) by a 333 to 89 vote on May 5. The measure now goes to the Senate.

HR 4227 would extend by one year an increase in exemption amounts for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-27) (TAXDAY, 2004/05/05, C.2).

The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate. The Senate will not consider small tax extension bills on an individual basis, according to senior taxwriters on the Senate Finance Committee. Instead, it would most likely try to bundle those bills with reconciliation instructions for the fiscal year 2005 federal budget.

[...]

HR 4227 would cost $17.8 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). The Democratic alternative would have cost $19 billion during the same period but the cost would have been offset.(Emphasis added.)

This is just wrong on so many levels. "Cost" implies an expense. In other words, when you say something cost you $XX amount of money, you are saying that you spent that money. If you pay $50 for cable internet service, that has cost you $50 because you paid it out. But if you take a new job and it pays $50 less than the old job, that hasn't cost you anything.

You may be wondering, since the net effect on the bottom line is the same, why does this bother me so much?

The reason is that the word "cost" implies a certain mindset. When someone in government, or who reports on goverment, says that a tax cut will cost the government money, what that means is that they believe that the money belongs to the government already. Therefore, when they generously let the public keep more money through a tax cut, they believe they're spending money.

On the other hand, if you believe that the money actually belongs to the people who earned it, then you will view a tax cut as simply letting the people keep more of their own money. If you believe that way, you view a tax cut as a reduction in revenue.

This may seem like a small point, but you can pretty reliably determine how someone feels about taxation overall by whether they view a tax cut as an expense or as a reduction in revenue. Far too few people in Washington hold the latter view.

The end of Friends

I was never a big Friends fan. In fact, at some points I just couldn't watch it as they really put sex at the top way to often for me to be comfortable with.

However, I must admit that the finale was very well done. And of course Rachel and Ross had to end up together.

I've got to extend my sympathies to a friend of mine who is now in mourning over the show's end. She knows who she is.

I'm afraid all the time

In an Episode of Babylon 5 as part of a "rebirth ceremony" chief of security Michael Garibaldi is supposed to tell Delenn something he'd never told anyone. What he said was:

No one knows, but I'm afraid all the time.

Sometimes I can really understand that.

Which of course means I'm awfully high strung sometimes. Not intentionally of course. It's just that I worry WAY too much.

And I thought I was reading the story wrong

I was hoping I was reading this story wrong some how. Apparently not:

Sounds like a slam-dunk, doesn't it? The Republcans thought so; the 213 Republicans present all voted "Yes." But the issue wasn't so clear to the Democrats: 49 voted "No," including three out of four Minnesota Democrats, Reps. Sabo, McCollum and Oberstar.

Since the Democrats presumably weren't voting in favor of abusing prisoners, it appears that the liberals in the House--including the three Minnesotans named above--can't bear to vote for a resolution commending the troops who risk their lives, day after day, so that Democrats and their families can live in safety. Has there ever been such a party?

Thanks to Hindrocket for pointing this out.

I'm starting a new category

I gripe about how worthless local news is so much, I might as well have a category for it.

For DAYS now one of the local stations has been running ads for their new expose that will run tonight: Retailers putting returned underwear back on the rack.

AHH! The horror! How will we ever survive?

Except for the weather during storm seasons, local news adds pretty much nothing to anything. Which is pretty much why I don't watch it. Total waste of time.

OK, this bloggers rise to the top thing

... may be going to far.

I just found out I'm currently the 7th search find on Google for Holocaust. I can't imagine how that happened.

Yeah the multi-lateral approach will keep them from being mad at us

"Osama's" been mouthing off again:

(CNN) -- A new audiotape message purportedly from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and posted on an Islamic Web site Thursday offers 22 pounds of gold to anyone who kills Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer or top U.S. military officers.

A reward of gold is also offered for anyone who kills U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan or Annan's envoy to Iraq, Ladkhar Brahimi.

The message denounces U.N. efforts, led by Brahimi, to organize the transfer of power from the provisional authority to an interim Iraqi government June 30, calling the United Nations "a Zionists' tool."

Two points here. The first is that this pretty much enforces the point that to al Qaeda, we're all just infidels. The second is that the mind that call the UN of all things a "Zionists' tool" is pretty clearly detached from reality.

Michael Moore is a despicable liar

... Volume 938573.

I'm hardly surprised:

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

[...]

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

So, let me get this straight; Moore knew a year ago Disney wouldn't distribute his film, but this week he claimed he'd just found out. So the whole thing was just a shameless lie.

Furthermore, he's admitted it was a lie. But will any of his supporters stop screaming? I'm not holding my breath.

And a side note from this same article:

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with political censorship. It may be inadvisable, but there's nothing immoral or illegal about it. The real problem arises only when the government engages in the censorship. Also, refusing to distribute Moore's film does nothing to deny him his right to freedom of expression. All Disney is doing is excercising it's own freedom of expression by refusing to pay for Moore's.

Going overboard

Donald Sensing says the calls for Rumsfeld's head is one the most crass and inane things he's ever seen.

But the calls for his head are both idiotic and deceptive. Idiotic because to hold the SecDef personally responsible for the actions of a handful of junior and mid-level enlisted soldiers, and even the command incompetence of a single brigadier general make me question the mental competence of those who say he should resign, be fired (Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, et. al.) or impeached (Charlie Rangel, who never runs out of stupid ideas, announced from the House floor today that he is preparing articles of impeachment).

I think Donald is right here. The worst thing I've even heard Rumsfeld accused of is failing to report these incidents to the President. Every indication I've seen is that most of the problems I've at Abu Ghraib boil down to a complete and total loss of control by the command staff.¹ Rumsfeld appears to have been dealing with this even before this story hit the big time.

¹ I don't mean to suggest that those who committed these despicable acts would have been upstanding citizens if the command staff had been firmly in control. What I am saying is that if control had been maintained, these types of things could not possibly have continued as long as they apparently did.

Idle musing

In watching MASH re-runs I've noticed that a recurring, but not really common, occurrence involved characters forbidding Hawkeye from doing things or chastising him for stuff he'd already done because they were afraid he might injure his hands and be unable to operate. However, this is the only show I can remember in which characters showed so much concern for a surgeon's hands. Am I just watching the wrong shows?

That is pretty geeky

Hobbit years. Heh.

They're stealing what?

The teaser for the local news was that theives are, and I promise I'm not making this up, trees. Yup, theives are sneaking into yards in the middle of the night and digging up trees and hauling them off.

Sheesh!

The Mirror may be in trouble

There are growing doubts about the pictures the The Daily Mirror published which they claimed were evidence of abuse of prisoners by British troops.

Amazingly, people at the Mirror don't seem to understand the seriousness of their charges:

Mirror sources said the prisoner abuse issue was such a fast-moving story that the focus would soon move away from the photographs, purportedly supplied by two members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.

Bruce George, the Commons Defence Committee chairman, said: "The issue is of immense national and international interest. I don't know if the pictures were genuine or not. If they are genuine, there is great cause for concern.

These people have no clue, do they? This is an enormous issue and the expectation that it will just blow over appears to be totally unrealistic.

I guess I have a soft spot

... for movies with absurd premises. As long, that is, as the actors react to the premise realistically and well.

For that reason, the upcoming film The Terminal with Tom Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones. I hope this movie is as good as it looks.

The Terminal tells the story of Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks), a visitor to New York from Eastern Europe, whose homeland erupts in a fiery coup while he is in the air en route to America. Stranded at Kennedy Airport with a passport from nowhere, he is unauthorized to actually enter the United States and must improvise his days and nights in the terminals international transit lounge until the war at home is over. As the weeks and months stretch on, Viktor finds the compressed universe of the terminal to be a richly complex world of absurdity, generosity, ambition, amusement, status, serendipity and even romance with a beautiful flight attendant named Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones).

Does that sound awesome or what?

Don't kill the patient

Jonah Goldberg has a great article on the need to see things through in Iraq:

If we mess up Iraq, on the other hand, it will be a disaster of biblical proportions. Iraq will go into a bloody civil war, the region will destabilize, al Qaeda will grow, oil prices might skyrocket, democracy in the region will founder for a generation, millions more Muslims will embrace terrorism, and even millions more will emigrate to America and Europe to escape the poverty and chaos our failure will encourage. Cats will sleep with dogs. And, perhaps most dangerous, American resolve will lose credibility around the world, which will exact a terrible price in as-yet-unknown hotspots.

Read the whole thing.

Here's a thought

Glenn Reynolds has a post about how the UN is impeding a Congressional investigation into Oil-for-Food by insisting that all it's records be kept confidential. The last I heard, the US supplied something like 23% of the UN's operating budget. Why doesn't Congress get to work passing a law that stops funding until the UN complies with our investigators' requests?

Hmmm ...

I've actually gotten quite a bit of blogging in today. That hasn't happened in a while. (Unless you count long screeds of Friday nights.) I must be less distracted today than normal.

Please tell me I'm misreading this

La Shawn Barber seems to be equating the systematic torture, humiliation, and degredation of Iraq prisoners with the actions of Lt. Col West.

I agree with Barber that West is a hero. But West's actions were taken in order to elicit specific information from a prisoner that he already knew to be a collaborator about an attack he'd already received warning of. That is to say, West had a specific reason to intimidate the prisoner.

I have yet to even hear a claim that any of the soldiers implicated in the current fiasco had any such reason to commit their acts. The closest any of them have come is claiming that certain intelligence officers were pleased with how fastly prisoners under their care broke.

That's hardly the same thing. Barring evidence that a prisoner has specific information of a specific threat, the use of torture simply isn't justified. Further, from the pictures I've seen at least some of these acts seem to have been committed just for kicks.

There simply is no comparison.

Update: You'll notice that LaShawn has responded in the comments section. She says that she was not equating Col. West's actions with the events we're hearing about in Iraqi prisons. She says she was only saying that the latter reminded her of the former. Frankly, I don't understand how that happens unless she thinks there are some similarities, but that's my problem, not hers. I'm glad to find out that I misunderstood her.

I missed my blogiversary!

For some reason I'd forgotten that my first post was on April 16th, 2002. You'd think I'd have remembered that I started this experiment on Tax Recovery Day.

My brain must have been bloggered. (And if you don't know what that means, you've never been hosted by Blogger.)

I wouldn't go that far

Donald Sensing calls a motion at the Southern Baptist Convention to bail out of all public schools "pharisaism."

I don't really understand the basis of that charge. To me, pharisaism is an inability to see the meaning of God's word because you're too hung up on the form. I really don't see that here.

However, this does seem to be taking things too far. How are we to be an influence on the world, if we totally withdraw from it?

Don't get me wrong, I spent 7 years in a Christian school and it was a wonderful experience overall. However the idea that withdrawal from public schools is the right decision for all Christians in all places seems absurd. I've never understood people's inability to take this issue on a case by case basis.

For a look at how truly hurtful these tendencies sometimes become, check out this June 19th, 2002 post by David Heddle. (If the link doesn't take you straight to the post, just scroll down.)

My biggest LOL of the day

Shhh! Don't tell anyone.

Of course, that's only because I was at work when I read this and I try to constrain myself in the office. (P.S. Beware a father's wrath.)

I've found some pretty strange things in my referrer logs

... but nothing like this.

If anyone tells you the human race is getting progessively smarter, have them read a blogs referrer pages for a couple of weeks.

Totally irrelevant question

I've noticed that when I run a Technorati search for this site it usually shows about 80 links coming in. But when I search for other sites that I link to the listing for this site often shows substantially fewer links; sometimes it's as low as 20.

Does anyone know why?

I know that I've been using their beta test site for their new engine, so that might skew the results. I haven't used the original engine in a while and haven't compared these results to the original engine.

Has anyone else noticed this happening?

Medal inflation?

Did John Kerry deserve his 1st Purple Heart? NRO has the recollections of the doctor who treated him.

John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

I have no idea what the qualifications of the Purple Heart are, but this is certainly interesting reading.

Intriguing

Patrick Belton has been comparing the longevity of governments in Italy and Britain. It's interesting stuff. However I'm a little worried about how Patrick's been spending his time.

We need more like them

Blackfive is giving the Salvadoran contingent in Iraq some well deserved praise.

EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!

What on earth is going on?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has investigated the deaths of 25 prisoners held by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and determined that two prisoners were murdered by Americans, one an Army soldier and the other a CIA contractor, Army officials said on Tuesday.

An Army official said that a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military justice system of killing a prisoner by hitting him with a rock, and was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service but did not serve any jail time.(Emphasis added.)

Let me get this straight: An American soldier is convicted of killing an Iraqi prisoner and serves NO JAIL TIME?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I suppose it's possible that there were extenuating circumstances that make this a reasonable sentence, but if so the Pentagon really needs to let the world know what they were.

It is vital that Americans and Iraqis believe that our military justice system will punish American servicemen who commit violence against Iraqis. This is not reassuring.

Update: Spoons is a bit more ... firm ... than I was.