Too many people think that the threat from Islamic fundamentalism is suicide planes. That is a mistake. It is highly doubtful that the Jihaddis have in mind to defeat the West through a series of terror attacks; their goals are much more ambitious. They seek to place the whole world under Sharia law, i.e., make illegal any act that does not conform to their interpretation of the Koran. To accomplish this, they must first reduce the governments of the West, including the United States, to a position of immobility and irrelevance in foreign affairs. The War in Iraq has provided them with a starting point, and our democratic system of government has provided the means by which they can accomplish this goal. Last week's election results have de-fanged the American government. Bush and his successors will be unable to conduct even a defensive military operation until it threatens U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Even a response to attacks here will be severely muted as we attempt to return to the time when terrorism was treated as a strictly criminal matter. This gives our enemies ample time to begin step-by-step takeovers of smaller, then larger communities, first in Europe, then in the U.S., through "democratic" action.
This forecast should not be taken lightly. With our government paralyzed around the world, the Jihaddis have an open pathway --if they are patient-- to accomplishing all their aims. Mark Steyn says it well in his most recent column:
"What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it "redeployment" or "exit strategy" or "peace with honor" but, by the time it's announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation.
"As it is, we're in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim, Third World basket-case states are going nuclear, and, for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can't muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV.
"It doesn't work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can't win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That's how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. "These Colors Don't Run" is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. ... To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover."
-- Mark Steyn, November 12, 2006
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
NFL Sunday Picks for November 12
Final results below in color. My picks were so-so; four for eight. My year-to-date average drops a few more points to 61% (41-26).
After last week, when I dropped from 71% overall to 65% overall in my picks so far this season, I've decided to go a little more conservative:
Ravens 24, Titans 6
Ravens 27, Titans 26
Patriots 28, Jets 23
Patriots 14, Jets 17
Eagles 19, Redskins 17
Eagles 27, Redskins 3
Jaguars 33, Texans 10
Jaguars 10, Texans 13
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 14
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 10
Bengals 18, Chargers 17
Bengals 41, Chargers 49
Giants 25, Bears 20
Giants 20, Bears 38
Panthers 21, Buccaneers 17
Panthers 24, Buccaneers 10
After last week, when I dropped from 71% overall to 65% overall in my picks so far this season, I've decided to go a little more conservative:
Ravens 24, Titans 6
Ravens 27, Titans 26
Patriots 28, Jets 23
Patriots 14, Jets 17
Eagles 19, Redskins 17
Eagles 27, Redskins 3
Jaguars 33, Texans 10
Jaguars 10, Texans 13
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 14
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 10
Bengals 18, Chargers 17
Bengals 41, Chargers 49
Giants 25, Bears 20
Giants 20, Bears 38
Panthers 21, Buccaneers 17
Panthers 24, Buccaneers 10
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
What This All Means
As I sit here, in gloomy contemplation of the Democrats' overwhelming victories coast to coast, I have to remember the sage advice of the wise old man to the young king, "No matter how good or bad this is, my son, it too shall pass."
After some reflection, however, I have come to see this election as much more important than I previously had thought. Now that the returns are in, no one can deny that the War in Iraq was the over-riding issue. What that means is pretty significant. Because what that means is that the United States will not be able to use military force outside of its own territory for at least 40 years; i.e., until long after I am gone.
Why do I say this? Well, two reasons. First, the history of America is fundamentally isolationist. We rarely engaged in wars overseas (notwithstanding a number of minor military "police" actions), and each one was very unpopular at home. All except World War II, and I think that one was only different because our alliance with Joe Stalin kept all the left-wing kooks and communists quiet. Our preference is that we stay home and let what the worst among us called the "nips" or the "krauts" or the "frogs" or the "gooks" or the "towel-heads" kill each other off. What yesterday's election confirmed for me was that the War in Iraq has lost almost all of its support simply because we can't see any reason for interfering in another crappy war between stupid, uncivilized tribes in a part of the world we don't even want to visit, let alone save.
The second reason is even more significant. In the past three years the Democrats have taught a lesson on how you can take a messy military situation and turn it to political advantage with the cooperation of a compliant, left-leaning media. Trust me, the Republicans have learned the lesson. What this means is that whatever military action is proposed by a future democrat leader (President Pelosi, anyone?) will be used just as ruthlessly against the Democrats as the War in Iraq was used against the Republicans. You see, "permission has been granted" by the behavior of the Democrats. And they know it. Democrats will be, if you can pardon the expression, "gun-shy" for at least a generation.
Now for the long-term result. From now on our foreign policy will be strictly "cash and carry". Since we can no longer back up our diplomacy with military action, our only option will be bribery. It won't take long for various adversaries to figure this out. Even before the end of the Bush presidency, you will hear talk about gigantic financial aid programs and bail-outs (so-called third world "debt relief"). If we don't come across, our citizens and others will pay with their lives, as it becomes open season on American tourists. Look for this to spread widely over the next 10-15 years. There was a time when we would threaten action against a government that permitted such misbehavior, but the Speak Softly approach to diplomacy only works if you are willing to use a Big Stick. Yesterday, American voters said to their political class, "don't use a Big Stick if it costs a lot of money and the lives of a lot of soldiers". That is how the rest of the world will read it.
Congress will not be able to force the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but the handwriting is on the wall. No intelligent Iraqi is going to hang around until 2008 to see if Bush can pull off a miracle against the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-war crowd. Without these key people, no Iraqi government can succeed. Chaos will result within months, and the U.S. will have no choice but to force some sort of partitioning, keeping the vicious Sunni Triangle and Bagdad separate. Once the Iranian-backed thugs move in, it'll just be a matter of time before this terrorist enclave begins blackmailing its neighbors. We will be powerless to help. The next president will order the evacuation of the last troops before the summer of 2009.
But Americans will be happy. The war will be over, social spending will rise as tax dollars stop flowing to the military (look for a hell of a fight in 2007 on the DOD budget), and very few of our citizens will be threatened in this country. Of course, we will watch with interest as the Islamization of Europe begins to accelerate. But, so what? The what the English called the "wogs", the "wops" and the "spics" should look after themselves anyway. Who are we? Our brothers' keeper?
Incidentally, one other event will occur before the end of the next administration: the elimination of Israel. Without U.S. military capabilities behind them, the Israeli military doesn't stand a chance against the newer, more virulent forms of guerrilla warfare that Iran is designing. I project the last jew will be out of the Middle East by 2015.
But Americans will be happy. Who wants to worry about the Middle East and all their problems, anyway. OPEC will continue to sell us as much oil as we want, at somewhat higher prices than we now enjoy perhaps. But $100 a barrel won't present much of a problem, will it? We've already tested $78. This'll just give our beaurocrats in Washington more reason to impose mandatory gas rationing, ethanol subsidies, and alternative energy programs on every one of us. For our own good, of course.
So it's not a pretty picture, is it? But as a people we have always favored delaying any action to deal with long-term problems. When our Constitutional Convention punted on the question of slavery in 1789, it just kicked the issue down the calendar about seventy years. The result was the bloodiest war in fifteen centuries. But up to then, everyone was happy until Lincoln came along. Oh, by the way, they called it "Mr. Lincoln's War" in the north, and the Democrat that almost beat him in 1864 was a former Union general that some thought was a war hero.
Islamic fundamentalism is the number one long-term problem in the world today. More important than "global warming" (which is a hoax on the order of medieval alchemy), AIDS, or breast cancer. But who wants to wear a black ribbon in recognition of all the people who have had their heads cut off, or who have been blown up by IEDs? For that matter, who even cares about what happened on September 11, 2001? The passage of time has dimmed our memories, and the passage of more time will ensure that when Islamic Sharia law is granted to the citizens of Ontario, Canada, or Deaborn, Michigan, there will be members of the Democratic party to claim that it is just another way of supporting family values.
This is all going to happen, my friends, because yesterday the United States foreign policy was castrated by the election of 2006. Mark the date.
At some point in the future, I will post a discourse on what effect this will have on China, the only other major power left in the world. All I can say at this point is, get your kids into Chinese language lessons soon.
After some reflection, however, I have come to see this election as much more important than I previously had thought. Now that the returns are in, no one can deny that the War in Iraq was the over-riding issue. What that means is pretty significant. Because what that means is that the United States will not be able to use military force outside of its own territory for at least 40 years; i.e., until long after I am gone.
Why do I say this? Well, two reasons. First, the history of America is fundamentally isolationist. We rarely engaged in wars overseas (notwithstanding a number of minor military "police" actions), and each one was very unpopular at home. All except World War II, and I think that one was only different because our alliance with Joe Stalin kept all the left-wing kooks and communists quiet. Our preference is that we stay home and let what the worst among us called the "nips" or the "krauts" or the "frogs" or the "gooks" or the "towel-heads" kill each other off. What yesterday's election confirmed for me was that the War in Iraq has lost almost all of its support simply because we can't see any reason for interfering in another crappy war between stupid, uncivilized tribes in a part of the world we don't even want to visit, let alone save.
The second reason is even more significant. In the past three years the Democrats have taught a lesson on how you can take a messy military situation and turn it to political advantage with the cooperation of a compliant, left-leaning media. Trust me, the Republicans have learned the lesson. What this means is that whatever military action is proposed by a future democrat leader (President Pelosi, anyone?) will be used just as ruthlessly against the Democrats as the War in Iraq was used against the Republicans. You see, "permission has been granted" by the behavior of the Democrats. And they know it. Democrats will be, if you can pardon the expression, "gun-shy" for at least a generation.
Now for the long-term result. From now on our foreign policy will be strictly "cash and carry". Since we can no longer back up our diplomacy with military action, our only option will be bribery. It won't take long for various adversaries to figure this out. Even before the end of the Bush presidency, you will hear talk about gigantic financial aid programs and bail-outs (so-called third world "debt relief"). If we don't come across, our citizens and others will pay with their lives, as it becomes open season on American tourists. Look for this to spread widely over the next 10-15 years. There was a time when we would threaten action against a government that permitted such misbehavior, but the Speak Softly approach to diplomacy only works if you are willing to use a Big Stick. Yesterday, American voters said to their political class, "don't use a Big Stick if it costs a lot of money and the lives of a lot of soldiers". That is how the rest of the world will read it.
Congress will not be able to force the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but the handwriting is on the wall. No intelligent Iraqi is going to hang around until 2008 to see if Bush can pull off a miracle against the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-war crowd. Without these key people, no Iraqi government can succeed. Chaos will result within months, and the U.S. will have no choice but to force some sort of partitioning, keeping the vicious Sunni Triangle and Bagdad separate. Once the Iranian-backed thugs move in, it'll just be a matter of time before this terrorist enclave begins blackmailing its neighbors. We will be powerless to help. The next president will order the evacuation of the last troops before the summer of 2009.
But Americans will be happy. The war will be over, social spending will rise as tax dollars stop flowing to the military (look for a hell of a fight in 2007 on the DOD budget), and very few of our citizens will be threatened in this country. Of course, we will watch with interest as the Islamization of Europe begins to accelerate. But, so what? The what the English called the "wogs", the "wops" and the "spics" should look after themselves anyway. Who are we? Our brothers' keeper?
Incidentally, one other event will occur before the end of the next administration: the elimination of Israel. Without U.S. military capabilities behind them, the Israeli military doesn't stand a chance against the newer, more virulent forms of guerrilla warfare that Iran is designing. I project the last jew will be out of the Middle East by 2015.
But Americans will be happy. Who wants to worry about the Middle East and all their problems, anyway. OPEC will continue to sell us as much oil as we want, at somewhat higher prices than we now enjoy perhaps. But $100 a barrel won't present much of a problem, will it? We've already tested $78. This'll just give our beaurocrats in Washington more reason to impose mandatory gas rationing, ethanol subsidies, and alternative energy programs on every one of us. For our own good, of course.
So it's not a pretty picture, is it? But as a people we have always favored delaying any action to deal with long-term problems. When our Constitutional Convention punted on the question of slavery in 1789, it just kicked the issue down the calendar about seventy years. The result was the bloodiest war in fifteen centuries. But up to then, everyone was happy until Lincoln came along. Oh, by the way, they called it "Mr. Lincoln's War" in the north, and the Democrat that almost beat him in 1864 was a former Union general that some thought was a war hero.
Islamic fundamentalism is the number one long-term problem in the world today. More important than "global warming" (which is a hoax on the order of medieval alchemy), AIDS, or breast cancer. But who wants to wear a black ribbon in recognition of all the people who have had their heads cut off, or who have been blown up by IEDs? For that matter, who even cares about what happened on September 11, 2001? The passage of time has dimmed our memories, and the passage of more time will ensure that when Islamic Sharia law is granted to the citizens of Ontario, Canada, or Deaborn, Michigan, there will be members of the Democratic party to claim that it is just another way of supporting family values.
This is all going to happen, my friends, because yesterday the United States foreign policy was castrated by the election of 2006. Mark the date.
At some point in the future, I will post a discourse on what effect this will have on China, the only other major power left in the world. All I can say at this point is, get your kids into Chinese language lessons soon.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Here's a Democrat that Agrees with me!
November 06, 2006
The Only Issue This Election Day by Orson Scott Card
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else. But at least there will be a chance.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
To read the rest of what Orson Scott Card has to say, go here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_election_d.html
The Only Issue This Election Day by Orson Scott Card
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else. But at least there will be a chance.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
To read the rest of what Orson Scott Card has to say, go here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_election_d.html
Saturday, November 04, 2006
This Election is All About the War on Terror
As much as most democrats want the election tomorrow to be about their hated enemy, George Bush, our votes are really about the future of Western culture. Today, a heroic handful of our fellow citizens are fighting like hell in Iraq to pin down the most dangerous enemy we have faced sinced World War II. Of course, the party out of power wants to use our difficulties there to get back into power. But they have no idea what to if they are put back at the controls. I would no more want Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer in charge of our foreign policy than I would have them pilot the 737 I plan to board in two weeks for a flight to Chicago. Things can always go more smoothly in Iraq, I have no doubt. But for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone thinks the party that spawned John Kerry would be able to accomplish that.
Toronto Sun columnist Rachel Marsden says it better than I do, so check it out : http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Marsden_Rachel/2006/11/04/2231233-sun.html
Toronto Sun columnist Rachel Marsden says it better than I do, so check it out : http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Marsden_Rachel/2006/11/04/2231233-sun.html
NFL Sunday Picks for November 5
I got hammered! More wrong than right for the first time this season. I think next week I'll do a little sand-bagging.
It's very tempting to pick several "sure" things: Seahawks, Chargers, Vikings, Bears, Giants and Falcons. All should win without a sweat. But those games are not worthy of Captain Lucky Dog's attention. Let's look at the tough ones:
Ravens 24, Bengals 23
Ravens 26, Bengals 20
Bills 17, Packers 10
Bills 24, Packers 10
Cowboys 33, Redskins 27
Cowboys 19, Redskins 22
Rams 28, Chiefs 24
Rams 17, Chiefs 31
Steelers 17, Broncos 13
Steelers 20, Broncos 31
Patriots 20, Colts 17
Patriots 20, Colts 27
Jaguars 30, Titans 20
Jaguars 37, Titans 7
Bucaneers 27, Saints 21
Bucaneers 14, Saints 31
It's very tempting to pick several "sure" things: Seahawks, Chargers, Vikings, Bears, Giants and Falcons. All should win without a sweat. But those games are not worthy of Captain Lucky Dog's attention. Let's look at the tough ones:
Ravens 24, Bengals 23
Ravens 26, Bengals 20
Bills 17, Packers 10
Bills 24, Packers 10
Cowboys 33, Redskins 27
Cowboys 19, Redskins 22
Rams 28, Chiefs 24
Rams 17, Chiefs 31
Steelers 17, Broncos 13
Steelers 20, Broncos 31
Patriots 20, Colts 17
Patriots 20, Colts 27
Jaguars 30, Titans 20
Jaguars 37, Titans 7
Bucaneers 27, Saints 21
Bucaneers 14, Saints 31
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Who is John Kerry?
Nothing that the Republican Party could dream up at the last minute will be as successful as the incredible stupidity of John Kerry. Victor Davis Hanson says it best in his recent blog comment:
"How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman."
The entire blog from Hanson is well worth reading: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmEzZGYwYzk0ZDE3YTM0NjY4MmY3Nzg3NDNjNzM5MjY=
As I said yesterday, perhaps wishfully, I see this monumental gaffe from Senator Kerry revealing to the American people what fools the democrats are. This is the best way to suppress the democrat voter turnout; more than a few democrats will be ashamed to vote for these idiots even though they don't like Bush or his Republican colleagues.
"How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman."
The entire blog from Hanson is well worth reading: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmEzZGYwYzk0ZDE3YTM0NjY4MmY3Nzg3NDNjNzM5MjY=
As I said yesterday, perhaps wishfully, I see this monumental gaffe from Senator Kerry revealing to the American people what fools the democrats are. This is the best way to suppress the democrat voter turnout; more than a few democrats will be ashamed to vote for these idiots even though they don't like Bush or his Republican colleagues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)