Turkeyless

Alas, I am turkeyless on this most turkeylicious of days. Indeed, it is my very first Thanksgiving without turkey (since I acquired teeth, presumably). It is also my first Thanksgiving without being with any family. The two are probably related in some fashion (i.e. family = turkey). I miss them both.

I could have had Thanksgiving with someone here on campus. And I certainly would have, were I a nice guy. Since I'm a selfish jerk, I didn't help to aleviate the loneliness of anyone else on this holiday. The reason is that I have a paper due on Monday. As is my wont, I put off doing any serious work on it until very late in the game. I was supposed to start writing yesterday, but I spent all day perusing this one book. Granted, it was the most important book, but it still put me behind schedule. Then, I stayed up past my bedtime and didn't get to work untl late today. (Lame, huh?) Luckily, I cranked out a nice quantity of work. How good it is remains an open question. However, I've got plenty of time to spiff it up once I get it all cranked out. Starting is always the hardest part.

Creating a paper is always such a weird experience for me. I say "creating" because writing is just a physical act. "Creating" more accurately captures the experience of formulating ideas and articulating them in an effective manner. The experience is akin to that of a painter of icons. In the eastern Orthodox Churches, the creation of an icon was a religious act. The painter would spend days or weeks in a monk's cell, fasting and praying. When his spiritual connection was finally made, he began to paint. Therefore, the value of an icon is not only as an objet d'art, but as the product of mystical union between man and God.

Now, I pity the God that would have to read any of my stuff. His love of mankind is itself a Promethean punishment. Why be cruel and have Him read my paper? The pathos of God aside, you get my drift. I do lock myself in my apartment and exist only around creating my paper. My sense of time vanishes, and I minimize all contact with the outside world. Semi-delirious, I assault my keyboard with a heavy "hunt'n' peck" typing. Then, days later, I give birth to a semi-presentable paper. That reminds me, I have a BIG paper next month that I simply cannot afford to fuck-up. Shit.

Any way, long story short, that's why I didn't get together with anyone and have turkey for Thanksgiving. Enjoy the holiday!

(Hey, is that goddamned Santa Claus peeping out at me from my Coke can? Oh, Lord. I can feel the holidays creeping up one me, drawn by the scent of credit cards... Slowly and deliberately... stalking me...)

Nuke the CIA

In the course of scarfing my dinner down, I almost barfed it back up when I flipped the channel to MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Matthews was kissing the ass of a former CIA official named Michael Scheuer. Scheuer was the "Anonymous" author of a book entitled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. For a thorough review of this dreadful work, please read David Frum's piece. I'd just like to say a few words on it, as I believe it to be so indicative of everything that is wrong with the foreign-policy establishment in Washington DC.

First, Scheuer's perspective is that all Muslim grievances must be redressed, including the abandonment of Israel by the West. Osama (who, contrary to my expectations, is still alive and kicking) has built his following among Muslims by acting as the advocate of aggrieved Muslims everywhere. Now, the mere existence of a grievance does not mean that it warrants a cure. For example, Adolf Hitler's ability to articulate Germany's grievances in the inter-war period brought him to power. Undoubtedly, some of those grievances, particularly with regards to the Treaty of Versailles, were legitimate. That said, treating with Hitler did nothing but whet his appetite for further demands. Moreover, Hitler's ideology of hatred made it pretty clear that his use of legitimate grievances was a mere political ploy, one that British nit-wit Neville Chamberlain accepted at face value. The lesson of "peace in our time" is lost on Mr. Scheuer, as he urges accommodation of Osama & Co.

Second, Scheuer whines ad nauseum about how taking the offensive against the Islamofascists does nothing but breed more of them. Given that al-Qaeda's golden era was under the Clinton administration, with its 'hear no evil, see no evil' policy of passivity, one might question whether doing nothing really defeats terrorism. Of course, Scheuer does not advocate passivity, but capitulation. Still, I'll take barely-trained jihadistsmarching off to Iraq to die by the busload than another decade or two of dozens, hundreds, and ultimately thousands of innocent Americans being murdered by these psychos. Even Scheuer should know that passivity is the most contemptible course possible in the eyes of an honor culture, such as produced our Isalmofascist buddies. Doling nothing only encourages them in their belief that the West is weak and decadent. In other words, both logic and historical fact argues contrary to Mr. Scheuer's assertion that only capitulation and passivity will stop the enemy.

What is it about these fools in the CIA and State Department? Their fundamental problem is that they choose cowardice in the face of every moral challenge or conundrum. C.G. Jung, in one of his famous lectures on Nietzsche, noted that the more one studies the motivation of a criminal, the more one will sympathize. However, if we sympathize too much, we will lose perspective and, ultimately, our moral judgement. That is exactly what has happened to the educated fools in Foggy Bottom and Langley. There never is an easy answer to difficult questions. Doing the right thing in the face of Adolf Hitler cost millions of lives, but the alternative was even worse. Likewise, the explosive situation in the Middle East, such as a nuclear-armed Iran and the unchecked spread of Islamofascism, cannot be allowed to continue. There are no easy or guaranteed solutions. There is, however, the resolve and courage of those willing to meet the challenge head-on. It's too bad that jerks like Scheuer, whose moral cowardice masquerades as sagacity, get in the way.

The Importance of Being Lazy

It's been a whole month since I've blogged! Such is the curse of laziness. However, I cannot ascribe all of my failure to my many shortcomings. It's been a rough month between a heavy course load and some legal difficulties on the home front. That said, there were a few noteworthy events since I last put fingers to keyboard.

1. Dubya was re-elected. That was a good thing. Granted, I can't say that I regard Dubya as the ideal president, but he's pretty good. Besides, had we elected Monsieur Kerry, it would have sent a dangerous message to both our allies and enemies. I can at least rest assured that the War on Terror will be prosecuted with the necessary vigor and determination. His win was pretty big, especially in light of expectations set by the press. As a graduate student, my sense of schadenfreude is pretty satisfying right about now.
   
2. Arafat returned to his birthplace in the pits of Hell. Death spent too long in sharpening its scythe before claiming that ugly bastard. Arafat was a corrupt and violent fraud, Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding. Sadly, his death is no guarantee that things will improve in the region, but it does provide an opportunity for progress. The question is, who will take up the mantle of leadership of the Palestinians? The current PLO cronies are a pretty uninspiring lot. Normally, I'd say that Hamas is the likely winner, but Israel has so depleted the Hamas leadership with precision strikes, that they may not be able to collect this windfall.
3. Scott Peterson was convicted. It's always nice to see a sociopathic husband get his comeuppance for murdering his wife and unborn child. The Peterson verdict provides some nice closure on the O.J. Simpson trial, and the Nineties in general. The ersatz Age of Clinton has been put to rest. America is again capable of some moral clarity. That's a good thing.
4. Fallujah has all but fallen. Naturally, Zarqawi and the top dogs have long since fled the city, and its capture will not insure victory. Nonetheless, it was an important psychological victory, for the American people, foreign naysayers, and those Iraqis who doubted our resolve. The fall of Fallujah will also deny the insurgents some of their most valuable physical infrastructure. Succor for the anti-US forces will increasingly have to come from outside the country. Syria and Iran will attempt to provide enough to keep the US tied-down in Iraq, but not enough to provoke American ire. Can they provide enough support for the rebels to last long enough to outlast American resolve? Not bloody likely.
5. My sister just got married to a terrific guy. I'm very lucky. Not only do I have a pair of sisters like radiant jewels, but I have wonderful brothers-in-law. Throw some little nieces into the picture, and the blessings that I have received are beyond measure.

Again, I apologize for being such a lazy bastard. The world never slows down, and I'm an opinionated jerk, so there should be a steady flow of future entries. Things my get a bit light when the end of the quarter approaches, but I'll try to keep blathering.

Osama Bin Dead For A While

More proof that Osama is Pushtan up the daisies. Reuters
reports that Zarqawi has released a tape loudly declaring his allegiance to Osama Bin laden.

This is news?

Yes, it is. It indicates that there is probably a power struggle going on in al-Qaeda. With Osama dead, Zawahiri should be the new boss. However, with the influx of new recruits going to Zarqawi in Iraq, Zarqawi probably feels strong enough to challenge the old Egyptian for the mantle of leadership. By declaring his "allegiance" to OBL, he's effectively claiming to be OBL's real heir.

Zawahiri probably still has a firm control of the old, operational network (at least, what's left of it). But it is Zarqawi who's got more men, as new recruits flock to Iraq on their way to becoming corpses (courtesy of Uncle Sam). Clearly, Zarqawi still has a decent infrastructure of bomb-makers, as evinced by the wide-scale use of such devices in Iraq.

I've been of the opinion that OBL is dead for some time. Between his big ego, and the incredible propaganda value of a verifiable appearence, the fact that we haven't seen him speaks volumes.

Bravery & Terrorism

I know that I've been bad about posting lately. I'm taking a heavier course load than normal, and it's kept me busy. It makes me wish that I had the extraordinary discipline of the great Instapundit.

This morning, I came across a Mark Steyn column (via Belmont Club) that had been cancelled by his editors at the Telegraph. The piece was on the recent execution of Briton Ken Bigley, and the editors thought Steyn's honesty was a little too harsh. This excerpt really struck me:

By contrast with the Fleet Street-Scouser-Whitehall fiasco of the last three weeks, consider Fabrizio Quattrocchi, murdered in Iraq on April 14th. In the moment before his death, he yanked off his hood and cried defiantly, "I will show you how an Italian dies!" He ruined the movie for his killers. As a snuff video and recruitment tool, it was all but useless, so much so that the Arabic TV stations declined to show it.

It speaks volumes about the Islamofascist mind-set that Quattrocchi's bravery negated the propaganda value of the videotaped execution. This reveals how it is the fear displayed by Westerners, and the petty power that the terrorists feel in murdering the defenseless, which feeds the movement. As in Beslan, the reason that these guys commit such horrible crimes against the innocent is that they believe Westerners to be effete cowards. Ergo, through acts of indiscriminate violence they can frighten us into submission.

The War on Terror will separate the men from the boys among the nations of the world. Those who are unwilling to show fear, like the brave Mr. Quattrocchi, will deprive the Islamofascists of their main weapon. Australia, God bless 'em, spat back in the face of those who advocate being afraid. Americans will soon have to make that same decision over John Kerry, who obliquely manifests his fear of terrorism in a delusional incoherence on the subject. Every time he intones the "wrong war, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time", it is music to our enemies' ears. Let's hope we make the right choice on November 2nd.

The Debates

In the first debate, I was really disappointed by Bush's performance. I kept having to get up for a cigarette in order to keep cool. Kerry was better than I had expected, but he was still a pompous fool begging Bush to slam him. Bush, however, was too flustered to land any punches. The debate was a tactical win for Kerry, albeit a strategic draw in the overall campaign. The MSM, of course, has worked to spin that draw into a win for Kerry.

Tonight, I think that Edwards got spanked. Cheney was cool, calm and collected while he parried Edwards' attacks and effectively used his time to shred Kerry, especially on his Senate record. In policy debates, Cheney is the Terminator.

By the way, this is not to say that Edwards was bad, but he just wasn't good enough. He came across as a bit of an amateur. He's a trial lawyer who recently entered politics, and he does not give the impression that he has really thought about the issue of global security.

Why the big difference between Bush and Cheney's performances? I think that Bush and Cheney have different approaches to their politics. Bush's politics are more intuitive; he does what he feels in his bones to be right. Cheney's politics are more the product of careful reflection and pondering history. Accordingly, his political views are more easily articulated in the form of an argument. Bush, in contrast, can more effectively work a crowd of regular folks. Like them, his politics are intuitive, and are not the product of intellectual peregrinations.

Will this debate change minds? Probably not, but the recent Kerry-Edwards campaign momentum has been halted, and that is worth a lot. I think it likely that Bush will be much improved in the next debate. He knows that he lost, and he will work hard to avoid a repeat performance. Moreover, the "townhall" style debate format will make him feel more comfortable. Kerry, in contrast, will be a dazzled by his good performance in the last debate. He'll be a little too relaxed.

And that's the thing about Dubya. Just when you're convinced you've got him beat, he hits you with a power that you didn't know he had.

Washington D.C.

I've been in Washington for the past couple of days. Y'know, although the city does not have the history and grandeur of the capitols of Europe, I still admire it. It seems to have an aura that is quite appropriate for a republic. The monuments and the stately federal buildings never seem to lose that indefinable quality of "republicanness". Naturally, one sees extraordinary buildings in Europe, but there is always the subtle yet persistent reminder that a king or great lord built it while his people starved. Worse still, the Eurocrats who take over these once royal buildings as their own tend to take on royal airs themselves.

That said, I do find the attitude of the people of Washington to be a bit overbearing. Power in America is not concentrated in Washington, but it is spread all over the country. Our power is the result of our political and economic freedoms, not the blessings bestowed upon us from the District of Columbia. Frankly, the sense of power is much greater in a place like New York City than it is in Washington. Too many folks in Washington give themselves airs as hangers-on to power. It's a bummer.

Belmont Club on Iraq

Folks, if you have any interest whatsoever in the war in Iraq, DO NOT miss Belmont's entry on the topic. He also takes a shot at Sullivan's Chicken Little take on the Iraq war.