A Steel Curtain Has Fallen .... Over The Media

While a twist on Sir Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" quote about the USSR, I think it fits in addressing a bias in the media about the military's success in Iraq and the Middle East.

Operation Steel Curtain was a seventeen day offensive (ending on the 22nd of November) that worked to secure the Iraq/Syria border. Over 1,000 joint US and Iraqi troops were deployed. In the end, the Department of Defense reports: "... 10 Marines were killed in fighting during Steel Curtain. A total of 139 terrorists were killed and 256 were processed for detention during the operation."

This is a stunning success! The border is now better secured, preventing more terrorists from simply walking into Iraq. Even with this good news, the report is nonexistent in mainstream media.

A search of Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask Jeeves yielded few stories. CNN reported on the 5th that dozens of terrorists were dead. The number has grown exponentially, but no reports continue from this source. ABC ran an AP headline saying "Marine Killed in 'Operation Steel Curtain'" on November 7th. Again, no further developments are mentioned beyond the death of a US marine.

Kudos to the blogs, which tracked the progress of the Operation throughout its entire length. But what about the average, non blogging American? The mass media again shows a bias by not reporting the accomplishments of our troops in Iraq. If one professes to be anti-war but pro-troops, why not give credit where credit is due?

Political Soapboxing

Thanksgiving. We all know the story. As the History Channel states, "In 1621 the Plymouth colonists and the Wampanoag Indians shared an autumn harvest feast which is now known as the first Thanksgiving. While cooking methods and table etiquette have changed as the holiday has evolved, the meal is still consumed today with the same spirit of celebration and overindulgence."

What does thanksgiving have to do with political soapboxing? Well, according to the Seattle Public Schools, such a view of Thanksgiving is a myth. Their website states, "Thanksgiving: A Native American Perspective:

This session examines the myths surrounding the "First Thanksgiving" and will offer historically accurate readings and discussion materials. The perspective of Native peoples will be addressed as will the legacy of contact between Europeans and the indigenous peoples of North America. Participants will deconstruct what we have been taught about this holiday and come to a new understanding of the history behind the myth."

Obviously, we have been getting it wrong all these years. The website fails to mention a Seattle Public School memo, as reported by KVI, detailing that Thanksgiving is really a time of mourning and remorse for the Native Americans who were robbed of their land by the Europeans.

Don't get me wrong, the Native Americans were not treated fairly. The United States broke a lot of its supposedly valid treaties. Even so, Thanksgiving was truly a time of rejoicing. Remember Squanto? The Native American who saved the colony when he taught the Pilgrims how to harvest and live off the land? There is cause to celebrate on Thanksgiving. The public school system still seeks to rewrite the "myth" of recorded history.

This political soapboxing (Aha! The topic of the post!) in the school system is getting out of hand. It isn't even reserved for the holidays. Whitney Blake wrote an excellent article about the University of Virginia and racism. A professor held the right to express racist statements on the grounds of tenure and his own status as an African American. Nor is the situation isolated to The University of Virginia; even at a small Northwest college, Olympic College, many professors express political views in classes unrelated to the subject matter. As an article in the OC's Olympian notes, "When I polled 50 OC students, I discovered that one in five students said their professors talk politics in class unrelated to the subject matter." One final example is the use of "dispositions theory" at Washington University in Pullman, WA. The University used this idea to punish a student for his religious and political views. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education website notes, "Dispositions" theory, increasingly in vogue in education programs, requires professors to evaluate their students’ commitment to concepts such as “social justice” and “diversity” in conjunction with their actual scholastic achievement."

Professors are obviously intelligent people, but taking the opportunity to talk politics to a captive audience without the opportunity for open debate is only indoctrinating minds ... not teaching them.

Ah, Scrappleface...

This cracked me up.

So this is number what, now?

I find it amusing-
Ok, so amusing isn't the right word, it's sad. Yet my sense of irony/justice remains steadfastly sated. Gorged, even. Thanksgiving is still around the corner but it doesn't matter. Why not?

France. Specifically, the intifada and general rioting that's been going on over there for what, two weeks? More?

Keep in mind, I'm not "happy" for what's going on over there. This isn't some Franco-bashing melee. But for crying out loud, nobody saw this coming?

First off, you have the huminist, rationalist and materialist influences that start over there from the "Endarklightenment" and earlier. God quickly became a cussword at best, silly (or dangerous) superstition at worst. Man decides he can do it on his own, and proceeds to go through a couple of civil wars, lose an empire, and (eventually) have more Islamists coming into the country than the natives can produce themselves. No worry, right? These immigrants will just fit in and pick up the culture as they go, right?

Wrong. This is *Islam,* remember? This religion/belief structure/worldview is not exactly interested in playing nice with everyone else. No, the immigrants *don't* pick up the culture (it might be offensive to them). They glorify their own as a people set apart, destined to cause the downfall of the Satans that are so offensive to Allah (whatever the heck he is. Definitely not the God of the Bible).

So we have a Godless (and thus hopeless) society. (Read "tinder.") We have a philosophy of world-domination with many adherants just walking in to this society. (Read "match.") We now have... a conflageration? Say it isn't so!

I'm not trying to excuse anybody. Goodness gracious me, I am *not* trying to excuse anybody. But I will say that this situation (kind of like us) rose from a *cause,* not randomly.

We would do well to consider the consequences of such a cause.

As If We've Never Been Over This Before ...

While hardly a new outcry, the Associated Press reported today (11/17) that a "House Democrat calls for immediate troop withdrawal." Other Democrats have been echoing this same sentiment for some time, but now some Republicans are getting in on the action. A senate bill would require the President to "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

Both of these ideas are not the most helpful one could imagine. In fact, they could even hurt the war effort, our country's security, and its credibility.

1. Leaving Iraq immediately is a bad idea. Even so, John Murtha, a ranking Democrat in House of Representatives, stated:

(a)"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target." He then continues by saying, (b)"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

My responses are as follows:

(a) American military forces have become targets in Iraq. This is true. We are in a war! If we withdraw our troops, will the terrorists simply disappear? Not in the least. They will simply find new targets. If they target Iraq, their military and civilians will suffer significantly more. It is also quite possible that terrorists will continue to target Americans ... on our own soil. Iraq has become a terrorist magnet. With American soldiers gone, America itself will become a powerful attraction.

(b) As a Vietnam veteran, Murtha should understand the problem with this statement. War isn't like the movies. It is incredibly hard (if not impossible) to calculate. When war becomes hard, it doesn't mean that efforts have failed! It simply means that we have to "Adapt and Overcome." War hardly ever goes as predicted. To say that it should shows ignorance on the part of the speaker.

In short, leaving Iraq immediately is a bad idea. It gives terrorists a victory over the United States, quite probably emboldening them for bigger attacks. Iraqis would suffer. Their infrastructure, government, and military isn't ready. George Bush has repeatedly explained how you can't just create a working military force overnight. We have seen progress in the War on Terror. Freedom comes at a great cost as our forefathers knew, and as the Iraqis are learning. Security costs too, as American's seem unable to understand.

2. Revealing war plans isn't a good idea. Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War that, "Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move."

George Bush cannot be more specific than he already has been without endangering the lives of our troops abroad. War plans are for generals, not the press. The long term strategy has been already presented to the nation: train up the Iraqis to run their own nation and protect them in the process. The plan is working! We have even seen the beginnings of democracy starting to spring up in Iraq. They have a new government; they have made a constitution; they have voted for the first time ever. This is undeniable progress.

So, if we are progressing in the war on terror, why all these complaints? Why doesn't the average American or even the politicians in government understand that we have to be in Iraq for the long haul? We have a responsibility that we cannot just walk away from in Iraq. It is a responsibility to democracy and human rights for their people and a responsibility to security and freedom for our own.

Washington Votes Not to Smoke

On November 8th, Washington State went to the polls. One of the initiatives passed by the voters of Washington state was I-901. Basically, it bans smoking in public places (no matter if the owner is a private individual) and bans smoking within 25 feet of a public place.

The relevant portions text of the measure read:

"Public place" means that portion of any building or vehicle used by and open to the public, regardless of whether the building or vehicle is owned in whole or in part by private persons or entities, the state of Washington, or other public entity, and regardless of whether a fee is charged for admission, and includes a presumptively reasonable minimum distance ... of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited."

"No person may smoke in a public place or a place of employment." (emphasis mine)

I have two basic problems with this initiative. 1. The law itself is flawed. 2. The law is vague on too many counts to make an impact.

1. What right does the government have to regulate private business? The constitution of the United States is designed to protect the people from the government. The less influence, the better. While I do not advocate smoking (I find it disgusting) everyone has a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." If smoking makes you happy, so be it!

An interesting notion, this idea of the pursuit of happiness can be taken too far. For example, drugs may make you happy ... but they are illegal. Should they be made legal? No. The law involves some degree of common sense.

Even without the Federal Constitution, the government should just let the private citizen deal with the problem. If you don't smoke and don't like breathing secondhand smoke, don't go the establishment that allows smoking! If it is a big deal for you, organize a boycott of the establishment.

For example, I can personally attest to walking out of restaurants that allow smoking. I don't like the smell all over my clothes and the bad stuff transmitted via second hand smoke. They didn't get my business. I went somewhere else and they lost a potential sale. This is partly why some places are removing their smoking section. Without customers you don't have a business.

Conversly, if you like smoking, you should have every right to smoke in an establishment that allows smoking. The law states that you can't even smoke in a private club that requires an admission fee. You can't go to a smoking establishment if you want to.

Is this law wrong? Absolutely. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are plenty of alternatives to creating a law that forbids smoking for the private individual. I would even contend they are more effective measures. Businesses want you to go to their establishment. If they don't get enough customers because they allow smoking, they will quit smoking cold turkey.

One final interesting point before I continue, the State collects major revenue from a tax on tobacco products. This is worth approximately $254,770,000 in 2001. The government points out, "Currently, cigarette tax collections go to the general fund, water quality, drug enforcement, health services, and salmon recovery programs." As the revenue dries up because less people will smoke as often, these programs will suffer. Who will take up the slack in the collection of taxes? Smokers and non-smokers alike.

2. The law is too vague. Many people have pointed out that the required 25 foot distance is in the middle of the street. There isn't even a clear regard to enforcement in the bill. Law officials are tasked to keep a special eye out for violators, but who is supposed to check up on the establishments? Without clear boundaries and clear enforcement, this strictest smoking ban in the nation readers itself impotent.

Robert Maynard Hutchins once said, "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." I do not contend that the establishment of a strict smoking ban is a threat to democracy. I do contend that more taxes, which must necessarily be enacted to supplement lost revenue from tobacco taxes, are bad.

The growing power of the state government to regulate private businesses and individuals (a right so willingly given by those individuals) is a step down a road with a gentle slope to a less free society.

NOTE: More info here.

Not Against = For?

So I was at my place of occupation one night, bantering on about all the things we employees banter on about in the back room when there aren't any customers in the store, when the topic of (eerie minor chord!) politics arose. There seemed to be a strong liberal presence, owing to the strong personality of one employee and the easily cowed nature of the other employees whom I suspect are more right-ward than center. I entered the fray, describing myself as neither Republican nor Democrat, only to encounter attacks on the President. Something about George W. Bush being the worst President the country's ever had. (Sound Familiar?) Anyway, I jumped to the man's defense and was immediately warned to be careful, because "[I was] starting to sound less and less like a moderate." I heard some customers come in, so the conversation was dropped for the day, but a question remained in my mind: Is a refusal to attack the President, or a refusal to agree with attacks on the President, an implicit support for everything the President has ever done?

I suppose what I'm getting at is this idea that seems to be rampant nowaday that it's all or nothing. You either have to love the President and everything he's ever done, or think he's the worst President of all time and stupid to boot.* This is not moderation, and I don't use that term politically in this context. You can buy into very few things in this life lock, stock, and barrel. You can condemn out of hand even fewer things. This principle holds for all areas of life, and that includes politics. I do not at all agree with everything George W. Bush has done or believes (the illegal aliens coming across our borders in droves make that assured). However, I do not think that personally attacking the man who currently holds the office of President of the United States of America for disagreeing with him is appropriate or acceptable, and certainly not for inane reasons like "He's dumb. Can't you hear his accent?" Attack (with your own supporting points) his positions or policies all you want, but don't touch the man himself.

*(Oh, and since when did ad hominem attacks on the President's intelligence qualify for a debate point? "And you should also believe my point of view because the President is dumb. Dumb dumb dumb big oil lalalala I can't hear yoooooou!" The irony of it is that calling somebody stupid as a central argument is... well... stupid.)

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not just because he's the President, it's a courtesy we should all extend to anyone we find ourselves debating. If they're a human being, do yourself a favor and keep yourself from looking like a grade-A git: don't attack the person, attack their argument. This is grade school knowledge here, people. You would think those who consider themselves leaders would have a grasp of this.

So in the midst of this "all or nothing" rhetoric that's coming out of pretty much every side these days, make sure to keep asking yourself: Is a man defined by what he denies or what he supports? Can you peg someone down absolutely, or will there always be grey area?

Think about it.

C is for CIA and that's good enough for me.

The headlines blared in the LA Times today (November 4th) that "Libby pleaded 'not guilty.'" This is only the latest attention grabbing headline of late. Ever since Libby's idictment on October 28, the CIA Leak Investigation has been a mainstay in the presses.

Before I say anything more, a little background is necessary. The story runs like this:

Valery Plame, as reported by the Associated Press was "In truth, ... [an] overt operative for the CIA and a specialist in weapons of mass destruction, a fact unknown even to close friends and neighbors."

Her name was leaked as a CIA operative to Judith Miller, who ran a column on the subject. Incidentally, Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal her confidential source, finally being released on September 30th. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson "says [it] was an act of retribution after he spoke out against the administration."

That's about it. It is worthy to note there is a discuss if Plame was really an overt operative (ie: not covert and not needing secrecy). Even if she was covert, she didn't hide it very well. The Weekly Standard points out

"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. . . . She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington--not stationed abroad--for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name

Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. . . . An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication..."

I just want to talk about an apparent double standard. The press trumpets that we should protect secret operatives and then does the exact opposite.

Take for example the article run on November 2nd about secret CIA prisons. The story prompted investigations by the European Union into the matter. The Washington Post article features the code name of one of the larger facilities "Salt Pit," satellite imagery of its location in Afghanistan, and names of some of the top al Qaeda operatives being held there.

I ask you, what is more damaging to our national security and the CIA: the revealing of a nominally secret operative in the United States, or the revealing of a prison facility created to help gather intelligence about terrorist operations? Apparently, a standard does exist. If it hurts the current administration, it runs ... even at the cost of security.