The Noble Pundit

Happy Easter

Just wanted to take a moment to let everyone know that I am still alive, just been working my tail off this week and to wish everyone a Happy Easter. Regular posting will be resuming as soon as I get a little bit of time.

Cultural Relativism

A few days back, Beth Donovan posted a list over at We The People, entitled What this convservative stands for. Jack at Random Fate has taken the list and posted his own point-counterpoint list: What this Centrist stands for.

All in all, I can both Beth's and Jack's points of view. But I did find Jack's counterpoint to Beth's point #4 about the superiority of Western culture and within Western culture of American culture interesting and also in disagreement with my own beliefs.

Now Jack eventually comes to the same judgment as Beth (and me, also), but he certainly goes about it in a much more roundabout way.

I agree that not all values/cultures/morals are equal, but I also get angry when people proclaim how superior Western culture is when a very short examination of even very recent history will show how many of the things we decry about fundamentalist Islam were very much a part of Western culture even within the last 100 years. (PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT saying here what Beth believes, do not think I am speaking about her views in any way here, I am referring to a general trend I have observed in the blogosphere.) It is still less than 50 years since people were lynched for being the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is still less than 50 years since we had laws enforcing the relegation of people to the back of the bus or to certain water fountains because of the color of their skin. It is less than 100 years since Western civilization unleashed chlorine gas on a battlefield to indiscriminately kill enemies. It is less than 65 years since a significant part of Western civilization had a program to kill Jews, a program that was set up by an elected government that turned murder into a horror on a mass-production scale with the acceptance and active participation of the population. Women did not have the right to vote in the United States until 1920, well into the twentieth century, and even now in the twenty first century women are not treated completely equally as men. You don't even have to look back 10 years to find an instance in Texas where a black man was chained and dragged behind a truck by two white men because of the color of the victim's skin. If we are going to argue cultural relativism, we should look to our own history and how our culture evolved before we pronounce the death sentence on another culture. I do believe Western civilization has evolved and is now better than it was before, and I believe it is better than fundamentalist Islamic culture.

There is nothing wrong with Jack's analysis. Everything he says is true (although I would argue that the despicable actions of two men in a pickup truck a culture does not make). I just think that there was a lot of extraneous thought that went into his determination.

All of the evils he speaks of did happen here. All of the evils spoken of here, have been, generally, evolved out of our culture. We don't treat women like property. We don't indiscrimiately gas people anymore. We don't lynch or execute people for being the wrong religion, color or creed. This things simply are not a generally accepted part of our culture anymore. Can we say the same about the fundamentalist Islamic cultures? Of course not.

See, I believe that there is a certain threshold of civility that a civilization should have to achieve before this kind of analysis is warranted. The French have achieved this minimum threshold, which means that we could justifyably debate the relavtive merit of their culture. Islam, which hasn't evolved in the few centuries does not meet my minimum threshold. Therefore, I find this kind of examination superfluous.

For cultures that are constantly changing and evolving, a kind of relativist examination of similar cultures can be an important part of the process of evolution. It is how we examine new ideas that might make our own culture better.

But relativism only works to better culture when the two cultures being compared are on a similar plane. Medieval western society could be legitimately compared to modern Islamic fundamentalism, but modern western culture has discarded so many of its less desirable traits that it is no longer on the same plane. It is superior, without question or need to defend, than Islamic fundamentalism.

It is really telling when in comparing the plight of inequality towards women, we discuss the ownership of women against unequal pay. Abortion rights vs. honor killings. How much more divergent can you truly get?

Again, I have nothing against Jack's assessment, I just believe that such an assessment vis-á-vis Western culture vs. Islamic fundamentalism is unnecessary. Until such time as Islamic culture moves into at least the late nineteenth century, I don't see even a modicrum of a need for a relative comparison.

All cultures are not equal, and for some, there is simply no question of their inferiority.

Negotiation Is The Best Alternative - Always...

Is it really possible to negotiate with everyone? Think these folks would understand any sort of negotiating or "examination of the root causes of their anger"? You got to be out of your mind if you think so. Some negotiation is best handled by talking and the process of give and take. Other negotiation is best handled by B-52s, AC-130s, the M1A1 and the business end of the M-16.

Some people are in need of having our position explained in terms they might be able to understand. Talking obviously isn't working.

For more pictures, many of them absolutely offensive and infuriating, go here. It's all in Arabic, but as they say, pitcures are an international language....

And, just for kicks, here is another article that makes me wonder about the validity of attempting verbal negotiations. (link requires registration) "Who cares?," indeed.

The Oppression Of Freedom

Main Entry: op·pres·sion Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n Function: noun 1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
synonyms FREEDOM, LIBERTY, LICENSE mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion

See, its the same thing over and over. When they don't want you there you aren't liberating them, you are oppressing them. The Iraqi people have gone from an oppressive regime they cannot protest against to one they can protest against. Big whoop.

But the Americans aren't being oppressive! you cry. Actually, the Americans are being oppressive in a different way than Saddam was. With Saddam, the dictator had absolute control, and there were no personal liberties whatsoever. Now its the opposite. - comment by bthings 2000, 3/29/04 @ 4:25 pm (emphasis mine)

Freedom = oppression.

I love this refrain. We're oppressing them with freedom. Dictionary definitions would say otherwise, but who needs definitions? We have conviction and a sense of moral superiority! What's the big deal about the integrity of language? Like everything else it is there simply to serve our idealistic purpose.

Freedom = oppression.

How do we reconcile these two opposites? Oppression is the undue burden of excess rules. Freedom is their absence.

Perhaps we meant to say that the people of Iraq were completely ill-equipped to handle freedom? Maybe we could argue that the Iraqi people are mal-adjusting to the sudden freedom that they experienced? Maybe we could take comfort in the fact that new found freedom takes time to adjust to?

Nah. It's easier to chant our slogan:

Freedom = oppression.

When we're looking at the clouds, do we look for the silver lining, or do we look for the dark, foreboding storm clouds we hope are there?

Protesting Iraqis. Are they: a.) a sign that people are beginning the process of adjusting to their new-found freedoms, or b.) a sign that they must hate us with all their souls and that everything that has transpired heretofore was evil and reprehensible? It must be both! Choice "A" is true because, as we've said before,:

Freedom = oppression.

And certainly they hate us for our oppression. Oppression is evil and reprehensible and now we must be reaping the fruits of our labors. If only we had listened to all the nervous Nevilles before the war we wouldn't be in this predicament! Such evil oppressing oppressors we are, because:

Freedom = oppression.

The slogan is chanted. The slogan is an absolute good, unchallengeable by all. And like any good equation, it holds true both ways:

Freedom = oppression and oppression = freedom.

Don't you see? If we just take away the people's freedoms; if we just take away their choices, only then will they truly be free. Freedom from choice, independent will, and consequences - that is true freedom.

See, people are simply incapable of intelligent decision making. They simply cannot handle the overwhelming choices that they face when they have free choice. We must structure their lives; we must make their most basic decisions for them so that they can live in the true freedom of predetermined destiny.

See, the definitions are simply reversed. Freedom is oppression and oppression is freedom. Choice is evil. Big Brother is right and just.

Because without choice, then, and only then, can there be true equality. When people are given choices, they choose to be individuals. They choose to be different, to pursue selfish interests. Outcomes will be different.

They will be unequal. Inequality cannot be allowed to exist. It is not equality of opportunity, but rather equality of outcome that is of paramount importance. Differences in outcome mean that someone must be being oppressed. Which in turn means:

Freedom = oppression.

It's simply so plain to see, that we just cannot understand why everyone doesn't understand the righteousness of the position. Why must people persist in believing that freedom is a good thing? Why must people persist in believing in the innate goodness of man when it so obvious that man is incapable of handling basic decisions like how to behave? Why? Why? Why?

Why can we not surrender our supposed freedoms to the true freedoms dictated to us? Why can we not understand that we are oppressed by our freedom? Why can we not accept that man is best served by rules, regulations, and laws that dictate everything? Why? Why? Why?

Freedom = oppression and oppression = freedom.

It's so simplismé, no?

Not in the least. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Tojo would be proud. Take it for what you will.

Jobs, Pride & Unemployment

Over the last couple of years I've heard or read a number of people complaining, "I want to work, but I just can't find a job." I can't tell you when I last heard or saw one of these complaints - this post has been a while in the making - but think I've had my fill of them.

I'm not going to deny that there are some people out there who are truly chronically unemployed against their desires. Certainly there are some people who genuinely want work and for whatever reason can't find an employer to hire them (usually they are told they are "overqualified" for the position). But I believe that there is a large segment of people who are using the "jobless" recovery and the general feeling of there being a lack of a job market as a crutch to cover for some basic laziness or hubris.

I know because I was there.

A couple of years back, just when the economy was really finishing its tanking, I was let go from the brokerage firm I was working for. I was entering what really was a pretty dead job market with a business admin degree (just like the thousands of others out there) and my only practical experience being in sales or aircraft load planning. To say that the prospects of getting a job doing anything other than sales was bleak would be an understatement. Plus the job I was laid off from paid very well.

In my mind, I believed that I was underpaid while I was working there. I still do. However, most of the people at the same labor grade as me were generally paid more (seniority) and, in general, they did not justify the wage they were being paid.

In the end the company was doing everyone a great disservice by overpaying. I believed that I was worth more because I was outperforming more highly paid employees. They believed that they were worth the amount they were getting paid, in many cases, despite relatively poor performance in both metrics and customer service. And in the end, the company couldn't afford to keep paying out the amount they were for what we did.

It's taken me a long time to come around to accepting that I too was overpaid, despite my performance. It takes a lot of soul searching and philosophizing to accept that without completely destroying your self-esteem.

Right after I joined the job hunter army in 2002, I spent the first two or three months of unemployment honestly believing that I could only accept a job that paid at least 90% of my previous salary. Understand, I was worth at least that. To accept less would be to sell myself short.

So for a couple of months, I collected unemployment, looked for jobs that were nearly impossible to find around here, and basically forgot about that whole figuring out how to make ends meet stuff. I kept figuring that I would be back raking in the big bucks again soon, so if a bill went a little past due, it was no big deal - I'd just make sure it was one of the first to get paid off when I got that new job.

By the middle of July, I was starting to get concerned, as were some of my creditors. The nice cushy job I was sure was coming just wasn't there. Three months and I hadn't even gotten so much as an offer. So I decided to lower my standard. I would take 75% of my pre-layoff salary, so long as I had benefits.

Three months later, the unemployment was running out and I still didn't have even a single offer of employment. I eventually ended up taking a job as office manager for a design firm owned by a friend of the family. I was making less than 50% of my previous salary - and had no benefits at all. But it let me stop the financial hemorrhaging and to at least maintain a status quo (which wasn't a real appealing prospect at the time. I was glad when the phone was turned off because it stopped the phone calls from the bill collectors, although it ticked a bunch of them off).

Less than 50% of my previous salary and a financial disaster. That was my price for irrational pride - pride that was induced by being overpaid in my previous job. The only thing that saved me from bankruptcy was that I had based my debt load on a ratio of no more than 40% of my salary. It meant that with my new job I could pay the bills, but stuff like getting food or gas or anything that might be fun was difficult. The only reason my website stuck around was because I ran a couple of sales and sold enough extra to cover the domain name and hosting expenses.

Once I took the job as office manager, I started to plan my new attack. I went in with the understanding that the job was going to be temporary until I found something better. But I started developing a plan to build resumé buzzword skills and threw myself into doing the best job I could.

And a little over a year later, after having begun a plan to get my debt under control, I began looking for another job again. The job market wasn't really much better, but I had a big advantage that was missing the first time 'round - I was employed.

What I started to discover was that, like my mother and father always used to tell me, employers really do put a big importance on a candidate being currently employed. Finding a job was still tough (it took almost five months from when I started looking before I found a new job), but there were more real opportunities. People actually started calling back. Interview requests started coming in. Things were looking somewhat up.

I began the application to employment process with my current employer way back in November. At the same time, I got an offer from the billiard's store to come sell pool tables, for several thousand a year more than what I was making. So I moved on and took that job. Along the way, I was also offered (and accepted) a part-time job working in the food service industry.

Come the end of February, my current employer finally got all the paperwork through, the "i"s were dotted, and the "t"s crossed and they made an offer, one that actually gets me up over 90% of my pre-2002 layoff salary again. But this time, I'm one of the lowest paid employees at this company and I know from history that they can afford to sustain this level of pay without it becoming an issue.

After two years, I'm finally back to what I assumed was rightfully mine two years ago. But this time, I have no illusions about being underpaid. To the contrary, I am grateful for what I have and am busting my ass to try to earn more.

But I also truly believe that I would not be in this position had I not taken the job that was "beneath" me back in late '02.

I believe that prospective employers look at current employment as a tacit endorsement of your employability. Someone else was willing to take a chance on you, so they feel more comfortable doing the same. If you're unemployed, it opens up the question of why. Why is this person sitting here, with no job? Why hasn't somebody else taken the initial risk in hiring him? Why? The "whys?" will kill an otherwise outstandingly qualified candidate.

I see these posts or overhear these people talking about how they've been looking for however long and they just can't seem to find anything. I listen to them and listen to the jobs that they describe as what they want. I get reminded of when I was unemployed and applied for the job as CEO of a small publicly traded company (I really did. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.).

I understand the want for a good job. That want drove me for nearly two years (it is satisfied now. Now I'm driven to want to excel in the job I have). But when you've been unemployed for six months to a year, it's time to change expectations.

The best things in life are earned. Good jobs don't just fall into your lap (the late '90s were an aberration in that regards). People say they can't find a job, yet they won't look at the ones that are out there.

People offering low paying jobs know that they're low paying. They don't expect that you're going to make a career of it. To a large extent, they expect you to use their job as a stepping stone to something better.

What a lot of people forget is that some income is better than no income. They sit there an complain about having no income, yet they won't accept the job at the store down the street that would get them some income - and more importantly that all important tacit approval needed when looking for a job.

It also destroys the appearance of being a prima donna. The person who accepts the low paying job and makes a plan to move up is a person who puts performance ahead of pride. The one who sits and bitches that they aren't being offered the perfect job, well why would you want to hire someone so arrogant, conceited, and full of themselves?

Swallowing your pride is difficult, I know. I have trouble with it almost all the time. But sometimes, pride can be your worst enemy.

I get so frustrated with hearing the "I can't find a job" refrain anymore because I believe that the person complaining isn't being honest. They can find a job, especially if they're here in Orlando where tourism service jobs abound, they just can't find the one that makes them all warm and fuzzy inside.

I don't want to hear the "I can't find a job" routine anymore. I don't believe it. If you want to be honest and tell me you can't find a job to your liking, that's fine. I'll listen because you're at least being honest.

But I was in that same position. But I found that once I was willing to do something I didn't want, I quickly ended up in a position where I am fending off the offers. Besides the job I currently have, I still work the occasional odd hour at the pool table store; I still occasionally work at the food service job; I routinely turn on my cell phone after work to find a message from a guy who wants me to come back into the brokerage industry and just yesterday, I had an insurance agency send me a letter asking me to apply. The jobs are out there.

It's just that sometimes you have to do something you don't want to, to get to something you want.

Did Osama Cast The Deciding Vote In Spain?

I read a number of articles today that were discussing the impact of 3/11, the Spanish national election, and the possible involvement of al-Qaida. All the articles seemed to indicate that Sunday's election was a great victory for AQ and a harbinger of things to come for the rest of us.

I saw the election referred to as the "toppling" of a Western democracy. I saw it referred to as a vote for appeasement. (link will probably change tomorrow, just search his archive for today's edition) I saw it referred to as a vote "for al Qaeda." Various rantings and ravings I can't recall the source of also spoke of the election of the Socialist Party in terms ranging from dejected to dire.

What happened in Spain was a watershed event, no doubt. But what can we really take away from it already?

Not as much as we're trying to, I think.

Let's look at the opinion of Neal Boortz:

It has become even more clear that the Islamo-fascist movement has scored a tremendous strategic victory with its attacks last week in Spain. Dutch economist Bernard Walschots nails it: "Al Qaeda or its affiliates have toppled a democratic government for the first time. This may have dramatic implications for the Western democracies." Did you get that the first time around? The Islamic Jihadists have just toppled the government of a major Western nation. Socialists have taken over in Spain. Islamic terrorists like socialists ... they're brothers under the skin.

This morning we learn that CNN has discovered an Al Qaeda document which set forth a plan to get Spain to pull its troops out of Iraq. Apparently the document was posted on a computer bulletin board some months ago. This document talked about developing a strategy to force the conservative government of Spain out of office and elect socialists. And just how was that going to be done? Terrorist attacks, that's how. So, the plan was formulated, then implemented, and proof of success came quickly. The people of Spain fell into line immediately and voted out a government unfriendly to terrorism, and voted a more friendly one in.

Now Spain is loudly touting its plans to become one of the Axis of Weasels, joining Germany, France, Belgium and other Euroweenie countries in a program of appeasement toward Islamic Jihadists. How weak are the Europeans? Well, let's take this comment from Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission. Prodi says: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists ... terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago."

Force isn't the answer? If not force, what? Appeasement? Doesn't Prodi remind you of Chamberlain prior to World War II? Read your history. Terrorism always works against the appeasers.

What's next? How about England? Intelligence officials are already suggesting that Great Britain will be next in the Islamic campaign of terrorism. Then ... the United States. The Wall Street Journal editorial this morning says that the U.S. must brace itself for the next wave of attacks. They worked in Spain ... so Al Qaeda must be thinking that they can work as well in America.

This election year just got a whole lot more interesting ... and dangerous.

Spain is surrendering ... but World War IV continues.

On the whole, I don't disagree with Neal. But I think that he is jumping to some premature conclusions about the new government in Spain.

I can understand his dislike of the Socialists. If I were Spanish, I'd be furious with the outcome of the election. Socialist policy is about as close to economic terrorism as you can get while still operating in a quasi-capitalist economy. But, of course, I'm not Spanish so my opinion matters as much over there as theirs does here.

But to imply (he doesn't come right out and say it, but it is most certainly implied) that the Socialist government will simply roll over for al- Qaida, well I think that that is still yet to be seen.

Zapatero has stated his intention to bring home the Spanish troops in Iraq unless the UN takes over or there is a material change in circumstances. He has stated his desire for closer relations with European nations, while still maintaining "cordial" relations with Washington. Every declaration he has made has been hedged in some way. No wonder he likes Kerry so much more than Bush: they are but two peas from the same pod.

Taking shots at the European Union and Prodi are well justified. We already know what their non-reaction reaction will be. Appeasement is the watchword of the day in the EU itself.

But we really don't know how Zapatero will react once in power. He might be an Axis of Weasel appeaser of Chamberlainic proportions. Or he might be another Tony Blair, a leftie who knows right from wrong when the chips are down. We really can't determine anything more from Zapatero's statements than we can from John Kerry's, they are just way too ambiguous and hedged.

Was Zapatero's election the "toppling" of a Western democracy as has been insinuated? No it was not. Was it an upset? Yes. But the toppling of a government? Not even close.

There have been no charges of the election itself being flawed. Power is transitioning in a normal, peaceful manner. The fact that the government-elect is not one that we would have desired to see in office does not mean that the government was toppled. There is a difference between this transition of power decided on in a fair and open election by the electorate, and the violent civil war transition that is marring the overthrow of Jean-Baptiste Aristide in Haiti. The former is a democracy in action, the latter a revolutionary toppling of a corrupt regime.

Zapatero's election cannot, as of yet, be called a vote for al-Qaida. Is it a bad omen? Most definitely. But until Zapatero sells out to the Islamofascists, we owe it to him, and the Spanish people, to give the benefit of the doubt.

Now what will all this mean come November? I think that the conventional wisdom on this is accurate: there will be a bloody and brutal attempt at influencing the Presidential election like the Spanish election was swayed.

If such an attempt is made, it will be a gross miscalculation on the part of Osama & Co. One that could make the reaction to 9/11 look tame.

Americans have no illusions about the intention of the terrorists. We don't believe that a change in Administration will cause Osama to suddenly decide that we're really a bunch of good guys after all. We don't think that the election of John Kerry will turn the tyrants of the world into true friends. We understand that the only intention of our foe is the elimination of freedom and the imposition of Shar'ia. Nothing less will satisfy them, quite similar to the way in which only the complete destruction of Israel will satisfy the Palestinians.

No, an attack on America in the weeks leading up to November will only ensure the reelection of George W. Bush, with a mandate to hunt down and eliminate any and all terrorist threats to our nation. Our post-9/11 reaction was impersonal. Our reaction to another Machiavellian Spanish-style attempt will be infinitely more personal. If Osama is still recycling air and providing life for a tree (which I personally doubt, I think that he's a stain on a cave painting somewhere, but I digress) another attack will be the equivalent of suicide by military.

I fully expect that al-Qaida will use their faulty calculus in making their ultimate decision (and it will likely be their last organizational decision before they cease to exist). My only question isn't whether or not they'll try to attack the US, but rather if they will take another practice shot at someone else.

If they do make an attempt on France, Germany, or Britain what, if anything, should we do? Should we unleash a fury like they haven't seen? Or should we sit back and allow the act to go unanswered? It is actually still a very valid line of questioning regarding 3/11.

The NATO Treaty clearly states in Article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Spain, a NATO ally, was attacked. We have a right to take such action as we deem necessary to defend the security of the West. France, Germany, and now even Spain may not be publicly happy about us protecting them from, among other things, their own poor decision making, but they cannot help but to be pleased if they no longer have to fear Islamofacist attack.

There are certainly a number of open questions still floating around concerning 3/11 and the new Spanish government.

But I don't believe that it is quite time to start fretting about the course the new Spanish government may or may not take.

It is still too early to start trying to assess the impact the 3/11 or any follow-on aftershocks may have on the November general election.

But it is never too early to determine the manner, method and timing of the defense of Western civilization, no matter which friends, allies, or enemies join us in the fight.

The election is Spain has brought new potential complications, but we have to keep it in perspective. It is not the "toppling" of the government; it is not a vote of confidence for the tactics of al-Qaida.

Life has gone on, just as the Spanish democracy has.

Western civilization has survived another assault, just like the American Republic will.

In challenges, lies opportunity. We now have before us another opportunity to demoralize and destroy the most pervasive terrorist group of our time.

Will we take advantage of the opportunity?

Or will we fritter it away obsessing over the potential ramifications of the successful demonstration of the resiliency of Western democracy?

Do we give Osama the deciding vote?

Cross posted to We The People

I don't like John Kerry.

No great surprise there, right? Anyone who has been reading this site even for the last few days could figure that part out. But as unapparent as it may be, I actually do have some rational basis for my position.

Kerry has done a number of things that are really at odds with my own personal beliefs. His flip-flops, his positions, his actions, his pronouncements, and his history are all disagreeable to me in the extreme.

I have an extreme dislike for John Kerry.

Part of my reasoning is perhaps a little selfish. Last week I started a new job with a fairly large component of the military-industrial complex. I have a real fear that come November, should Kerry win, I will get a pink slip before I even make to my one year anniversary. This is not an unfounded belief. Kerry voted against the very program on which I'm working by voting against its host platform. Kerry is weak on defense. He is a pacifist, a modern day Neville Chamberlain. If John Kerry were President, I don't believe that we would ever defend any of our interests around the world. I have no doubt that Kerry would be a big believer in outsourcing - not for jobs, but rather the responsibility for our national security.

When our troops went off to battle in Iraq, what was Kerry's komment?

Did he say "God bless" or "Godspeed" or "I stand behind our men and women in uniform during this troubled time?" Did he have the internal fortitude to take the high road like Joe Lieberman and to put aside partisan politics during the duration of the war?

No. John Kerry's only anti-Establishment traits came out in full force.

Kerry is the ultimate Washington insider in every way, except for his opportunistic opposition to Vietnam. It was during his escapades in the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) that I think that Kerry developed his knee-jerk anti-military streak. He cannot articulate a reasoned and rational argument against the military, he can only rail with the blind hatred of a zealot.

Why did Kerry refrain from showing class during the war? Because his roots wouldn't allow him to. He saw a use of force and had his knee-jerk reaction. He couldn't bring himself to admit that there might in fact be a time and place where military force might be of some good (He didn't have to agree, just to at least acknowledge that the other side might have a valid point).

Instead, Kerry aped the Bush Administration and called for a "regime change" - in Washington.

I loathe John Kerry.

I've seen comments a number of other places that Kerry seems to be a ticking Deanesque time bomb. He almost seems to be preparing for an Iowan proportioned meltdown. His mouth is his own worst enemy. He says some of the stupidest things. Bush may mangle the language, but Kerry mangles all pretext of logic.

And further, he has no pretext of a sense of morality. I'm not talking about gay marriage, but rather about the abhorrent use of language on his website.

I have no doubt that the language on Kerry's site was not unknown to the candidate. Every comment that comes through on this site is read and reviewed. Inappropriate comments are erased. Virtually every site owner does something similar.

What the Kerry Kampaign seems to be doing is trying to pass off any semblance of responsibility by playing off the lack of knowledge about how blogs (which is essentially what his site is) work. He simply does not want to admit that his little foray into the world of cussing is having repercussions.

I abhor John Kerry.

He has so little apparent understanding of cause and effect it is downright scary. He doesn't seem to understand how raising taxes on the wealth creating class might end up reducing the overall tax receipts. He doesn't understand that Marxist redistribution is counter to the very idea of the capitalist marketplace that he espouses so well when needed (second paragraph, may require registration). He has failed to discover that tyrants like Kim Jong Il love him so much, not because of who he is, but because based on his past actions and statements, they view him as weak and sympathetic to their cause.

Tyrants and dictators love Kerry because Kerry loves them. He has attempted to defend in some way nearly every Communist dictatorship of his time, from the Soviet Union to Nicaragua to China to Vietnam. At a time when North Korea's Communist kleptocracy was on the verge of collapse, Kerry started talking about them in relatively favorable terms. But why does Kerry show such solidarity with such a sordid crowd?

Kerry has good Marxian principles. He absolutely believes in the redistribution of wealth (so long as it isn't his). Kerry believes in the wonders of big government. Pure capitalism is as foreign to Kerry as a Turkish lesbian. For Kerry, communism isn't a utopia, it is a goal. He may not have explicitly stated as such, but his actions very clearly point to such a desire.

As a result it has been easy for Kerry to attack one of the key building blocks of our free and prosperous society - business.

It is free enterprise that keeps us moving forward so quickly. Capitalism fosters innovation. Capitalism fosters a "can-do" attitude in our nation. Capitalism brings technological advancements unthinkable just a few short years ago. Capitalism is the engine that drives the research and development in the business world that keeps pushing the edge of that envelope.

Kerry's drug proposals would have the effect of gutting the rationale for R&D at the big drug companies. His cuts to the defense budget would seriously threaten the already shrinking technological gap advantage we have over our adversaries. Profits and the accumulation of wealth simply run counter to Kerry's beliefs. He could never allow unfettered markets, or anything that even came close to resembling them. We would be more likely to see a five year plan under Kerry than deregulation.

And business leaders have taken note of the candidate's views and pronouncements.

But most importantly, how would John Kerry have reacted to today's events? If John Kerry were in the position of José Maria Aznar what would happen?

Aznar has the second most unenviable job in the world today (the most unenviable was to be the al-Qaida goober that called in to take credit.) He has to simultaneously heal and protect his nation in a time of great need. How he handles this will likely define his Presidency - even more than his unwavering support for America in our time of need.

Aznar has skills and tools to handle this well. He has the support of the one man who has already, personally, been in his position.

Would Kerry react with resiliency? Would he react with a stubborn will to move his people forward to greater glory and achievement?

Or would he wallow in the cult of the victim? Would he, instead of calling out the National Guard and the military, call on the FBI to launch a priority investigation? Bottom line, would he be a Bush - or a Clinton?

I fear what a Kerry Administration would mean for our nation, I really do. I think that John Kerry is singularly ill-equipped to deal with any task facing a President, except for lying to foreign leaders.

John Kerry is not anywhere close to being the best choice for our nation.

No Funny Money!

Most regular readers of this site have probably figured out that when it comes to money - cold hard cash - I'm a bit of a traditionalist. I don't care for the Monopoly money bills we're issuing, I don't really care too much for the state quarter series (but it is at least palatable for some reason), I don't like the new nickels, and now I don't like the new plan to put the Presidents' faces on the dollar coin (rotating 4 Presidents per year until they're all done).

American currency should not carry the face of a living person, particularly a sitting President (which would happen with the last issue of the dollar coin series). I like Ronald Reagan. I think that he will be an excellent candidate for being memorialized with his bust on a coin - after his passing.

The Caesars put their faces on coins. King George III had his face on the coinage. Using the money as a propaganda tool is common amongst the two-bit tyrrants of the world.

It is, in my opinion, boorish. I've said it before and I'll say it again, our money is a reflection of who we are. Having dignified currency in both appearance and subject is important. People around the world complain that Americans don't value history. Imagine if they started pulling Reagan nickels and GW Bush dollars out of their pockets.

Money, like it or not, is important for something more than just being a store of value. It is, in our case, also a store of knowledge.

How many people would know who Alexander Hamilton was if he wasn't on the $10? We like to think that we would revere Franklin just the same, but there is a segment of the population who only knows of him as the "Benjamin" on the $100.

Susan B. Anthony? Sacagawea? Would they be as well known if they weren't the subject of the $1 coin? Possibly, but very unlikely.

When we start playing with the money, we start playing with that memory. If we can replace Sacagawea with Jimmy Carter, why not swap out Hamilton for Clinton - Hillary Clinton? She wasn't ever President either (of course, her fanatics would want her as the replacement for the other non-Presidential denomination. Just wait for the movie It's All About The Hillaries...) Why not just go ahead and change the currency over so that the current President is on every denomination (but then how do you account for the free campaign advertising? Gives new meaning to campaign finance reform...)?

Our money is important. Far to important to debase with a rotating bust scheme.

As far as I'm concerned, the idea is a bust.

Frustrating

I tried tonight to bring back the "Blogs Linking Me" section of the sidebar tonight but I keep having problems with the Technorati scripts. The original one I had did a much better job of listing other blogs that linked me, but it kept timing out when I tried to update the site. The other script I've found seems to work without a problem, but it basically just finds every internal link on the site. Out of 25 sites listed one was not mine. Not what I wanted. So my quest continues.

I do have three articles I was looking at, but that I'm just too tired to post anything on tonight:

Paper: Kerry to toss McAuliffe from DNC - Party unity expressed through a purge. How wonderfully Communsitic. The Commissar must be proud indeed.

Film critics miss message behind Pilate's lack of courage - Something just doesn't sit right about this. Seems to be a little too simplistic, but I can't put my finger on exactly why.

Memos Might Reveal Profit Motive in Senate - Potential concern? Absolutely. But I'd like to see the proof. Not cool to throw around an accusation like this without some kind of backing...

Oh Yeah, One More Thing

Before I go cozy up in bed and try to go to sleep before the little people, I also wanted to set one thing straight.

Over the last month or two, I've been talking a lot about the Democratic Primaries and the quest to find a candidate with half a chance against Bush.

There was only ever one Democratic candidate I would have even considered voting for: Joe Lieberman. When he dropped out of the race, I was at that point watching for fun.

For what it's worth, I think that John Kerry's service in Vietnam was commendable - and his actions after coming home, contemptible. His record surrounding Vietnam does not answer any questions regarding John Kerry and national defense, but I think that his voting record since he was elected to Congress does. I think that he is far left of the mainstream in general and is a utopian pacifist in military matters. Which is not a good combination for the country.

John Edwards, despite having listened to him in the debates, I don't think that I know enough about him to make an informed decision. Maybe he's a good choice, maybe not. I simply don't know.

Kucinich and Sharpton are like the comic relief of the campaign. They are so far out of the mainstream as to be a joke. Never could I imagine a set of circumstances that might make me even consider voting for either of them.

So where does this leave me? Actually in the same position I've been in all along. Barring some kind of monumental unforseen calamity, I will be voting for George W. Bush come November. Overall, Bush has done a fairly good job in office, in my opinion. There are certainly some things that he's done that I disagree with, immigration "reform" and the Medicare bill being two notable examples, but it's not enough to make me vote any differently.

Just so everyone knows.

The First Day At My New Job

Today was my first day as a part of the vast military-industrial complex. So far, so good.

I'm just beat right now. Was up at 5 so that I could be out the door by 5:45 - and now that's basically going to become routine (just as I was getting used to sleeping in until 7:30!)

Hopefully I'll be able to blog some good stuff about the primaries tomorrow. Until then, I got to get to bed early tonight.

My Review Of The Passion

I was going to write some great post about The Passion, my opinion of it, it's accuracy, and the discussions it invoked afterwards between me and my other half.

But it was getting way to long and unwieldy, so I'm just going to give you the short version.

It was a great movie, one of the few that I would ever say that about. If you haven't seen it already, spend the money to go see it.

If I can get a more coherent train of thought going, maybe I'll try it again, but we'll have to see.

I Have Scary Neighbors

Driving home tonight, I saw a sign in one of neighbor's front yards that made me do a double take, almost wrecking the car. So what did the sign say?

"Dennis Kucinich for President"

I've decided I've got to get me one of those signs. Not because I support Kucinich, but because it is just so damn funny looking.

Free Speech, Free Choice & The Radio

Yesterday, just before the head of Clear Channel Communications went to testify before Congress, his company pulled the plug on their airing of The Howard Stern Show. This comes right on the heels of Clear Channel's firing of Bubba the Love Sponge. And now Rush Limbaugh is expressing concern about free speech on the radio. So what exactly is the deal here?

First off, let me be clear in stating that I seriously dislike Howard Stern. I've tried to listen to the show and found nothing redeeming about it. So I don't listen.

As for Rush, I don't listen to him either. His views are often in general concurrence with mine, but for some reason his show never really stirred any passions in me like Neal Boortz or Sean Hannity (on the radio, not TV). So I wouldn't exactly call Rush a favorite of mine either.

Now Rush is absolutely correct in his statement: "IT'S ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT [Free speech]. IT'S ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT."

Now as I understand it, the government is merely holding hearings into indecent material on the airwaves, á la Bubba the Love Sponge or possibly even Howard Stern. The FCC likely has some enforcement actions in the works, but even in the case of Bubba, the FCC did not make any decisions for Clear Channel.

Clear Channel decided to can Bubba. Clear Channel decided to pull Stern off their stations. The FCC action against the company did not require the Love Sponge's squeezing out. Congress did not even request that Stern be taken off the air. Clear Channel made those decisions of their own free will.

Now maybe they were influenced by the possibility of further government sanction. Maybe they were embarrassed to go before Congress with Stern on their stations talking about banging his girlfriend. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Bottom line is we don't know. Clear Channel may have made a conscious decision to clean up their company. I haven't heard any rumblings about them considering taking Boortz or Hannity off the air (or Michael Savage for that matter). Rather, I only see them concentrating on those particulars that are most likely to run afoul of free speech and to cross over in obscenity and indecency.

Rush is right that there are differing standards for TV and radio. And part of that probably does have something to do with the dominant ideology in each medium. But to trot out the slippery slope argument against federal involvement already seems a bit premature. There are laws on the books about broadcasting indecent materials, on both TV and the radio. The FCC is working on enforcing those laws in a very public manner right now. And I can't really say that the FCC is going about that enforcement in a biased manner, as they are still working on the CBS Super Bowl halftime debacle. The FCC enforcing existing laws is not heading down the slippery slope. To the contrary, it is an example of good governance by the executive branch of government as it upholds its duties - a stark contrast to the shameful governance taking place in San Francisco as Mayor Gavin Newsom flagrantly flaunts the law.

And for Congress to be holding public hearings on the matter is not a trip down the slippery slope either. A public hearing is but one form of a public debate, just like Rush's show is. Congress has not passed any laws or handed down any ultimatums during these hearings. Rather they simply seem to be designed to gather some data points for possible legislation down the road and to provide a grandstanding opportunity for members of Congress in an election year.

I can understand and empathize with Rush's concerns, but right now I think that they're overblown. There are too many "ifs" involved: "if" the FCC starts overstepping its bounds of determining indecency, "if" Congress starts passing legislation that abridges the First Amendment, "if" John Kerry gets elected, and "if" he decides to become Caesar Kerry. If, if, if, if, if.

There are simply too many variables floating around out there right now. As I see it, the government hasn't overstepped is authority yet, and really isn't even pushing the line.

Clear Channel made the Bubba and Howard choices on their own. The motivation doesn't change that. The choices were theirs and only theirs to make. Just as the consequences of those choices are theirs and only theirs to bear.

Clear Channel has a right to choose not to broadcast material they fear might be construed as indecent. The exercising of that choice is not a violation of free speech.

Even if Rush doesn't like it.

I'm Not A Happy Camper

Today should have been a relatively good day for me. My current employer took the news of my impending departure reduction in hours pretty well. I start my new job on Monday.

I even went and bought a celebratory pizza tonight. Got it home and went to sit down at the table while reading Ripples of Battle. Except that someone "borrowed" the book, along with another I had bought the same night and the receipt from Books-A-Million. Oh, yeah. And all of my spare change (I'm guessing for bus fare to the store).

The little kids father showed up for a couple of hours this afternoon, supposedly to visit with the kids after school. If he took the books, it wouldn't be the first time the bastard stole from me.

So, of my celebratory pizza I was able to stomach one small piece. I am physically ill at the thought of him doing that, again. I don't care a whit about the books themselves - they can and will be replaced. What I do care about is that this happened on what should have been a happy night. Now, instead of going to bed full and happy, I'm going to go to bed nauseous and pissed. I'm so upset about all this that it even affected my last post (the last two paragraphs were written after I discovered the missing books - can you tell a difference in the tone?).

What a night.

I Am Not Looking Forward To Today

So, remember the new job prospect I've mentioned a couple of times now? I got a start date from the company yesterday. They want me to start on Monday, as in next week.

Great news, huh?

Yeah, except that I really wanted to give my current employer at least two weeks notice. The family I've been working for has been nothing short of gracious and kind ever since I started in November. Most of the time when I leave a job I give two weeks out of courtesy. This time I wanted to be able to give it out of respect.

But given the fact that the new company just had the Comanche program yanked out from under them, I really don't have much choice. I have to start on Monday, or I risk not ever starting at all. And since this involves a near 50% raise, better benefits and a non-contributory pension plan.....well, you get the idea.

Today is going to be a very painful day. I am not looking forward to it at all.

It's Time To End Government Sanctioned Marriage For Everyone

Today, President Bush came out and announced his support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. In this instance, I think that the President is dead wrong.

A constitutional amendment defining marriage is one that limits the rights of the people. It may only be a select set of people, but it does not change the fact that it is enshrining a form of discrimination in the Constitution. And that is absolutely wrong, even if the very institution of marriage is under threat of imminent collapse.

A compromise solution of civil unions was offered and rejected as being another version of "separate, but equal," a not wholly unsubstantiated charge.

So if the compromise doesn't go far enough, and the traditionalists don't want to lose the sanctity of marriage, what is left as a course of action?

The institution of marriage must be abolished as a government recognized institution. All legal, existing marriages should be converted to civil unions and marriage itself should become strictly a religious institution.

There should no longer be a box to check for "married," but rather one for "joined by civil union." There should no longer be a marriage penalty, but rather a civil union penalty. The government should no longer have any say in, or any recognition of the institution of marriage.

Once marriage is no longer a matter of public concern, then the church can defend it as a sacred institution.

See part of the problem that we currently have is our fascination with achieving an absolute separation of church and state - regardless of the consequence. So long as the government recognizes marriage, it is almost forced by powerful special interests to try to devalue the religious underpinnings of marriage in favor of free-for-all secularism. The one man/one woman definition of marriage is unacceptable because it offends the PC crowd, so if we wish to preserve that definition, we must remove it from the scope of government.

Now we should allow clergy to sign off on civil union certificates, so that a couple married in the church can also be concurrently joined in a government recognized civil union.

The net effect would be that folks married in the church would have two certificates: a civil union certificate from the government and a marriage certificate from the church. So far as the government was concerned, there would be no difference between a civil union certificate issued at city hall to a same sex couple and a civil union certificate issued by a church to recognize a couple that was married in a traditional religious ceremony.

Now it may be argued that this is merely a matter of semantics, and to a degree it is. The basis of what I'm promoting is a change in terminology from "marriage" to "civil union" for everyone so joined in a governmentally recognized institution. I think that ultimately, short of a constitutional amendment, the battle against gay marriage (or civil unions or whatever you wish to call them) has been lost. Marriage as it is currently defined does in fact run counter to the Declaration of Independence’s assertation that all men are created equal. Just as that phrase applies in racial terms, it must also apply in sexual as well. All men are not equal if those who are gay are denied the same ease of establishing legal recognition and frameworks as heterosexuals.

Which means that the best way that I see to protect the sanctity of the traditional institution of marriage is to take it out of the purview of the government. It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but we must confront the issue before us.

Christ, The Passion, & The Bible

I'm not a big moviegoer, but I will probably go to see The Passion of the Christ when it comes out this week. When I was in college, I nearly minored in religious studies. And after my trip to Israel and Jerusalem, I have been extremely intrigued by the times and events surrounding the life of Christ (about 100 years before to 400 years after, in particular).

I've been seeing the rave reviews of the movie that have been coming out and that has been one of the catalysts for my decision to actually see this movie in a theater rather than waiting for it to come out on video. But then I also came across this review by Newsweek's David Ansen who expresses his concern with the level of brutality depicted in the film.

Now I can buy that part of the gore is due to the fact that it is Mel Gibson making the film. But the time leading to the cruxifiction was a brutal series of events. From the Garden of Gethsemene to the cross was not a gentle, peaceful journey. The Romans were very much into punishment as a deterrent. The sheer brutality of the cruxifiction was designed to serve as a powerful and public message to other would-be miscreants. It was not supposed to be a quick, painless exit.

"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword," Jesus says, putting a halt to the fighting in Gethsemene; much later we're given a snippet from the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus exhorts his followers to love their enemies as themselves. But these moments have little weight in the body of the film; they're the cinematic equivalent of footnotes and they're not what seizes Gibson's imagination. What you remember is the image of a crow plucking out the eyes of the thief on the cross next to Jesus, punished by God for mocking his son.

For some reason, I don't think that is what everyone is going to remember. You are going to take away from the movie that which is most important to you. Some people will take away the religous aspects; some will take away the violent aspects. It's all going to depend on your own personal beliefs.

In that regard, I think that this movie is going to be similar to the Bible itself. The Bible is a great book, not because it can speak to you on one level, but because it can speak to you on three distinct levels. It can be an article of faith. It can be a great literary work. Or it can be a great history of the early years of Judeo-Christian civilization. It can be any one of these or all three.

It is easiest to view the Bible as an article of faith. It not only lays out a set of guidelines for living an upstanding life (guidelines which are remarkably unchanged over the millenia), but it also gives the faithful hope that there will be a reward for their piety here in this life. For some, the Bible is the absolute word, it can never err. For others, it is an ideal to which they strive. But it is because of faith that people want to believe. It is faith that places the Bible in a unique category.

But how does the Bible divulge its lessons? It is most certainly not a list, although as the 10 Commandments demonstrates it does not shy away from simple, straightforward lists where they're appropriate. Rather the Bible is a collection of stories, stories with a moral. Forgetting the aspects of faith or historical accuracy, the Bible is as important a collection of stories in our history as Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. It provides the reader with the original oral traditions of the early Judeo-Christians. Stories like the Creation or the Exodus may not have happened verbatim as described in the Bible, but the stories are fascinating examples of how the ancients tried to explain the seemingly unexplainable.

But often times, the stories as told in the Bible are remarkably accurate historical records. I've seen articles (sorry, no links that I can find right away) that explain how the parting of the sea by Moses could have actually happened given the right combination of circumstances. There have been articles published that some archaeologists think that they may have found Noah's Ark on a mountain in Turkey (although there are also many reports that the Ark sightings are simply a hoax). There was an article in Biblical Archaeology a few years back that analyzed the top of Mount Moriah (inside the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount) and determined that there were in fact four 90° angles carved into the rock with their inside dimensions matching that of the Ark of the Covenant as described in the Bible. Further we have found evidence that the walls of Jericho did fall in a great battle at about the time that the Bible describes. The list of historical accuracies could go on and on.

What's the most important aspect of the Bible? Is it the faith, the literature, or the historical record? What's most important is what you, the reader, take away from it.

And I think that The Passion is going to be similar in that regard. It tells the story of faith in a manner that is true to the original work and the standards of the time. Some people will find the faith in the story overwhelming; others will be awed by the story itself.

And then some, like Mr. Ansen, will focus on the historical aspect of the movie. But if we're going to focus on the history, we need to bear in mind that executions in ancient times were not quite as antiseptic as they are now. They were brutal, sadistic events. They were designed to inflict torture as much as they were to end life.

If Mr. Ansen is appalled at the depicted brutality, then I'm inclined to believe that Gibson got it just about right.

I'll let you know my thoughts after I see the movie.

Happy Day!

Well, today marks a milestone of sorts for me. It is the first anniversery of The Noble Pundit. Kind of scary to think that I've corrupted the thinking of over 43,000 people in a year.....

Kind of hard to believe that it has been year. Wow.

Jobless Claims Down

The Labor Department is reporting that for the week ending Feb.14 new jobless claims dropped significantly, posting their largest decline since November.

Now I'm not going to sit here this morning and analyze how this might fit into the overall ecnomic environment. There are enough other blogs, along with CNBC, MSNBC, FOXNews, CNN, and the major networks who will be doing that. Instead I'm going to take a different approach.

Let me begin by stating that I believe that the job market is starting to improve - just a little bit. Many of my longtime readers may recall that back around July of last year I started looking for a new job. It wasn't until Mid-November that I was able to find anything that was a step up. It essentially took me nearly 5 moths to find a new job - and I was employed at the time, which supposedly makes it easier to get a new job.

Now since November, I've received another job offer, for significantly more money and better benefits, and was felt out about yet another. Since last July, I have gone from being extraordinarily unlucky to extraordinarily lucky. Nothing has really changed in my approach (although I have not actively sought a new job since November). But something has begun to change in the job market.

I think that right now what we're beginning to see is a move towards bringing in new people in the revenue producing segments of businesses. Salespeople, manufacturing people, and customer service positions all seem to be in a little bit of demand right now.

This is great and wonderful, but most of the unemployed at the moment seem to be from support positions, IT particularly. Those types of positions are not being created just yet. So support staff candidates are going without offers.

Now some will argue that the job that are being created now are the low eage positions. And that, by and large, is true. But in order for there to be a need for support staff, there needs to be a staff to support.

I think that a lot of companies learned a very tough lesson back in the late '90s. The last brokerage firm I worked for went on a hiring spree from 1996-1999 and more than quadrupled the size of the company - and then from 2001-2003 they let go basically everyone they hired, plus some. It was a painful lesson for them. And I think that right now, there are a number of companies that are trying to take too much away from that experience. In an effort to make sure they won't have to let people go, they are foregoing revenue and profits to avoid hiring people.

In the late '90s the hiring pendulum was at one extreme, where anybody could get a job in very short order, regardless of anything. In the last 2 or 3 years, we've been at the other extreme, where very few could get a job, no matter how well qualified they might be. At both extremes, the job market was operating very inefficiently and companies have paid a price, either in realized layoffs or unrealized profits.

My sense, and I have nothing really to back it up with it is just a gut feeling, is that things are starting to return to a more normal state. It should be interesting to see how long it takes for hiring to really return to normal.

Are We A Modern Day Rome?

(This is actually my second attempt at writing this as my computer turned itself off right as I got ready to post the original. I'm not as happy with this version as I was with the first but I can't find any temp file of it on the computer. If I ever happen to find the original, I'll be sure to post it.)

I know that this is going to old news for most of you, but I thought that I wanted to comment on it anyway.

Charles Krauthammer recently gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in which he asserted that the Roman Empire is not an accurate model for modern America.

Now I've commented on some of the parallels between America and Rome here and here.

In the past I have looked at some of the parallels between ancient Rome and modern America, specifically where the issue of the welfare state is involved. But I have never explicitly expressed the belief that the parallels of empire are weak at best.

Ever since the time that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon on his way back to Rome, the Roman Empire was a dictatorship. The Caesars did pay homage to the Republican origins of Rome, accepting such Senatorial platitudes as Imperator, Consul, Augustus, and countless others.

But how did power in the Roman Empire actually work? It was really pretty simple. The man wearing the purple robes was it. He held dominion over life and death for anyone within the Empire. He could execute, pardon, enslave, emancipate, pillage or plunder without having to worry about Amnesty International or the ACLU complaining about every perceived violation of the rules of civilized warfare. His word was absolute law.

His power wasn't maintained by pleasing the people. It was gathered and maintained by brute force, Machiavellian action, and bribes of the Praetorian Guard.

The Roman Empire at its peak stretched from the Isle of Britain to the Caspian Sea. Towards the end of his reign, the emperor Trajan conquered and annexed Mesopotamia.

Now why did Trajan do this? Was it out of self-defense? Was it to gain additional food for the restless rabble of Rome? For the additional taxes and donatives of the residents of the region? Pride?

Did Trajan hinge his decision on the consent of the Senate? Did he wait for approval from the ancient UN? Did he try to gain the approval of the Gauls' for the invasion of Mesopotamia? Or did he simply go and add the ancient, even at that time, city of Babylon to the Empire - because he wanted to?

Trajan wanted Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, as part of the Roman Empire. It was his wish, and it was so.

Trajan's successor, Hadrian, did not want the province of Mesopotamia. So he pulled out and abandoned it.

The sacrifices made in acquiring the province? Not important.

Was there a local government in place when the Romans left? Not his concern.

Did the people of Babylon have enough food to eat? They'd figure it out - or starve.

Hadrian's wish was to pull out of Mesopotamia, and it was so. There was no public debate. There was no nation building or reconstruction. They Romans wanted to leave, so they left.

That was the way that it was in the Roman Empire. What Caesar wanted, Caesar got. The Senate was a rubber stamp, a facade hearkening back to a government that by the time of Hadrian hadn't existed for almost 200 years. So long as the citizens of Rome, the city, were kept with bread and circus, the people wouldn't revolt. The legions were controlled by fear of the Praetorians, and the Praetorians were controlled by donatives from the emperor. The only person capable of controlling the emperor was the emperor. He was a man with absolute power.

Now in a parallel with ancient Rome, modern America did invade and conquer part of ancient Mesopotamia, modern day Iraq.

But did George W. Bush act without Congressional approval? Did he not send Colin Powell to the UN to present the case for the invasion to try to gain international support? Were there not 12 years worth of previous UN resolutions that provided legitimacy that we made an effort to negotiate?

Did we simply depose Saddam and leave Iraq to suffer anarchy? Did we conquer Iraq and send their food supply back to Washington D.C. to feed the masses on welfare? Did we conquer Iraq to expand our tax base to pay for more spending in the United States?

Did Trajan have to concern himself with Senator Kerryus declaring that his vote for war was based on a different intention for the prosecution of the war? Did he have to worry of Proconsul Deanus declaring that the war against the Mesopotamians was ill advised and wrong?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, no.

Both ancient Rome and modern America invaded and conquered the lands of ancient Mesopotamia. And about the only consistent parallel is that the French probably didn't approve of either invasion.

Krauthammer is right: we are an accidental empire. We don't go out with the intention of claiming new land for God and country. Rome did.

Ancient Rome was an empire based around the superiority of one people over everyone else. Modern America is based on the idea of equality of man.

Rome demanded tribute and food from the conquered. America helps to feed and rebuild.

Rome would oppress and enslave the people. America frees them from oppression and slavery.

Rome was a military power first, commercial power second. America is a commercial power first, military power second.

Rome was founded on the strength of its legions. America was founded on the strength of its ideals.

This isn't to deny that there aren't some lessons that we can't take away from ancient Rome. The lessons from the repetition of history can be very powerful lessons, indeed.

I believe that there are some very valuable lessons of ancient Rome in the bread and circus welfare state.

I also believe that politically there are no really valuable parallels as our two governments are completely different, as are the goals of the government.

There are many parallels between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy also, but that does not necessarily mean the two events are somehow linked, or that the second could have been predicted. Similarities and coincidences are not proof of a linkage. The lesson of each parallel needs to be examined on a case by case basis to see if it has any validity in a different set of circumstances. Comparing the militaristic, expansionist Roman Empire to the accidental and unwilling American one means that many of the lessons simply have no carryover validity.

As America moves forward in the new world in which we are the only superpower, we need to keep in mind the fact that we are actually charting a new course in uncharted waters. History is important, but we need to remember that for many things we will encounter there will be no parallel.

There is no parallel between the power of the Roman sword and the power of the American idea.

America is not the Roman Empire redux.

Arrggghhhh!!!!!

I would really love to post more today - I have three good articles to write about - but I was thrown for a bit of a loop a little while ago. I received a job offer paying a good bit more than I'm making now. The excitement has made it difficult at best for me to write anything coherent, so I think I'm going to give up on trying for the rest of the night. Also, don't expect much, if anything, tomorrow as I will likely be pulling a 10 am to 2 am workday again.

To give everyone something to chew on for the rest of tonight and tomorrow here are the three articles with a quickie comment on each:

Bush, Congress Battle Over Transport Bill - I really find it odd that Bush would make a stand against spending in one of the few enumerated responsibilities of government (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution).

Kerry Avoids Flat Out Denial - Great, Kerry is going to Clinton the issue. If he did, he needs to admit it; if not, deny it like a man. No more weaselly stuff. Must be the francophile in him coming out......

Microsoft a Disney Suitor? - And so the Disney buyout rumor mill begins. I expect that we'll hear about more than just Microsoft before it's all said and done.

If Only...

Have I ever mentioned how much I enjoy reading Victor Davis Hanson? Yeah? If you hadn't read the posts, you probably figured it out by the fact that the top two permanent book recommendation links are both for VDH books. It has always been an unstated (until now) goal of mine to have someone make the comment that I can write half as well as he.

Today, I read his latest column over at National Review Online and thoroughly enjoyed it, as I do all his columns. But then a few minutes later, I found an article over at IMRA in which a Palestinian official proves that he lives in more of a fantasy world than Hanson could ever dream up.

This official referred to Israel as "Satan's offspring" and decided that the recent decision to swap 400 Arab prisoners for one live and three dead Israelis was part of some kind of a plot to make an Arab life seem as though it is worth less than an Israeli one!

Now I didn't agree with the 400 for 1 and 3 deal at all. I thought that the numbers were way out of line (plus I don't like negotiating with terrorists, but that's another issue.). However, I give Sharon credit for placing that much value on the life of a single Israeli citizen, along with providing closure for three other families. It speaks to the commitment that the Israeli government has to its people.

But it wasn't the Israelis who made their citizens life so valuable, it was the Arabs who demanded 400 prisoners for 1. It was the demands of the terrorists that so cheapened the perceived value of the Arab life in relation to the Israeli one. You can't make outrageous demands and then complain about their effect once they're met. It is not the fault of Israel that the Arab (and particularly the Palestinian) people now see the vast difference in the concern of the respective government for their people. The light of the truth can be very harsh indeed.

I really believe that the fact that this official is even out whining about this is a good sign. I think it indicates a rising pressure from the Palestinian people for some sort of reform that better recognizes their worth to their leadership. Had the negotiation been for 40 prisoners, the Palestinians may have felt like their side simply pressed a good deal. But 400? That number is simply so far out of whack with a reasonable expectation that I can see it making the Arabs feel as though their government views them as 1/400th of an Israeli - and that has got to hurt.

Abstinence=Bigotry?

The Liberty Council has a grassroots program going on in high schools around the nation today to have kids wear white t-shirts to school to help promote the idea that abstinence is a good thing. The kids also plan on distributing pro-abstinence literature to other students.

Given the current state of teenage pregnancies and STDs, is this really all that bad a thing, to encourage kids to wait until they're married before having sex?

said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda." (emphasis mine)

Now Ms. Leeds was referring to the plan to call today a "Day of Purity" as an abomination because it is using the word "purity" in a manner in which she does not approve (but a manner which is consistent with common usage of the word for the last few hundred years).

But how can she honestly sit there and claim that promoting abstinence - even with an unapproved, non-PC use of the word purity - is bigoted? Since when did responsibility become bigotry? Since when did morality, at least that accepted by a large segment of the population, become bigotry?

There is nothing bigoted about the promotion of abstinence. It may be a disagreeable position for Ms. Leeds, and one that she would not teach to her own children, but not every disagreeable position is bigotry. Placing more value on purity than promiscuity does not a bigot make. If Ms. Leeds ever wants to have her message of free same sex love accepted, she needs to become more accepting herself.

And she's not the only one out there complaining about the movement:

Eliza Byard, deputy executive director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said in an e-mail that her group applauded any effort to promote healthy sexual choices by young people.

"Unfortunately, this program seems to have a limited idea of what that means and doesn't appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need," she said.

"Doesn't appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need." That sentence, more than any other in the article, really, really bugs me.

Why is there an assumption that all sides of every issue must be presented at all times? This effort by the Liberty Counsel is engaging in advocacy. They believe strongly in a certain position and want to promote the benefits to others of taking that position. In a court, do we expect the defense to assist in the prosecution while the prosecution assists in the defense? No. We have an advesarial system set up so that both sides of the story are presented and a jury determines which side is the better choice. Ideas are really no different. The grand marketplace of ideas is also advesarial. But instead of lawyers, the marketplace of ideas uses advocates. Sometimes they are politicians. Sometimes they are private citizens or organizations. But if we don't expect the State Attorney to defend a murderer, why should we expect a church group to defend or educate about promiscuity?

If Ms. Byard feel so strongly that an important part of sex education is being left out then she should go out and advocate it. Just like the Liberty Council is. Let the ideas of abstinence and promiscuity fight it out in the marketplace of ideas. Surely if Ms. Byard doesn't feel a twinge of embarassment or guilt at going forth and recommending that girls become sluts. Surely she has no concern with going out and recommending that teenage boys act on their urges with anyone, male or female, who happens to be willing.

Or maybe she does have issues with going out and publically advocating such positions. Maybe Ms. Leeds knows that she cannot legitimately win in the marketplace of ideas, so she tries to brand the abstinence message as bigotry, hoping that the stigma of the word will be enough to make up for her lack of intellectual argument.

I applaud the Liberty Council for making an effort. I don't believe that they'll be too successful as the free love crowd has already made some serious inroads in the educational system - inroads that will be very difficult to reverse. But they have taken a position and they are advocating it in an adult, responsible manner. Got to give credit where credit is due.

Also, as an aside, I am not attacking homosexuality here, only unfettered promiscuity. Please don't read in to this something that is not there.

Who Has Failed The Student-Athlete?

Earlier this week, there was a federal court ruling that cleared the way for Maurice Clarett, former Ohio State running back for a total of one season, to enter the NFL draft, effectively nullifying some NFL rules about draft eligibility. The NCAA is, to be expected, up in arms about the ruling, claiming that it will further harm young men who simlpy aren't capable of playing at the NFL level. The real question here, isn't the one surrounding the draft eligibility ruling. No, the real question is:who is failing the student-athletes?

Is there really any blame that can be placed on the NFL here? You can maybe make the argument that they should have put stiffer eligibility language in the last collective bargaining agreement. But in the end, the league was trying to keep the youngest of the young out of the league. Education may not have been their top concern, but they certainly were not attempting to poach the cream of the crop. Their rules were applied fairly across the board.

Did the court system fail the student-athletes? Perhaps. A little common sense applied by the judge probably would have gone a long ways here, but the judge followed the letter of the law. If blame were going to be placed on government, it would probably be better placed on the legislatures that passed the laws the strictly interpreted.

No, the real failure was by the NCAA and the colleges themselves. How can a graduation rate of 54% be called successful? There are now college football games on ESPN or ESPN2 nearly every day of the week. It's nice as a football fan, but it is terrible for the student-athletes.

Why? Money.

College football generates a huge amount of revenue for both the schools and the NCAA. At many universities, at least some of the money coming in from football is used to improve the quality of education for all students. But is the trade-off worth it?

I don't think so. It is exploitation. Many of these "student-"athletes are kids that really are ill-equipped to be in school in the first place, much less taking on the added stresses of athletics along with their studies. It is not fair to the athletes and it is not fair to the rest of the student body that school funding is being spent on these kids that shouldn't have made it out of high school much less into a major university.

If the NCAA and the universities are looking to place blame, they need to look no further than the closest mirror. The biggest failure of the student-athlete comes from programs that try to convince kids that they are student-athlete material when a 10 year old can read better than they can. Yes, the argument can be made that they are giving underprivleged kids opportunity. But it can also be argued that these same kids are being lied to. Do the ends justify the means?

The state of the student-athlete is deplorable. Something needs to be done to fix the system. Blaming courts and the NFL is not the way to do it.

The NCAA needs to get its own house in order. The 54% graduation rate is their fault - and no one else's. It's time for the NCAA to own up to its failings.

Question

Does anyone have any ideas as to how to pursue a copyright violation against a Chinese company? The website is registered to a Chinese company and is hosted on a .com.cn server.

Chinese companies have made cheap knock-offs of high-quality, high-price billiard tables for years, but this one is actually using the photos of the originals (not the knock-offs) to promote their product.

I know that I can't pursue this personally, but I am interested in knowing what avenues are available - simply for personal edification.

Child Support

Via the Watcher of Weasels we have a rant from Raging Dave at Four Right Wing Wackos about the worst aspects of the child support enforcement program as it exists in many states.

I agree with Raging Dave that the system is broken - no doubt about it. I'm quite sure that there are many stories like that of Mr. Pierce, a man goat-roped into fatherhood (and hence, child support payments). I know that there is a perverse incentive for some states to go after anyone with money, assuming that they must be the father of any child whose mother is a candidate for The Jerry Springer Show (The Father Of My Child Is One Of These 42 Men That I Slept With In Less Than Two Weeks!). Everything that Raging Dave rages about is accurate.

But it is only half the story of why the system is broken. Contrary to the popular belief that only men get screwed under the system, there are instances of women who get the short shrift also. Let me explain by way of personal experience.

First, I believe that any man who fathers a child has automatically signed up for 18-25 years of supporting that child (time depending on whether or not the kid goes to college). If you were man enough to do the deed with Mommy, your man enough to live up to your obligations as Daddy. Period. End of statement. No questions. You're a father, you have an obligation. I don't feel sorry for you and you had better not sit there and ask me to feel sorry for you. Some decisions have long term consequences. Deal with it.

Several times on this site, I've mentioned that I have three kids. Clarification is in order. My other half has three kids. I have none that biologically mine. I support these three and love them like they're mine, but in the end it is only because I'm me. I am not linked to them via DNA. So they're my kids, they're just not MY kids.

The State of Florida is a state that does not take out a cut on child support payments. Awfully nice of them, especially considering the fact that th