Posse Incitatus

Picking up the gauntlet

Having thrown down the gauntlet to Mark Steyn, it is only fair that I offer my own course of action.

Before beginning, it is important that we are realistic in our appraisal of the situation.  To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, we go to war with the society we have.  Thus, notions about creating a Colonial Office or hoping to rebuild the civilizational confidence that existed prior to 1913 art not viable options.  The president is after all only one man and can only do so much.  One of the strangest delusions of the left in modern times is their treatment of the presidency as a quasi-religious office – essentially an elected Dalai Lama who can magically change reality with a speech or proclamation (and if that president is Barak Obama, watch for oceans to part on command).

That was partly why I hammered Mark in the first place.  We need to be realistic.  A president has lots of things to keep himself busy.  There are budgets, elections, appointments and so on.  All of this requires a give and take that even the greatest leaders found grueling.

That being said, there are things the president could do to reinforce the West’s self-confidence and improve our struggle against radical Islam.

A good starting place is to reenergize the US war effort, to better explain what has happened and why.  This would require an energetic media campaign which would require more than just photo ops and set-piece speeches.  Those have their place, but I am also talking about formal ceremonies to honor returning units – ceremonies with the president in attendance – not exactly victory parades, but something much like them.

In addition, I would urge the enlargement of the US military and – this is important – make a major speech urging America’s youth to join.  McCain is superbly placed to do this given his biography.  Something along these lines:

“Years from now, when the war is won – what will you have done?  Vietnam was a tragedy- not the least because we abandoned our allies - yet I have never been ashamed to have worn my country’s uniform in wartime.  Today, we have the best-trained, best-equipped and most-effective military in our nation’s history.  Now is the time to step up and show what you are made of.”

I’ve said before that failure to make a speech like this was a huge blunder for Bush.  Instead he told people it was patriotic to shop.  Pathetic.

Okay, so having done that, what else can be done? 

On the foreign policy front, I would demand religious freedom around the globe, to the point of sanctions (diplomatic at first) for those regimes that refuse.  Saudi Arabia would be target number one in this, and it would be a very easy case to make – and hard for liberals to object.  Americans love moral causes and what cause is more moral that demanding the freedom – for Americans no less – to worship abroad.

Finally, the president could talk about the importance of free speech at home and how our values are worth defending.  Call this a “slam Hollywood” strategy, but with a twist.  Instead of taking on Hollywood for peddling smut or being unpatriotic, the president would talk about their silence in the face of oppression – whether women in this country forced to live under sharia or threats to free speech.

Part of this strategy might be to call on the Justice Department to investigate “honor killings,” maybe even establishing a task force to determine how often they happen in the US.  This would really put the feminists in a bind, because on the one hand, it plays right into their “silent rape epidemic” spiel, but on the other it forces them to actually abandon their multicultural bromides.  Congressional hearings could host a variety of women’s advocates like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and talk about female genital mutilation.

It’s not a huge list and wouldn’t result in victory in four years or less, but it would help.  And I understand that part of the give and take of politics would require holding actions or retreats on other legislation.  The point is that I think the costs of these initiatives would be fairly low vs the return.

A more belligerent stance like the one I think Mark favors simply wouldn’t be possible.  It may down the road (particularly if this ground work is laid) but not right now.

Steyn off the rails

I make no secret of my admiration for Mark Steyn.  Indeed, one of the things I would like most to do would be to go shooting with him and afterwards kick back at the ranch and enjoy several chilled tumblers of Military Special bourbon.

But sometimes he goes off the deep end. For instance, his recent criticism of John McCain is way out of line.

McCain quite rightly pointed out that the war against radical Islam is an idealogical one, a struggle that cannot be won with military might alone.  Steyn’s contempt was withering:

There's plenty of evidence out there that the most extreme "extremists" are those who've been most exposed to the west - and western education: from Osama bin Laden (summer school at Oxford, punting on the Thames) and Mohammed Atta (Hamburg University urban planning student) to the London School of Economics graduate responsible for the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The idea that handing out college scholarships to young Saudi males and getting them hooked on Starbucks and car-chase movies will make this stuff go away is ridiculous - and unworthy of a serious presidential candidate.

Later on, Steyn continues to lay it on as he reports on the Canadian terrorist cell:

A couple of readers have pointed out that John McCain at least has the guts to refer to "radical Muslim extremists". But "extremism" surely means views out on the fringe: Thirty-six per cent of young Muslim men favor the death penalty for apostasy. That's 36 per cent not in Yemen or Waziristan but in the United Kingdom. By definition, thirty-six per cent can't be "extremist". It's mainstream.

Yes, Mark, but that’s in the United Kingdom.  This isn’t the UK.  We can own guns here, actually have decent-sized families and so on. 

If anything is unworthy of a presidential candidate, it is telling allies how to run their domestic programs.  We don’t take kindly to French advice on our labor markets or Brits telling us to nationalize health care and I’m pretty sure Europeans are equally averse to American senators spouting off about how they should organize their societies.

Like I said, I admire Steyn (particularly his stuff on show tunes) and I think a lot of his points about demography are totally on-target.

The problem is that he is lacking on solutions.  He’s hammering McCain for what, exactly?  What else can McCain say?  Should he be calling for mass internment?  Re-education camps?  What other means can we use to diffuse radical Islam other than a robust military response to overt actions and cultural persuasion to help “drain the swamp?”

Seriously, I’d like Mark to tell me what he would have McCain and say and what he should do.  If “winning hearts and minds,” won’t do it, what will?  We don’t do carpet bombing any more, nor are we going to send gunboats up the Nile to shell the whirling Dervishes and keep the fuzzy-wuzzies in line.

Fair is fair.  Anyone can complain, but it’s best to have your own solution in hand, otherwise you’re just making noise.

UPDATED:  Welcome SteynOnline readers! Check out our own demography lessons on Guns, guts and babies, or just browse around in general.   Here is my own response.

India rising

Can anything more clearly illustrate the rise of India than the sale of Jaguar and Land Rover?  Ford Motor Co. is transferring the venerable (formerly British) brand to Tata Motors Ltd. Effective in the second quarter.

This is a development that reminds me of Turner's Fighting Temeraire, a moment in time that shows the end of one era and the start of another.  In Turner's painting, steam power was eclipsing sail; here we see the former Third World colony now taking its place amongst the developed countries.

What I find interesting is how people constantly talk about China's potential growth as a power while ignoring India.  In almost every way, India is better placed that China to assume a greater role on the global stage.

Unlike China, India is an open society.  It has problems and social tensions, but it also has a mechanism to resolve them short of revolution.  As the unrest in Tibet has shown this week, China has two options when faced with dissent:  risk collapse of the regime or send in the riot police.

India is also part of the Anglosphere, giving it a considerable advantage in commerce that cannot be underrated.  We are reaching the point where the single most important factor in production (and therefore standards of living) is the cost of labor.  Skills - particularly communications skills - are more important than cheap muscle.

India is already the home to call centers.  One of my credit cards has its help line in India and I had a delightful conversation with the Indian woman on the other end of the line, who perhaps not ironically spoke better English than most of the American operators I've dealt with.

India also has a strong tradition of learning, hence the many Indian doctors already here in the US.

Finally, for the Mark Steyn demography fans out there, India still has a robust birth rate and will shortly (if it hasn't already) surpass China in terms of total population.  For the all Paul Erlich types, this is of course a sign of doom, but a less Malthusian analysis cannot ignore the fact that China's looming population falloff coupled with its massive gender imbalance is going to make for some serious internal problems in the years ahead.

The more I learn about India, the more fascinated I am by it.  India is a natural ally to the United States and each time I see stronger official ties between our nations, I get a little more optimistic about the future.

He is Risen

The Posse wishes you a Happy Easter.  The five inches of snow that fell on Good Friday are melting steadily away.  The sun is shining and brunch was quite tasty, thank you.

Our readers may be interested to know that Sithkitten had surgery Friday - there's a fancy term for it but basically they used a robot to remove her uterus.  She's home and doing fine.  This should help some long-term issues she's been having, and thanks to the wonder of robots, she should be up and around in no time.

There is a lot to be thankful this spring.  MSU keeps winning, Duke lost, and the Pope - God Bless Him - is standing tall for the Church.

Given the cowardly crouch so much of Western civilization has assumed these days, it is refreshing and encouraging to see the Pontiff not afraid to accept Islamic conversions to Christianity.  It is also worth noting that the individual has been forced to seek police protection - something without precedent for those who choose to convert the other way.  Indeed, as the Posse has noted, you can convert to Islam and still keep your day job as an Anglican Priest!

I suppose it is only a matter of time before the Anglicans announce they won't accept Muslim converts (in the name of tolerance, of course) but at least His Holiness still takes his mission seriously. 

The deeper point here is that at some point, the constant appeasement of the most radical Islamists has to end.  When the last Mohammed cartoon is burned, when the last "insensitive" film is banned, they will start claiming the churches - and enforcing death on apostates.  Those hip "Coexist" bumperstickers are nothing but whistling past the graveyard - when the radicalized Imam shows up and demands that your congregation embrace the Prophet, you can't buy him off with good feelings.  It'll be Islam, tribute or the sword.

Pope Benedict understands this.  He is walking a fine line, trying to remain conciliatory, but also true to his calling as the Vicar of Christ.  If that is "hard-line," we need more of it.

There Will Be Review Pt.1

Hollywood again depicts Christianity as fanatical superstition!

The Posse recently took in the film "There Will Be Blood". What can we say- excellent! thought provoking, interesting, visually stunning, full of human emotion and drama, etc. In our humble opinion it should have garnered best score and sound editing at the 07 Oscars. Just because a film is edited in a fast paced over-the-top style (read the Jason Bourne trilogy) doesn't mean it's Oscar quality.

Anyway, great film. One problem!
Hollywood, again! cannot show religion or faith in God in any kind of positive light! It must be used as a plot device juxtaposed to the sensible main character. The hero is intelligent and successful and godless. The local man of faith is shown to be a foolish fanatic bent on personal gain.

We are sick to death of this portrayal!

Integrity

I know we tend to idealize the past and assume that in the “old days” the public had a more profound sense of virtue.  This isn’t anything unique to my generation – if you dust of the Roman historians (to say nothing of Gibbon) you will find that they are always talking about how their ancestors had true moral standing and the current generation was totally debased.

So moral decay is nothing new.

Still, I have to feel that some things have changed, and one of them is the notion of integrity.

The simple definition of integrity is:  doing the right thing when no one is looking.  Right now, we seem to have a profound lack of it in our political class.  Let me give three examples.

Kwame Kilpatrick, Eliot Spitzer and Barack Obama.  They are, respectively, the mayor of Detroit, the ex-governor of New York and of course a Democrat presidential hopeful.  What do they all have in common?

The all apologized – often eloquently – for things they had to know were wrong.

And they did so only after they got caught.

Kilpatrick, for those outside of Michigan, had a torrid affair with his chief of staff (I suppose in this day and age I need to point out she is female – not that it really matters that much) and then fired several cops who found out about it.  They sued, and in the course of the lawsuit he (and she) lied under oath about whether it was happening.  Then text messages surfaced from them showing that it did.  So now he’s facing a perjury rap (among other things) and the Detroit City Council has urged that he be removed (which Michigan’s governor has the power to do).

When this whole thing came to light, Kilpatrick delivered a locally televised response in his church with his wife in which he apologized.  Reaction was mixed, but the point was, he knew what he was doing was wrong and he apologized simply to save his job.  Either way, Detroit’s taxpayers lost at least $9 million through lawsuits and settlements and there may be more to come.

Eliot Spitzer of course also did an apology speech, but unfortunately for him (and fortunately for us) the federal charges he’s facing coupled with his unpopularity for a variety of unethical practices pretty much forced him to resign.  Still, everyone had to critique his obligatory apology, which most folks didn’t like anyway.

And yesterday Barack Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech on “race in America” which basically was his attempt to explain why he’s been attending a racist, anti-American church for the past 20 year and how despite pouring tens of thousands of dollars into the organization which promotes a “God damn America” mentality, hatred of whites and Jews and honors known race-baiters, he’s really a nice guy who doesn’t buy into all of that.

If I may quote They Might Be Giants: “You can’t shake the Devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding.”

Yet everyone was focused on how eloquent his explanation was, how forcefully he repudiated his bigoted pastor.  I find that amazing.  The only reason he’s doing this is that he got caught and couldn’t ignore it.  He tried to sweep it all under the rug, pass it off as no big deal and that didn’t work.  So now – now that he may actually pay an (electoral) price, now he’s willing to do the right thing.

Sorry, integrity doesn’t work that way.

As a conservative, I tend to take a rather pessimistic view of human nature.  I accept that some folks are lazy, mean and greedy and that the best way to keep them in line is often fear of punishment – swift and sure.  A lot of people do the right thing because they know that if they do otherwise, things will get real bad for them.  As an organizing principle of society, that’s not a bad way to go, so long as the laws are just, moral and fairly enforced.

But when we are talking about high office, I want someone with an actual functioning moral compass, because people without them will always try to avoid getting caught.

Thus we had Bill Clinton, who was truly sorry each and every time he got busted – and then went and did something else.  What is more, he used his power to keep himself from getting caught, which led to endless investigations to find out what exactly he was up to.

It is no secret that I was never an Obama fan in the first place, but his two-decade association with “Rev.” Wright should pretty much kill his candidacy.  Only willful blindness on the part of his followers and a shamelessly fawning mainstream press can keep him afloat.

The obvious point that others have made is that if Obama were white, if he was hanging with a Klansman, if his church were “proudly Euro-centric,” he would have been expelled from his own party the next day.  No explanation would be enough.  He wouldn’t need to apologize because there would be no point.

The same should apply to Obama.  Again, this wasn’t a momentary lapse, a single mistake, it was long-term behavior that took place over decades and it cuts to the core of who Obama is and what he truly believes.  Now we are told that he doesn’t really believe the anti-white, anti-American stuff – he just sat through it because he liked the other parts.

Uh, no.  If my pastor made even one of these tirades, I’d walk out and go straight to the bishop.  If they continued, I’d leave the parish.  That’s what integrity is all about – doing the right thing even if you aren’t a public figure, even if you aren’t the center of the spotlight.

If Obama – pure, sainted, nimbus-glowing Obama – is willing to overlook these hateful speeches for years, what else will he overlook?  Much of his electoral appeal was based upon a sense that he had a higher moral standard than Hillary (admittedly, this wouldn’t require much…) but now we see it was all a lie.

Either Obama really buys into this stuff, or he’s a cynical politician who sucked up to Wright’s church because it made political sense.  Both are disgusting notions that show zero integrity.

I am encouraged that Spitzer is gone, Kilpatrick may yet be, and Obama’s campaign is taking on serious water.  Maybe some of that old morality is still out there.

Winter Soldier II - this time, it's even less credible

One of the strange things I've long noticed about the left and the anti-war left in particular, is how factually challenged it is.  I don't mean minor details, or sincere points of disagreement, I'm talking about instances of whole-cloth fabrication.

Jesse Macbeth is a fairly well-known example.  People may still recall Ian Micah Wright.  Of course both of these individuals actually exist - unlike "Kodee Kennings" and her imaginary dead dad.

So now they are trying for a new "Winter Soldier" presentation, one that will no doubt be just as accurate as the original.

At first, one could make the Machiavellian case that this dishonesty was about advancing the movement.  At this point, it simply isn't credible.  The anti-war movement has failed.  Yet they keep doubling down on tactics that just don't work.

Setting aside the moral bankruptcy of this, why do they even bother?  They know that every milblogger on the planet is going to fact check the crap out of whatever comes up.  Any active or reserve personnel that describe atrocities (that they failed to report in a timely manner) are going to get hauled in front of JAG faster than Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

The ones that have gotten out, and are thus free of JAG "intimidation," will still be pressed for names, dates and units - and then let the lawsuits for defamation fly.  In short, saying "one time, in Iraq, we shot some kids," isn't going to do the trick, any more than "Ranger Jesse" or "Scott Thomas'" creative writing exercies did.

I think that is a key difference.  The military establishment in 1972 were in a daze, unable to comprehend what was happening to them.  Also, the internet makes fact checking almost instant.  Some scumbag fake veteran who smears an actual person is going to get sued - and then some.

It will be interesting to watch.    

The more you know

Back in 2003, the polls showed retired General Wesley Clark moving well ahead of President George W. Bush in the polls.  Partly on the strength of these excellent numbers, he jumped into the race and for a time was considered the front runner, not just for the Democrats, but overall.

A funny thing then happened on the way to his inauguration: he opened his mouth and words came out.  His polls went down.

He talked more.  He turned off more people.  Basically, the more people knew about him, the less they liked him.  In the end, he was just another also-ran, and the Military Man the Dems ended up going with was John Kerry (who still has not released his military records).

I think we are seeing the same phenomenon here with Obama.

For a long time, he has been the named but largely unknown Black Candidate.  He’s multiracial, well-spoken, clean-cut, and has a message of hope.  A lot of voters - and not a few Republicans – no doubt hoped that this would mean a new type of politics.

More to the point, they didn’t know a lot about him, so they projected their own beliefs into him.

Now the truth is coming out – not just about his specific policies, but also about the company he keeps.  Turns out he isn’t Mr. Racial Healing after all.  The stuff his pastor has put out is truly amazing.  If my pastor said that, I’d walk out of mass and call the Bishop immediately.  (Before people start dragging up Father Coughlin, I’d like to point out that he was in fact banned from broadcasts.)

I also agree with Rand Simberg that the double-talk thing doesn’t fly (and Power Line) is right that one can’t cry “cherry picking quotes” when it comes to this sort of thing.

It is one thing to take a quote out of context.  These sermons are in context so that that dodge simply won’t work.  Thus the “well, out of all the things he’s preached, these are only a few” line of apologetics.

Sorry, no sale here. 

I think I have some credibility on this as well.  A few years ago, I was going to a Lutheran church and considering becoming a full member.  Then they got a new pastor and I found his sermons wanting – and I found the teachings deploy flawed.  Basically, I didn’t want to spend the rest of Sunday explaining why the church was wrong.

And that guy was nowhere near this offensive. 

One’s church, it has been noted, is not like a “crazy uncle” you can’t do anything about.  We don’t choose our relatives, but we DO choose our churches.  If your pastor is a racist, anti-American radical, going to hear him and giving him money means that you are on board.

This (and Obama's shady financial dealings) may end up collapsing his campaign.  At the very least, I hope it removes some of the halo he's enjoyed. 

Conservatism by any other name

In the comments to my post on William F. Buckely, respected Honorary Posse Member Zendo Deb took some issue with my notion that conservatism has as its core the concept of "original sin."

This is unfortunate.  One need not be a Christian to appreciate Christian concepts, just as one need not be Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist to appreciate concepts within those faiths.

And, like it or not, the fundamental truth that humanity is mortal, that is flawed, incapable of perfection is perhaps the most important concept in American conservatism.

Liberals believe that with the proper instruction, correction and indoctrination, we can make the perfect people and therefore the perfect society.  The Glorious Workers' Paradise is always just a generation away.

You don't have to accept the Catechism to know that far from achieving heaven on earth, the utopianists on the left usually end up creating a new and horrific hell.  In fact, all you have to do is have basic reasoning skills and you can figure that one out.

People are animals.  Animals can be trained, but you can't make them perfect.  So whether you call it "original sin" or "fallibility" or whatnot, the concept is the same.

The "religious right" gets a bad rap in this country, basically because the mainstream media hate them.  Andrew Sullivan can get all worked up over imaginary "Christianists" who he assumes are about to turn the US into a theocracy, while at the same time ignoring that even if all the "religious right" wanted to do so, they'd immediately start quibbling over the specifics.  See Thirty Years War.

Meanwhile, the real threat to civil society - radical Islam - is embraced as a form of tolerance.  Who knew it was tolerant to exclude men from exercise areas?  Who knew forced marriage, genital mutilation and honor killings were simply new and exciting traditions of inclusion?

The point is this:  American conservatism is a wide-ranging philosophy and one of its strengths is that one can come to it from a variety of paths.  This is because it is founded in truth - a truth that transcends petty differences.  Whether one's path originates from faith or reason - or in my case, both - the destination is the same.

That was what I was driving at.  It is, after all, a big tent.   Frankly, I wish conservatives spent more time building coalitions and points of agreement and less time diving themselves into different hostile factions.

Gary Gygax, R.I.P.

I see that Gary Gygax has failed his final saving throw and has lost his last hit point.

I never met the man, in fact I never even went to a convention, but Dungeons and Dragons in various incarnations has consumed thousands of hours of my life.

The thing about D&D that was fascinating was not that it earned some pretty fanatical adherents, it was how quickly it spread into the mainstream.  When I was in middle school, we formed a lunchtime group over the winter and started our own campaign.  It was made up of the usual suspects – the nerds.

The funny thing was how many other people – non-nerds – wanted to join.  Eventually we had to put a cap on new players because the game was simply too big. 

Within the gaming community, Gygax was a controversial figure.  He’s reputed to have “stolen” the copyright on D&D and despite having his name on it, never duplicated its success.

As a system, D&D was clunky, badly edited, horribly laid out and in terms of game balance, it sucked rocks.  Yet millions of teenagers paid for these books – campy artwork and all – because it allowed them access to their inner hero.

With D&D, one could put aside being a middle-class high school kid with all its uncertainty and awkwardness and instead embark upon a glorious career of conquest and adventure.  I agree with Gygax’s assessment that computer games have ruined a lot of what role-playing achieved.  Though its players were famously anti-social, at least you were playing face-to-face with live human beings.

Computer role-playing games, either against a machine or unknown online human players, doesn’t have that.  If anything, our imaginative outcasts are becoming even less able to deal with other people.  It is for this reason that I don’t much care for computer games and have never bothered to do online roleplaying (which in my college days consisted of MUDD or MUSH or some such nonsense).

Now we have World of Warcraft and its competitors, and clearly something is lost in the translation.  Maybe it is a harbinger of things to come: an increasingly impersonal world shaped by technology rather than personal interaction.

But from the 1970s until the mid-1990s, Dungeons and Dragons were the only outlet creative folks could find.  If Gygax didn’t write it, he at least was part of it the creative process and was bright enough to recognize a good thing when it came along. 

So let us pass the dice and roll up a new character in honor of the original Dungeon Master.  Rest in Peace.