Friday, March 31, 2006
An interesting segment of the federal code
From The Corner:
(0) comments
[N]othing shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything … be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government.
The 'Black Watch' disbanded
This is a tragedy. Look at that unit's resume:
I love their motto:
(0) comments
“They have fought in North America against native tribes during the seven year’s war. “They have defeated George Washington in the Battle of Long Island. They have fought in the Boer War. They fought at Waterloo, the Somme and Ypres.Defeated George Washington. Probably their greatest credential.
“Black Watch solders were among the first forward in some of the most intense fighting of World War II in Normandy after the D-Day landings.
“The 1st Battalion of The Black Watch became the first British unit to enter German territory in World War II.”
I love their motto:
'Nemo Me Impune Lacessit’ — ‘no one attacks me with impunityThem's men's men.
Photos of the "Gran Marcha"
So, when can we build that wall? I'd prefer to allow millions of the oppressed peoples of the world who would be grateful, loyal US citizens to immigrate, instead of the hateful people that participated in that march.
One lets those that dream of insurrection into one's country at their own peril.
You know my policy idea--shut down illegal immigration, even if it is costly, and then allow a million legal immigrants a year, or something like that. But only give visas to the best, brightest, and most loyal to the american dream. Taking the world's 'first draft picks', as I've heard, would certainly be a good way to keep the US dominant in the world economically and culturally. And making sure they will buy into the American dream and become Americans will just make sure the US remains strong for the next century.
(0) comments
One lets those that dream of insurrection into one's country at their own peril.
You know my policy idea--shut down illegal immigration, even if it is costly, and then allow a million legal immigrants a year, or something like that. But only give visas to the best, brightest, and most loyal to the american dream. Taking the world's 'first draft picks', as I've heard, would certainly be a good way to keep the US dominant in the world economically and culturally. And making sure they will buy into the American dream and become Americans will just make sure the US remains strong for the next century.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
On the Afghan "Apostate"
This quote sums up what should be done quite well, and is one that shouldn't be forgotten:
(0) comments
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
Friday, March 24, 2006
Put another tally in Eintstein's column
Chirac is a funny man. To bad he didn't intend to be funny. (But it's only funny because of the irony.-edHey, don't point out obvious inconsistancies in my statements. I'm blogging.
(0) comments
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Why I want to be an ancient historian, part 85491
(0) commentsThe ACTUAL cost of war
In case you didn't know, being in the military is a rather dangerous job even when not engaged in a war. According to the data and explanations in this brilliant post at Instapundit, the Iraq and Afghan Wars have actually only cost the lives of approximately 800 more servicemen and women than was lost during the comperable period of Bill Clinton's presidency, and the military under Clinton wasn't fighting any prolonged and extensive wars. Garrison duty is dangerous too, because the military likes to practice realistically so that when war does come around, it is prepared.
Of course, this great news will never make it into any MSM besides perhaps Fox, if we're lucky. It just shows you how relatively bloodless the engagements we're in have been relative to ANY other war in US history, and really almost any war in history, period. Our tech superiority, and great edge in training and tactics, has lead to almost incomprehensible military victories. On these statistics alone, the two recent wars have been some of the greatest victories in US history. But most people aren't smart enough to realize that, and most reporters are too ideologically driven to dig enough to find out and report this.
So, now you know. Be heartened. We are victorious. The US has toppled two murderous regimes at a price far lower than was expected, and far lower than the threshold of tolerability (which would be tens of thousands of more deaths, if people had any historical perspective).
Again, I say, read the post linked above and savor our recent past victories, and what our glorious and brave armed forces have achieved. That's not jingoism above. It's reality.
(0) comments
Of course, this great news will never make it into any MSM besides perhaps Fox, if we're lucky. It just shows you how relatively bloodless the engagements we're in have been relative to ANY other war in US history, and really almost any war in history, period. Our tech superiority, and great edge in training and tactics, has lead to almost incomprehensible military victories. On these statistics alone, the two recent wars have been some of the greatest victories in US history. But most people aren't smart enough to realize that, and most reporters are too ideologically driven to dig enough to find out and report this.
So, now you know. Be heartened. We are victorious. The US has toppled two murderous regimes at a price far lower than was expected, and far lower than the threshold of tolerability (which would be tens of thousands of more deaths, if people had any historical perspective).
Again, I say, read the post linked above and savor our recent past victories, and what our glorious and brave armed forces have achieved. That's not jingoism above. It's reality.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Intolerable Remarks
[Update: I've fixed the link to the GSB study within the post, which really merits a reading if time permits (another link here) ... it is extremely damaging to those who would side with the realist containment agenda as the more fiscally, or morally, sound course of action]
Vice President Cheney delivered that strong worded slap on Face the Nation Sunday, responding to a quote from Senator Ted Kennedy. The sort of party rhetoric being spouted by Kennedy is nothing new, but it has become all too common within the media circles, being increasingly portrayed as common sentiment and decreasingly questioned on the grounds of its merit and moral validity. The original Kennedy quote, which consists of the usual rambling about an incompetent administration and a mistaken war, is interesting only because it is so shameless. Kennedy obviously feels that his remarks are so mainstream, his views so common, that he can repeat the same cliched euphemisms without batting an eyelid.
A war that never should have been fought? Not the first time we've heard this, but I wonder on what empirical grounds he makes the claim. Surely not economic ones, since the cost of containment is roughly equal in terms of dollars as compared to the cost of war, a recent study by the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business found. More importantly, the study found that "the war will lead to large improvements in the economic well-being of most Iraqis relative to their prospects under the policy of containment." And most damning to Mr. Kennedy's claim is the projected loss of life, based on the historical record of the regime between 1991 and 2003, of 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqis a year, resulting in the startling claim by the authors that "a continuation of the containment policy could be expected to result in another 200,000 to 600,000 dead Iraqis." Perhaps the Senator wishes to say that the cost of freeing the Iraqi people from a regime that was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of its citizens, while at the same time securing the United States and its allies against future aggression from a known terrorist sponsor is not a worthy use of American assets. That seems to be what he means by the Iraq policy being "not worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform."
Senator Kennedy's remarks are grossly inaccurate, and heinously offensive. To claim that the lives and freedom of millions of Iraqis, and the continued security of the United States, is not worth our effort is to reveal a true disregard for the wellbeing of our country, and Iraq, and the noble sacrifice of the men and women who fight for it. To further insult the armed forces by decrying their sacrifice, one which every man and woman who has died volunteered to make, reveals a blatant disrespect for the very lives of the soldiers he pretends to speak for. And to pretend that the world, and Iraq, would be better off had we done not acted is nothing short of self-imposed delusion, and a denial very facts and events that brought us to the brink of war to begin with.
(1) comments
... I think we are going to succeed in Iraq. I think the evidence is overwhelming. I think Ted Kennedy has been wrong from the very beginning. He's the last man I'd go to for guidance in terms of how we should conduct U.S. national security policy.
Vice President Cheney delivered that strong worded slap on Face the Nation Sunday, responding to a quote from Senator Ted Kennedy. The sort of party rhetoric being spouted by Kennedy is nothing new, but it has become all too common within the media circles, being increasingly portrayed as common sentiment and decreasingly questioned on the grounds of its merit and moral validity. The original Kennedy quote, which consists of the usual rambling about an incompetent administration and a mistaken war, is interesting only because it is so shameless. Kennedy obviously feels that his remarks are so mainstream, his views so common, that he can repeat the same cliched euphemisms without batting an eyelid.
It is clearer than ever that Iraq was a war we never should have fought. The administration has been dangerously incompetent. And its Iraq policy is not worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.
A war that never should have been fought? Not the first time we've heard this, but I wonder on what empirical grounds he makes the claim. Surely not economic ones, since the cost of containment is roughly equal in terms of dollars as compared to the cost of war, a recent study by the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business found. More importantly, the study found that "the war will lead to large improvements in the economic well-being of most Iraqis relative to their prospects under the policy of containment." And most damning to Mr. Kennedy's claim is the projected loss of life, based on the historical record of the regime between 1991 and 2003, of 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqis a year, resulting in the startling claim by the authors that "a continuation of the containment policy could be expected to result in another 200,000 to 600,000 dead Iraqis." Perhaps the Senator wishes to say that the cost of freeing the Iraqi people from a regime that was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of its citizens, while at the same time securing the United States and its allies against future aggression from a known terrorist sponsor is not a worthy use of American assets. That seems to be what he means by the Iraq policy being "not worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform."
Senator Kennedy's remarks are grossly inaccurate, and heinously offensive. To claim that the lives and freedom of millions of Iraqis, and the continued security of the United States, is not worth our effort is to reveal a true disregard for the wellbeing of our country, and Iraq, and the noble sacrifice of the men and women who fight for it. To further insult the armed forces by decrying their sacrifice, one which every man and woman who has died volunteered to make, reveals a blatant disrespect for the very lives of the soldiers he pretends to speak for. And to pretend that the world, and Iraq, would be better off had we done not acted is nothing short of self-imposed delusion, and a denial very facts and events that brought us to the brink of war to begin with.
The Drones of '06
I, for one, am not a drone. However, I have to say, that even at Chicago, there are many people resembling what appears to be the average Yalie. It's sad that there are so many people out there that think they're smart, but are really unthinking, ignorant morons. Yeah, morons. There's no other way to term someone that supports genocidal evil while condemning things like non-fair-trade bananas.
Read this, it explains why Yale is so bad (and to a lesser extent other places like Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth, and Princeton--it seems that only Chicago is left to educate people well). If anyone considers a Yale education an asset now, they're a fool. It's pretty damn sad that many of the smartest youth in the country are being brainwashed. It'll be wonderful in 25 years when people like me are battling it out with these drones. There won't be debate, because you can't have debate when one side is too stupid to understand what an argument is.
It's too bad people at those so-called 'elite' Universities can't get a real education like one can still get at Chicago--Western Civ, Greek Thought and Lit, Classics of Soc. and Political Thought, a few Straussian analysis classes on Machiavelli, a clear understanding of market economics, and history classes that analyse real subjects instead of things like "Mass Media in 90s Mexico". Those'll make sure you're not a rube. Or, at least provide someone that isn't already brainwashed a chance to learn.
Am I mad? Obviously. At least I can look forward to the fact that people who identify themselves as liberals have less than one child per marriage (and many of them don't even get married). With such a low birthrate, liberals that learn to be liberals from their parents will go extinct. Natural Selection at its finest. Ironic, no?
(1) comments
Read this, it explains why Yale is so bad (and to a lesser extent other places like Harvard, Brown, Dartmouth, and Princeton--it seems that only Chicago is left to educate people well). If anyone considers a Yale education an asset now, they're a fool. It's pretty damn sad that many of the smartest youth in the country are being brainwashed. It'll be wonderful in 25 years when people like me are battling it out with these drones. There won't be debate, because you can't have debate when one side is too stupid to understand what an argument is.
It's too bad people at those so-called 'elite' Universities can't get a real education like one can still get at Chicago--Western Civ, Greek Thought and Lit, Classics of Soc. and Political Thought, a few Straussian analysis classes on Machiavelli, a clear understanding of market economics, and history classes that analyse real subjects instead of things like "Mass Media in 90s Mexico". Those'll make sure you're not a rube. Or, at least provide someone that isn't already brainwashed a chance to learn.
Am I mad? Obviously. At least I can look forward to the fact that people who identify themselves as liberals have less than one child per marriage (and many of them don't even get married). With such a low birthrate, liberals that learn to be liberals from their parents will go extinct. Natural Selection at its finest. Ironic, no?
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Iraqi's are very optimistic, why aren't we?
~65% of Iraqis are optimistic about their future. If Iraqis are, and they're the ones facing a threat of bodily harm every day, than why the hell are Americans so sqeamish that they can't support an effort that is costing them only money; the soldies over there are there willingly, and their sacrifices are a risk they choose to take. Unless the American objection is monetary, there is no legitimate objection to our efforts in Iraq at the present time. Any other objection is a sqeamish, spineless one.
When people complain that Iraq has 'great problems', they say so as if to indicate that our efforts our failing. This is due to a pie-in-the-sky sensibility that doesn't take into account the realities of the human condition. The US faces great problems. Iraq faces great problems. But both of those don't mean that good, well-planned and executed efforts aren't being made to solve those problems. It also doesn't mean that the future isn't going to be brighter than the present either. Problems will always exist. Why can't people realize that and try to solve them with some effort, instead of surrendering at the first sign of difficulties.
(1) comments
When people complain that Iraq has 'great problems', they say so as if to indicate that our efforts our failing. This is due to a pie-in-the-sky sensibility that doesn't take into account the realities of the human condition. The US faces great problems. Iraq faces great problems. But both of those don't mean that good, well-planned and executed efforts aren't being made to solve those problems. It also doesn't mean that the future isn't going to be brighter than the present either. Problems will always exist. Why can't people realize that and try to solve them with some effort, instead of surrendering at the first sign of difficulties.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Socrates' nightmare
Beware weblogs?
An interesting and well-written piece, that. However, it fails to take into consideration a great benefit of the ease which the 'net gives to expressing opinions--it allows easy dissent from the "elites'" opinions. And that is particularly good if the "elites'" opinions are wrong. And in many cases, at least in this specific case, the MSM is very, very wrong about US foreign policy due to its great hatred and contempt of social conservatives and republicans, and to a lesser extent, many parts of capitalism and markets.
If web 2.0 keeps the MSM from writing the version of history they prefer, even though often it is contrary to the facts of what actually occured in the past, and if it reveals the blatant hypocracy that this often entails, than it is of great benefit.
(0) comments
An interesting and well-written piece, that. However, it fails to take into consideration a great benefit of the ease which the 'net gives to expressing opinions--it allows easy dissent from the "elites'" opinions. And that is particularly good if the "elites'" opinions are wrong. And in many cases, at least in this specific case, the MSM is very, very wrong about US foreign policy due to its great hatred and contempt of social conservatives and republicans, and to a lesser extent, many parts of capitalism and markets.
If web 2.0 keeps the MSM from writing the version of history they prefer, even though often it is contrary to the facts of what actually occured in the past, and if it reveals the blatant hypocracy that this often entails, than it is of great benefit.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Fading youth
"...the swell of exams and papers breaking on the beach of my fading youth..."
I refuse to think that I'm no longer young past the early twenties. Life will be so depressing if that's the case. Ick.
I'll save that worry until I turn thirty. In only eight years. ... Maybe my youth is fading........... Time to go drink, I think.
(0) comments
I refuse to think that I'm no longer young past the early twenties. Life will be so depressing if that's the case. Ick.
I'll save that worry until I turn thirty. In only eight years. ... Maybe my youth is fading........... Time to go drink, I think.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Exploring the Music Universe
With the swell of exams and papers breaking on the beach of my fading youth, I have been too busy to blog lately. Rest assured, this will not be a permanent lapse, but it is merely a function of the academic calendar. In the meantime, I have perhaps the coolest internet goodie I have ever seen: www.pandora.com. Compiled by a group of people who created what they call "The Music Genome", it is essentially a streaming online radio. Big deal, right? Well, the coolness factor comes in when you try to listen to something. It simply asks you for a song or a musician, and then plays one of their songs. But from then on, its musical discovery: the database attempts to find music that matches the aspects you like about the song or artist, creating a endless stream of new or familiar music along the same vein. In 30 minutes of listening, I had already found enough new bands to fill my Amazon.com quota for the next year and a half. If you have a little time, explore it a little. If not, just feed it a few songs, create a few stations, and get some work done with good music in the background. Jason and I will be back on our high horses soon enough, so enjoy the comfortable change of tone. And if you're interested, check out the first station I created: http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh17491026. (The artist was Kings of Convenience (hat tip: Meteu) )
[Update: Oh man, it gets better... you can add songs or artists to a station you created to change the influence and broaden the range of characteristics it searches... this may be harmful to my winter quarter grades]
(1) comments
[Update: Oh man, it gets better... you can add songs or artists to a station you created to change the influence and broaden the range of characteristics it searches... this may be harmful to my winter quarter grades]
