Saturday, April 29, 2006
For those who've been e-mailing me requesting a feed of this blog, it can be found here.
Another Podcast, Flight 93
I just got back from United 93. It's an amazing movie. Well-produced, moving in a way. Go see it. I'm still shaking a little. I commend it very strongly to everyone who has forgotten the horror of September 11, 2001.
I walked out of the theatre and, quite literally, felt the need to kneel in prayer in the rain. And I'm not typically given to prayer. Go see this movie. Go see it tomorrow.
Oh, and here's the latest podcast.
Also, my podcasts are available from the iTunes Music Store right here.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
How Bush Can Come Back
If you’re anything like me (admittedly a long shot), you’re probably sick as hell of reading the approximately two thousand “Bush’s polls hit new low” stories that spew forth from the media each day. However, unlike some on the right, I’m not willing to simply dismiss the stories as the result of media bias or poor polling – with all of the numbers that we’ve seen, there’s something there. I doubt if it’s as bad as some would suggest: but it’s still plenty bad.
The question before us now is a simple one: how do the President and his party move back from the brink? How do they mount a successful counter-offensive against their opponents and march onward to a victory. Is it possible that our cause is already irrevocably lost, or is there a still a path home?
What we face are the problems of governing. Our opponents have the advantages of opposition. The Republicans must deal with endless problems: a spiraling Federal deficit, a seemingly eternal war overseas, a stream of illegal immigrants, and soaring gas prices (and soon, I’m sure, inflation too) here at home. If the Republicans are to win in November, there needs to be real progress made on all of these issues.
Right now the Democrats have the initiative and we are on the defensive and retreating. They have driven head-long into our lines and are forcing us back. But their flanks are vulnerable. The wild and uncoordinated offensive launched by our enemies, as devastating as it has been to our fortunes, opens up the possibility of a political Cannae.
Let’s throw out the State of the Union. Let’s forget everything that we’ve been working on. Let every minor annoyance fall away and let every other issue disappear. If we are fated to die, let us at least die as men. No long should we play the game of the Democrat Party. Instead, I propose that the GOP stake everything on a final, last-ditch, do-or-die offensive designed to split and devastate the Democratic Party and assure a final and irrevocable Republican victory.
The President ought to summon a Joint Session of Congress for a “special update” on the State of the Union. He should chastise the Congress (including the Republicans) for their lack of action on important national priorities and announce that he will prevent any adjournment of Congress until four bills reach his desk, in the form which he will outline before the Congress and the nation that night.
First, he needs to demand a rewrite and substantial reform of the Budget. “America,” he should announce, “is at war, and the needs of that war come before domestic priorities, even some which are near to many of our hearts.” He should demand that the Congress immediately cut non-security and non-military spending by 10% across the board and that it legislate the elimination of the national deficit within five years.
At the same time, he should announce that he has decided that a substantial increase in permanent military spending is required, and that he is seeking funding from the Congress for several additional Army Divisions and assorted other gear. This, he should state, must be paid for out of reduced expenditures elsewhere.
To deal with immigration, he ought to adopt the hybrid compromise which has been starring us in the face all along: the combination of increased enforcement with some kind of guest-worker program. That enforcement must include a border fence because, even if the fence fails to prevent illegal entries (and the election will be long past before any of that becomes clear, in any case) it will serve as an important symbol. Similarly, any guest worker program should contain within it a provision which states that no one who receives a guest worker permit will be permitted to become a Permanent Resident or Citizen of the United States without first returning to their home nation and following the regular application process.
On gas prices, the President should likewise adopt a hybrid approach. First, he should remind the Congress of his many calls for increased domestic drilling and demand that a bill allowing for such be passed without delay. Second, he should make some menacing noises about using anti-trust laws against the oil companies in an effort to bully them into lowering prices and they – knowing the consequences of a Democratic Congress come next January – ought to listen and keep prices down, artificially if necessary. At the same time, in an effort to keep prices down, the President ought to propose the suspension of all Federal taxes on gasoline.
All other issues should come off the table. Social Security, Health Care, Education, and everything else can wait – at least for a while. This should be the sole focus of the President and the Republican leadership. Indeed, not only should the President keep the Congress in session until these bills are passed, but the leaders of Congress ought to physically keep Congress in active session for days at a time in a deliberate effort to intimidate and physically wear down those who might be otherwise opposed.
This is no time for niceties or politeness. We’re in real trouble here – and civilization itself will be in trouble if we let the Democrats back into power.
Absolute ruthlessness is called for here. The President ought to wage war upon any lawmaker who refuses to bend to his will. He ought to make clear that he is perfectly willing to lose the November elections if that’s what it takes to purify the Republican Party of the liberal and moderate opportunists who have constantly sabotaged efforts at real and substantive conservative reform.
Indeed, the President ought to begin this process by endorsing Steve Laffey, the primary opponent of Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chaffee, the single most useless Republican officeholder on the Federal level. Similarly, it should be made clear to various moderate Republicans who face difficult fights in the fall that, if they fail to fall in line, the President and the national Republican Party will withdraw all support for them and, where possible, offer covert support to third party candidates.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Here's my first attempt at a Podcast.
I know most of you too well to ask you to be kind.
In it I discuss my latest favorite topic - Iran.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
If They Don’t Move, Shoot Them
One of the most pernicious and idiotic ideas of the modern age is that special deference is due to the Indians who inhabited the Americas before the arrival of settlers from Eurasia. This idea – that they are due special consideration and compensation based upon the tenuous claims held by the many-times-removed descendents of petty backwater civilizations which allowed some of the greatest lands on the Earth to law fallow and unused has already cost us (especially in Canada) billions of dollars, has doomed hundreds of thousands of people to pathetic and backward lives on filthy and isolated apartheid-style “reservations”, and is certain to cost us (and others) billions more in sure-to-be wasted “compensation” before long.
Let’s get this thing straight: the fact that something bad happened to your parents, your grandparents, or your great-great-great-great-granduncle does not give an individual an excuse for failure in life – nor should it entitle you to any form of compensation. My Grandparents and Great-Grandparents had property confiscated from them which today would be worth millions and I’m not demanding that the government give me money or return their land by confiscating it from its present owner decades (or centuries) later.
The history of civilization is the history of stronger civilizations overrunning and displacing weaker ones. This process of creative destruction is how the modern world came to exist. If various European tribes and nations had not overrun each other and intermixed, there would have been no Europe to colonize these lands and there would be no Canada or America as we know it. This is not something to offer an apology or compensation for. On the contrary, it is to be celebrated and remembered gloriously for, without it, we would not be here today and the world would be dominated by some crude and alien civilization such as that of the Chinese.
No function of citizenship makes me angrier than paying taxes. If I knew those taxes went to executing murderers, castrating child molesters, and killing Islamists I would cheerfully open my wallet. But, knowing that most of that money is ineffectually pissed away on ungrateful and undeserving people fills me with an indescribable fury. Why are we of the West to apologize (and pay!) for the actions which made our civilization great? Why are our schoolchildren taught to feel ashamed of one of the great victories of our civilization – the conquest and taming of a continent held by savage tribes who squandered its great potential?
To watch as our governments sit by ineffectually while groups of Radical Indians seize private land – and to know that I am working (without doubt) to support the same – is enraging beyond all measure. Why do we allow people to violate the property rights of our citizens with impunity? How can we tolerate a country which supposedly believes in the principle of racial equality but which, at the same time, sits idly by while violent terrorists assert race-based claims to land in which they have no conceivable individual interest?
It’s time to cut the Gordian knot and to end this nonsense once and for all. Let’s repeal the Indian Act, abolish Indian status, offer to sell off the reserves to their residents, and let the Indians bands carry on as privately-funded private organizations if they wish to do so. Let’s end this apartheid-regime, forget the ancient grievances of the justly-defeated tribes and let everyone get on with their lives.
Frankly, I think that it’s time that we stop treating these radicals who occupy the property of others with any deference at all and started treating them like we’d treat any other group which claimed ownership rights to property based entirely upon this race.
The thing that made me angriest about the Ipperwash standoff was that the OPP officer who shot protestor Dudley George not only lost his job, but was also convicted of a criminal offense. So far as I’m concerned people who are injured or killed while participating in illegal acts of violence deserve whatever they get. In a moral society not only would Ken Deane, who was merely doing his job in protecting the public, not been prosecuted – he would have been given a medal for doing exactly what those who defend the public are supposed to do. As the old saying goes, “don’t throw shit at an armed man.”
If we lived in a society with self-confidence and common sense, there’s no conceivable way that the authorities would allow racialist groups to occupy private property for two months before making a desultory effort to eject them. If we had faith in ourselves and the rightness of our cause, we would respond as justice demands: we would order the Indians to immediately leave the property and, if they failed to do so, we would arrest them for trespassing. If they resisted with violence, we’d shoot them until the danger had passed. It’s really as simple as that.
The occupation of land by Indian radicals at Caledonia is nothing less than a terrorist act. To shut down local business – to use force in an attempt to force agreement by others – is simply an act of terror. It has to be responded to appropriately.
Allowing Indian racialism to carry the day – to give them special rights to claim racial ownership of land, even that held by private persons, - is to doom us (as we already seem to have been doomed) to endless costs and court battles as we apologize and offer compensation for our own moral and fully justified actions in making this continent a home to civilization.
The proper response to the occupation of land by (possibly armed) groups of radicals is not conciliation and negotiation: it is force. There ought to be nothing here to talk about. There’s nothing here to negotiate. Either they move, or we shoot them. That’s the way things ought to be.
If our civilization is to survive – if we are to overcome the modern day Barbarian invasions from East, West, and South, then we must recover the same spirit that our ancestors showed in taking land that was Terra Nullius and turning it into the home of the greatest civilization in the history of the world. We must not apologize or be weighed down by guilt. We must not conciliate or concede. Instead, we must act as our ancestors did and utilize the ultimate force against those who stand in our way.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
And this is a free country...
A Canadian MP (a former talk radio host) has been ordered to pay $220,000 for "racist" comments he made over the air in 1998.
This is the most chilling comment:
Bou Malhab was delighted with the ruling.
“The judge condemned the unacceptable ideas,” he told NTR, the French-language broadcast service of The Canadian Press.
The Case for Nuking Iran
A few nights ago I was watching Fox News. They had the French author Bernard Henri-Levy discussing the situation in Iran. One phrase he used caught my attention, “we’re in 1938,” he said. I fear that he’s correct. Unless we (by which I mean we of the West, as we are all in this together) take immediate and appropriate action, we shall soon find ourselves plunged into a war of intensity unimaginable in the modern age.
We make a great mistake if we do not take the words of our enemies at face value. Iran’s leaders are not post-modern scholars, nor are they Machiavellian schemers. They mean what they say. When a man declares that he intends to kill you, it’s best to take them at their word and to respond accordingly. When Iran’s leaders declare their intention to launch a Second Holocaust and to launch attacks against the West, we’d better respond appropriately.
But, what is an appropriate response? There are many serious objections to the prospect of a military assault against Iran that are certainly worthy of consideration and response.
First, there is the observation that Iran’s nuclear program is widely dispersed and would be both difficult and costly in lives to attack.
Second, there is the real possibility of an asymmetrical Iranian response in the form of terrorist attacks on targets in the West and in efforts to disrupt shipping throughout the Persian Gulf.
Third, there is the certainty that Iran would respond to any attack upon it by attempting to provoke a mass uprising by Shiites in Iraq and, quite possibly, might launch a direct assault against US forces in Iraq.
Fourth, Iran might respond to an attack by the United States by launching an attack – either with long-range missiles or through proxies – against Israel.
So how, over such objections, can I still support an attack against Iran? Well, it’s easier than it might appear at first blush. There is a simple and elegant solution which, I think, could solve multiple strategic problems in a single rush.
First of all, let me state, that I don’t think that Iran and Iraq can be considered in isolation. Fundamentally they are part of a single battlefield. Iran is no more neutral territory in the Iraq conflict than Laos or Cambodia were in Vietnam. Thus, while it is true that Iran can take advantage of a US offensive against it to launch attacks in Iraq, the inverse is also true: the United States can use the time afforded by a distracted world and domestic media to radically tilt the balance in Iraq.
Consider, for a moment, the most likely outcome of an effort by Iran to launch a massive offensive in Iraq. If Iran were to launch an all-out Shiite uprising against American and Iraqi government forces, we would likely see a modern-day reenactment of the Tet Offensive – a battle which would result in the annihilation of the attacking forces but which, thanks to a hostile global and traitorous domestic media would be presented to the public as a massive defeat for Allied arms. Iran can likely launch such an attack at any moment. Wouldn’t it be far better if it were launched while the media was distracted by images of Mushroom Clouds over the western deserts of Iran? This is especially true when one considers the fact that the combination of a distracted media and a chaotic military situation is likely to allow Allied forces to take more… liberties… with regard to their human rights policies than might otherwise be allowable.
The problem of Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities is easily solved if we choose to use nuclear weapons. Simply put, we can drop nuclear bombs on anything that even looks like a nuclear facility and, afterwards, no one will really be able to conclusively establish what was there to begin with. This will be extremely useful in the off-chance that, like Saddam’s Iraq, Iran proves to actually have a far-less advanced WMD program than we believed: no one will be able to prove the truth one way or another and, given the gravity of our own actions, a majority of people will generally accept our word for it.
As I said elsewhere – and I fully believe this to be true – there’s no effective difference in the political cost between the use of a single nuclear bomb and the use of fifty. If we drop even one nuke on Iran, a certain percentage of the public is going to go absolutely nuts. They’re not going to be physically capable of getting any crazier or any more violent. Thus, if we use one nuclear bomb, we might as well use fifty or one hundred. No one in the general public (or the media, for that matter) really understands the reality of nuclear weapons or the difference between a 5KT explosion deep underground and a 1MT surface blast.
The above reality solves a number of other problems. Namely, once we start dropping any nuclear bombs, no one else is really going to care what else we do. Thus, the United States Navy will be perfectly free to sink anything that moves and can carry a machine gun and the Air Force will be able to simply eliminate any large Iranian ground forces caught in the field.
There’s another political reason to use nuclear weapons (and preferably a lot of them). To put it simply, I’d describe this as a “spin-the-wheel” situation. Political physics will only tolerate a chasm between major factions of a certain size. Thus, by dropping one hundred nuclear bombs on Iran, we’ll end up in a situation where the position of the President’s “moderate” critics will be to argue that he should have used fifty bombs instead.
Additionally, such a strike would be politically helpful for the President at this point in time. If would have the support of virtually every Republican in the land, along with a certain percentage of the Democrat Party. The radical left would find itself even further isolated from the political mainstream.
It’s time to act against Iran. We can’t wait for the day that Iran’s Uranium Dancer Team takes to the stage to announce the Islamic Republic’s first successful nuclear test – by then it will be too late. Now is the time to show the world that America retains the will to act. It’s time to remind all of America’s enemies and would-be enemies that the United States has the power to wipe their nations off the very face of the Earth and the wherewithal to do so.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
We are now rapidly approaching the moment that many of us have long feared. Either we accept the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a maniac state which will almost certainly use them against Israel (and probably the United States as well), setting off a nuclear exchange which will kill millions of people or we launch a pre-emptive strike of our own – for which we will face certain retaliation and probable economic losses – and do so using all the means at our disposal, including nuclear arms.
Before us – the people of the free world – is a choice. Do we choose to live the rest of our lives in fear? Do we even, as some are sure to propose, commit an act of evil so great as to demand that six million Jews – and millions of free Arabs – either die, abandon their homes, or live under the rule of theocratic madmen? Do we want to live in a world where a nuclear Iran, shielded by its missiles and its nuclear bombs, routinely commits and supports Islamic atrocities?
Further, I put it to you that we cannot even, were we to abandon those who surely lie under the shadow of the Iranian bomb, rely upon deterrence to prevent attacks upon our own homes. In this era of weakness, do you believe that most Western leaders would have the will to properly retaliate for a nuclear attack which, say, killed half a million New Yorkers?
I’m not saying that we wouldn’t use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack – we surely would. But would we use them against targets sufficient to deter such an attack? It would be one thing for Iran to launch a nuclear attack in the certainty that, in response, the United States would wipe Tehran and a hundred other Iranian cities off the face of the Earth. But I – and I suspect the Iranian leadership as well – tend to believe that our people and our politicians are too weak to inflict such deserved punishment upon our enemies. Instead, I tend to think that they’d dither and then finally launch a nuclear response against the military of the enemy. What we face here is the real possibility of asymmetrical nuclear warfare, with our enemies perfectly willing to kill millions of civilians and our leaders unwilling to respond in kind.
Perhaps the above isn’t true of President Bush – I don’t believe that it is – but it certainly will be true of future leaders. It would even be true of many possible ostensibly ‘conservative’ American leaders. The primal call for an eye for an eye seems to have slipped from the minds of the Western elite.
And, I would note, the above assumes some degree of rationality on the part of the leaders of our enemies. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, appears, like most Islamist leaders, to be a wild-eyed, raving, lunatic who believes that he’s some kind of Islamic spiritual figure – the Persian edition of Martin Sheen’s character in The Dead Zone, who launches a sudden and senseless nuclear attack simply to “fulfill his destiny.” The idea of a man who sees visions of divine lights and is actively and openly preparing for the arrival of the “12th Mahdi” with control of nuclear weapons and a global terror network is the stuff of nightmares.
More to the point: no Islamist leader can be trusted with the bomb. Frankly, I’d be more comfortable if no Islamic nation (including Pakistan – and hopefully someday India will do something about that) had nuclear weapons. Perhaps there are trustworthy Moslem leaders in the world but, at this point in time, allowing them to possess nuclear arms is something akin to handing out Assault Rifles to escaped mental patients.
Some will say that there’s nothing to be done about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear arms – that the military options are all unworkable. I don’t believe that to be even remotely true. Certainly, the conventional military options are limited and it is equally true that a strike is likely to miss some facilities. As well, Iran is sure to retaliate by launching terrorist attacks against the Israel and the West and to stir up trouble in Iraq. We know all of that to be true.
However, we still possess the capability to strike. Indeed, in contemplating action against Iran we ought to recall an old phrase – “Shock and Awe.” What we saw over Baghdad in 2003 was far from what the inventors of that phrase envisioned. What happened in 2003 was a limited air campaign designed to minimize casualties in the part of the enemy. What is needed in 2006 is an all-out air campaign designed to utterly devastate Iranian military and industrial capacity.
As well, I think that we need to strongly consider the use of nuclear arms against Iranian targets. A lot of these facilities are certain to be deeply buried and heavily defended. They need to be totally destroyed as quickly as possible. In order to make that happen, there’s only one option: ground-penetrating free fall nuclear bombs.
Of course, once the decision to use nuclear weapons in any capacity has been taken, there’s no real reason to limit their use. One nuclear attack and fifty are going to have pretty much the same effect in American and global public opinion (so long, of course, as we don’t blow up Tehran or a major city). If we’re going to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian underground nuclear research and development sites, they might as well be used to destroy Iranian missile bases, airfields, and other vulnerable installations set out in the open. It would probably also be safer to use them against chemical and biological research facilities. Depending upon the shape of the events that followed, it might also be worth using them against Iranians ground forces in the field, assuming that they’re clear of densely populated areas.
Such an attack would have to be larger in scale that the 1981 operation by Israel against Iraq not only on account of the size and sophistication of Iran’s program, but also because of the obvious need to neutralize the major economic threat posed by Iran – their ability to disrupt shipping in the Persian Gulf. It would make sense if, at the same time as the air attack is launched, the US Navy destroyed every single ship in Iran’s Navy along with Iran’s coastal missile batteries and paramilitary forces capable of operating on the water.
The ability is there – hard though it might be. What seems to be lacking is the will.
For some reason I recall the words a great man who once said that the supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. There is no question that an Iranian nuclear bomb would be a wicked thing – the only question is the scale of the evil that would be wrought by it. If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, millions of people will die: our people. Innocent Israelis, Americans, or Europeans will die under a nuclear bomb if we let Iran have one.
Perhaps this day will condemn President Bush if he strikes – especially with atomic arms. But history is not made by the weak-hearted. The future is secured by the action of the bold. I do not wish for history to record that we are the generation who stood by as the Iran acquired nuclear weapons and made its President’s wish for a second Holocaust a reality.