Douglas Hill

The Bill of Federalism

2009-04-28T12:28:00.003-04:00

This is about asserting states' rights and reining in centralized government.

Here http://federalismamendment.com/

Does Truth Exist?

2008-12-16T12:42:00.005-05:00

Can we ever really know Truth? Does such a thing exist? Can we know anything?

The famous 17th Century French mathematician and philosopher, René Descartes, attempting to answer such questions, posited for the immutable foundation from which he was to construct his philosophy, the premise: Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. That was to be the incontrovertible certainty forming the starting point of his contemplation. (Even that premise, however, has been challenged.)

What, if anything, of practical value, can be said of the notion of Truth, and our ability to know it?

Our awareness of external objects is made possible by, while simultaneously limited by, our “channels of awareness,” i.e., our senses of sight, sound, touch, smell, and perhaps intellect, although that may merely be a projection of an internal construction (a discussion for another time.) Those are the mechanisms by which we apprehend and form our understanding of an external object. Of the many potential facets inhering in the existence of the object of our perception, we are limited to apprehending only those characteristics that appear to our senses – our channels of awareness. There may well be many other facets or dimensions of the object that escape our observation because we do not have the means (additional channels of awareness) by which to apprehend those dimensions of the object. (It is interesting to note that in the evolution from simple to increasingly complex life forms, additional channels of awareness are introduced as that evolution progresses.)

By the limitations of our perception, perspective is introduced.

A perspective necessarily represents a limited view, rather than a complete view. By analogy, consider a circle of artists drawing an asymmetrical object positioned in the center of their circle. Each, looking at the same object, will draw something different. They will see the object differently, depending upon their vantage point – their perspective. What each artist draws will be true, but only a partial truth, not the whole Truth.

Thinking back to Descartes’ Cogito, an interesting logic arises if one posits instead: I am in pain therefore I am. While the pain is a priori to the rational conclusion, the pain proves nothing – it is merely conscious awareness of pain. Proof is a rational concept, not an existential one; therefore, Descartes was correct in that the first possible, or fundamental, "proof" of ones own existence grows out of the conscious rationalization of the rational existence – the rational consciousness reasons its own existence. Moreover, the concept of "I", as a discrete, bounded subject reveals itself to be a rational construct, and not a predicate of consciousness. Pain, without a rational construct to interpret it, reveals itself to consciousness merely as an awareness that there is pain [pain is] [pain exists]; as opposed to "I" am in pain.

Consciousness conceives of itself as "I" when it is rational consciousness. Further, if pain is experienced consciously only, without a rational self identity, then it is presumably without notions of horror or dread that overlay pain in a rational consciousness that is aware of its discrete contingency. For consciousness without reason there is brightness [the sun], there is wetness [rain], there is pain – as in an extended field of Being in the Heideggerian sense. But even here, in referring to brightness, wetness and pain, we rely on rational concepts. But consciousness precedes and surrounds reason, like Being, and therefore, lying outside of and beyond reason, frustrates rational conception. We cannot wrap our mind around it. And yet, as reason operates within consciousness, consciousness is partially revealed to us. Consciousness is revealed to reason as the total and immediate, indiscriminate awareness of all Being that is present to it. It does not qualify, value or judge. It is as transparent as sight. It illuminates only. There is. And that "is" presents itself to consciousness to the extent that the discrete consciousness is able to apprehend what is present before it through the channels of awareness available to it, i.e. sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, reason.

Some would have us believe that Truth does not exist, that at best, it is a purely relative construct. I’m betting that Truth does exist, in its fullness and immutability, but that we, at this stage of evolution, are too limited in our ability to know it by virtue of our limited channels of awareness.

Yet it is in our constant striving to know Truth that we fulfill our destiny in the evolutionary progression of life -- a march toward Truth.

The Long march Through Our American Culture

2008-09-27T23:13:00.000-04:00

As the traditional Christian values that have formed the underpinning of this country since its founding, and which inform our founding proclamations of freedom, liberty and individual rights, are supplanted by the moral relativism of secular humanism and cultural Marxism that increasingly forms our culture, so are individual rights sacrificed to the collective. In a reversal of founding principles, the good of the state now supersedes the good of the individual. No more are the self-reliant, sturdy individualists that once peopled New England and America, replaced by a society of victims for whom there is a government program for everyone.

The denigration of Christian values and traditional American values by the new culture is not accidental.

In the 1920s two Marxist theorists separately concluded that for Marxism to be successful in the West, Christianity and its value system needed to be subverted.

“Antonio Gramsci of Italy suggested that the means to de-Christianize the West would be a “long march through the culture.” He reasoned that the new battleground must be the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science and history. He suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of criminals, women and racial minorities.

Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian Marxist thinker, reasoned that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. In 1919, as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary, he immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. They were fed a steady diet of values-neutral, radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority. .” (Linda Kimball, “Cultural Marxism”)

It is no coincidence that this same philosophy was propagated by Marxist activists within the university/college system to foment the counter-culture of the 1960s, many of whom were radicalized into a cultural Marxist belief system by default. Self-indulgent and pampered by the Greatest Generation who had fought with pride and courage in theaters in Europe and Asia to preserve the American way of life, the counter-culture’s response to the call of their country was, “Hell no, we won’t go.” The sloganeering “reject authority,” “free love,” etc. was right out of Lukacs’ play book, fed and fomented by Marxist activists, who supplied the ideological rationalization for those turning their backs on their duty and their country: the moral relativism of secular humanism and cultural Marxism. The new ideology of anti-Americanism and deconstruction of American values not only provided its incipient adherents with a face-saving justification for their self-indulgent behavior, it conferred upon them their own sense of moral superiority.

The peace movement was less a moral repudiation of the war than it was a repudiation of personal risk. It was the prospect of personally being placed in harm’s way that set afire the ire of the protesters – the disagreeable call to duty, and all that implied. The majority of students – kids, really – became caught up in the excitement of the cause celebre. Political discussion then, as it continues to be now, was formulated on the basis of personal interest. The vast majority of students did not come to independent judgments on the issues of the Vietnam war (other than for a personal preference not to go) – they chanted slogans, wore peace signs, did some drugs, got laid, missed some classes and generally enjoyed themselves in their role. The cause made many otherwise undistinguished adolescents feel important, while having a good time. The formerly unpopular were suddenly accepted, and reinforced in their defiance by their peers. They parroted the word as it was handed down by the fomenters of the movement. Their vacuity became a purposeful repository for the cultural Marxism of the anti-American, radical left, which infests American culture to this day.

The new creed was forced upon colleges and universities by riot and demonstration until the cultural revolution took root in a brow-beaten academia.

In the space of less than a decade the cultural revolution transformed a 1950s Ozzie and Harriet culture of traditional American values into Woodstock, where sex, drugs and anything goes was the mantra of the new values-neutral ideology.

The Marxist counter-culture of the 1960s percolated through academia, indoctrinating succeeding generations of students and spilling into classrooms across America, where histories continue to be revised, and where intellectual diversity and integrity are no longer tolerated, as strict rules controlling thought, speech and behavior, in the form of Political Correctness, permeate academia, government and public institutions. The similarities to the Chinese cultural revolution are striking.

“Political Correctness is a Machiavellian psychological “command and control” device designed to impose uniformity in thought, speech and behavior; as is Critical Theory another psychological “command and control” device for deconstruction, utilized in an ongoing and brutal assault of vicious criticism relentlessly leveled against Christians, Christmas, the Boy Scouts, Ten Commandments, our military, and all other aspects of traditional American culture and society. These ideological strategies were developed at the Frankfurt School, a Marxist think-tank in Weimar Germany, by Marxist thinker Theodor Adorno in 1950, and are collectively referred to as his theory of the “authoritarian personality.’” (Linda Kimball, “Cultural Marxism”)

The implication of the aphorism, “You can’t legislate morality” is seemingly lost on those who choose to denigrate and reject our traditional Christian belief system and traditional American values in favor of a values-neutral secular structure of laws sans beliefs. It is precisely the absence of a core value system that results inevitably in the continuing dummying down of social mores to its ultimate reduction to moral anarchy and nihilism.

Gramsci’s long march through our culture has found its fulfillment in our fair city as we direct our minor-aged children to the school’s clinic for fistfuls of contraceptives, a clean change of panties, and send them off with a little pat on the butt.

My country exists increasingly in memory only as yet another spike is hammered into the coffin of America.

2008-09-04T11:20:00.000-04:00

Aging Gracelessly

2008-05-17T14:08:00.001-04:00

This year I became a sexagenarian, which is not nearly as exotic as that might sound to some. In fact, to my mind, the word is the very definition of irony; the coincidence of ancient Latin and the modern idiom to produce what is effectively a one-word oxymoron.

I am not happy about it. According to my wife, I’ve been in a foul mood for the entire decade leading up to it. (I wasn’t too happy about 50 either, or now that I think of it, about 40.)

There are those who age gracefully. I am not one of them. Worse, I look the part, which is to say my persona screams, “past fresh date.” It does not help that I have white hair, which I have had for as long as I can remember – increasingly, a shrinking duration of time. I have taken to carrying a small notebook around in my pocket, for reasons I can’t recall.

I have even noticed that more people smile at me on the street, now that I am a non-threatening old guy. Behind the smile they are thinking, “Thank God I’m not that old.”

I have looked old since childhood. When I was in kindergarten my teacher would raise her hand to speak to me; and on the occasion of my first communion a parishioner asked me for my blessing.

It’s just that I have never actually been old.

Of course, I won’t technically be a senior citizen for another five years. Small consolation.

You’d think I’d be used to it. I have been passing for a senior with young people for decades, thanks to my premature gray-turned-white hair. Kids selling pizzas or movie tickets have been giving me senior discounts since my late 30s. To them anyone over 30 is old anyway; in my case, my hair cinched the “really old” deal. My wife always exhorted me to give the difference back, but my position was that the lie was theirs, not mine, and that it was small enough compensation for the insult.

I have passed for a senior with older people too. I got married at age 35, and when my wife and I were looking at houses, after asking my wife what she thought of a particular house we were viewing, the agent turned to me and asked, “And what does your father think of it?” Now, my wife was no child bride, being two years younger than I.

When my mother was being treated at Massachusetts General Hospital a decade or so ago, my father and I met with the managing physician. He was introduced to us as the Chief of Oncology, but I could swear I recognized him as one of the snot-nosed little [expletive] that had sold me a discounted movie ticket some years ago. My suspicion was not diminished when he asked which of us was the husband, and which the son.

More recently, as I was about to pull open a door to enter a store, a gentleman who was clearly 10 to 15 years my senior, bounded in front of me, pulled the door open, and said, “There you go, young fella.”

But I do not obsess about my advancing age, notwithstanding that each day I must grapple with the truth that I am one day older.

My old friend Bob Sweeney passed away this past year at age 100. Bob never gave in to age. He was my idol. From time to time we would lunch on the deck at the yacht club, and Bob would enthrall me with tales from the past, and of waterfront characters he had known. I never felt especially old around Bob – more like a peer.

I am patiently waiting for re-runs of the BBC productions, “One Foot in the Grave,” and “Waiting for God” on PBS, but clearly, I’m not getting any younger.

I have found some small solace in political correctness. While it is more convenient for me to buy my cigars at the liquor store here in Lanesville, I sometimes nonetheless drive down to Shaw’s to get them – they always card me to make sure I’m over 18-years-of-age.

Now I have to start planning for the big 70, which is only ten years away, so don’t expect me to be in a good mood any time soon.

The Election Cycle Circus

2008-05-17T13:50:00.003-04:00

The myth of the election cycle circus is that we get to choose a president, senator or congressman with our vote. That is simply not true. The Washington power brokers – Party Democrats and Party Republicans – offer to us as candidates selections from within their own ranks, controlled by the vested power interests, for us to choose from. We must choose a Party man – a Democrat or a Republican – and it is precisely that control over the selection pool that perpetuates the power of the vested interests. The parties groom professional politicians – men whose political ambition drives them to go along to get along as they ascend the ladder of political power. Their allegiance lies with the party bosses who can make or break their careers and to the perpetuation of the party’s power, which informs the strategy of their progress and future – not with the voting electorate.

It pays.

Al Gore reportedly declared assets of less than $2 million prior to his run for the presidency; I read that recently he invested $35 million dollars in an investment firm that specializes in investing in makers of environmentally friendly products. He is reputed to have made more than $100 million since his defeat in that presidential bid – that’s a lot of green, even for an environmentalist. Global warming has been good to Al. He would no doubt like to see his investments flourish. The Financial Times just reported that the Climate Solutions Fund, the investment vehicle headed by Al Gore, has closed a new $683 million fund which invests in early-stage environmental companies. It is one of the biggest such funds.

The Clintons reported earnings of $109 million since Bill left office, after reporting assets of only $2 million in 2003. That’s an amazing amount of change to have amassed in the span of a few years. Politics pays.

The Obamas, who suffered the burden of college loans incurred for educations at Princeton, Columbia and Harvard law school struggled mightily, in near deprivation we are told by the underprivileged Michelle, until Barack made his first couple of million. But they are just getting started, and may be excused for not being filthy rich – yet. They made $4.2 million last year. It will take a few more Rezko deals before they achieve financial parity with their peers – fortunes that would make even the most depraved corporate CEO blush. Men of the people – all.

Washington is Hollywood on steroids.

The vested interests include not only the deal-making politicians, but the money men and power bosses as well. Many gulp without reserve at the well of our tax dollars. Special interest lobbyists spend lavishly with the expectation of far greater returns. A support cast of pollsters, publicists, consultants, lawyers, media, hair stylists and hookers make more in an hour than most of us make in a week.

The party rolls on.

And it’s only getting worse with each election. As the exercise of political authority over our community becomes increasingly remote – state and federal – our unique circumstances and our unique problems do not factor into the exigencies of the deal-makers of that increasingly centralized authority. We are being mandated, regulated and managed from afar, by people who do not even know the name of our city, while we beg for relief from their bureaucratic bludgeoning.

The constituency is reluctantly remembered in election years, when a bone is tossed to the electorate to “purchase” their friendship and support. The politician tosses back a small fraction of what the government has taken with an earmark, with the expectation of fawning gratitude. Chump change. Crumbs.

We wonder at our frustration when with each successive election we perpetuate the myth with our vote, with the same result, and yet somehow expect that things will be different this time. Someone once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over, with the same result, but each time expecting a different outcome.

People say they want change, yet continue to do the same thing, without changing their own actions, and wonder why nothing has changed. And yet, there is an easy way to end this political madness that is only worsening with each election.

Real change in the politics of this country can only be achieved by removing the mantle of power from the power brokers who now control, groom and manipulate the selection-pool of political candidates, and by reversing the long-standing trend of the transfer of governance from the local community, where it is most effectively and fairly applied, to increasingly remote and centralized authority, where it is least effectively and most unjustly applied.

This is easily accomplished, and will not require that we form up on Lexington Green.

Our enemy is the political party system – both Democrat and Republican – which grooms and nurtures professional politicians in a system of rewards and punishments designed to consolidate and perpetuate power and wealth – the political machine.

Our elected professional politicians do not engage in reasoned dialectic to arrive at a consensus of what is best for us; they do not vote their minds and their conscience. They posture and make grave speeches to an empty assembly for the benefit of the Congressional Record. The party whips do their job, and votes are cast along party lines. Any politician who does not toe the party line will suffer the sanctions of the party bosses, and more. The struggle is one of power, not of enlightenment.

The professional politician is a pretender whose currency is a favor. His position on any matter changes with the audience whom he is addressing at the time. A politician’s vote is predicated on his party affiliation, not on his conscience. He knows what he must do to survive in party politics – as some ladies have known from time immemorial.

Contrast that with what might be.

Consider a congress of unaffiliated individual representatives – each limited to a single term of office.

By that single move, entrenched power in Washington would be eradicated.

Without re-election looming, the elected representative would not be beholden to special interest groups for donations to a re-election campaign, would not be beholden to any party boss for favors, would not need to waste his time, better spent on the people’s business, lying to crowds in a re-election bid, and would be free to do the business of the people honestly without fear or pressure.

Without professional politicians, people of the community, of diverse backgrounds and experiences – teachers, tradesmen, businessmen – would bring real-world experience to the table as representatives of their communities, and would have a genuine interest in solving the problems of the community, through honest political discourse, rather than the politics of party-line votes and gridlock in an endless struggle for power and supremacy over the other.

With that, the whole incestuous circus that is Washington would be utterly drained of its current power. The right of governance would of necessity flow back to the people and the community in more appropriate balance.

This scenario is neither radical nor a pipe dream. It is easily done – with the political will of the electorate. For now, we still have the ultimate authority with our vote, even if as an electorate we are fragmented and unorganized.

Political parties are even less necessary than desirable. Communities could put forward candidates for office through caucuses or town meetings. Surely once every four or six years an individual of reasonable intelligence and good character could be persuaded to serve a term of office. Public television could be employed as a forum for candidates to give an account of their thinking on various issues, and the voters make their selection, possibly through a regional primary, followed by a general election.

As a first step, we certainly have the power to limit a politician to a single term of office only – and that doesn’t even require a constitutional amendment; simply vote every incumbent out of office, every time. No exceptions.

That’s not only real change; it’s a change for the better.

Government is too much with us

2008-01-17T22:29:00.000-05:00

Thomas Paine argued that “Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

For Thomas Jefferson, all compromises with political power were pacts with the devil. All efforts at political consolidation were treasonable acts.

Unlike that of our forefathers, our society has failed to recognize the enveloping tyranny, or to thwart its insidious assault on our liberty and freedoms; it does not notice that the government that is tasked with preserving our liberty and freedoms is usurping both.

The government tells us when and where we can smoke; it grants us the “privilege” of operating a motor vehicle, subject of course to licensing fees, the requirement to wear seat belts, to transport children in a government-specified manner, to use only a government-specified formula of fuel, which it taxes heavily, and charges us for the aforesaid “privilege” with registration fees and excise taxes. The government takes (this is not a voluntary contribution) ever larger portions of our earnings to dispose of as it sees fit. We, as individuals, have no say in how our money, the fruit of our labor, is spent by government. We have moved far from our guaranteed compact of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just as we have from the right to bear arms, to being subjects of privileges conferred by the State, at the pleasure of the State. Government intrudes into our lives almost imperceptibly, encroaching upon our personal liberty and freedom at an ever increasing rate. Power of one man over another is that insatiable.

Today, eminent scientists are denied the right to espouse theories relating to global warming contradictory to the party line. Rational debate is closed. Hysteria prevails. A scientist that has the temerity to suggest that global warming is a function of solar activity, rather than man-made emissions, is threatened with losing his position, promotions, grants, and is ostracized and ridiculed by those unwilling to tolerate discussion. One Weather Channel zealot made the news by suggesting that any scientist taking a position opposing the theory of global warming resulting from man-made emissions should “be stripped of his credentials,” and, presumably, cast out of polite society. All of our freedoms, not the least, the freedom of speech, are under heavy assault. We are already that intimidated by government that no one dares cry foul. Yet recently, four hundred eminent scientists from around the world did just that. They declared in unison their objection to the theory that man-made emissions are responsible for global warming, asserting that solar activity, beyond our control, is the source of global warming, and that man-made emissions do not factor in any significant way into the matter. It is said that numerous other scientists share that opinion, but dare not admit to their opinions for fear of reprisals. Welcome to the Dark Ages. The world is flat – praise be to Political Correctness!

Political Correctness is the religion of the day, and its airhead zealots are legion. Al Gore, fresh from inventing the internet, is the chief zealot-in-charge of the global warming mandate – believe or die. His hysterical rants of doom and the world’s impending end exemplify the Political Correctness movement, which favors the hysterical party line over rationalism. Rather than regulating industry out of business, legislating crippling emission controls and creating a vast boondoggle of carbon exchange scams, our collective effort might be better served by planning how to cope with global warming should solar activity result in such an eventuality.

The politically correct know what’s best for you and me, and are prepared to dictate the terms by which we are suffered to exist as subjects of the State. Political correctness informs the sensibilities of the government bureaucracy, which accounts for the acceleration of government’s dominion over our lives. The power of government is derived from us. The transfer of power from us to the ever-growing government has heretofore been gradual, by seemingly imperceptible or inconsequential increments. Gradually, and freely, we have ceded our precious freedoms to a government that was never intended to become the bloated, self-serving, dictatorial gargantuan that it is, and by which we are now, individually, cowed. Its appetite is insatiable; its assault, insidious and relentless.

Yet we continue to idly sleep, led like sheep, shorn of our capacity for individual thought, to our ultimate indenture to the State. As the spirit of individualism is sacrificed to the collective, our individual thought process is supplanted by imposition of the dictates of group thought, and we dare not suffer the sanctions of apostasy. We do not need to contemplate or solve our problems – the “answers” will be provided to us.

For now, the ascendancy of Political Correctness is sweet to its proponents and followers. It is a short-sighted victory. When the power of government discovers a new religion, as it inevitably will, those who strove to impose their agenda on others through increased government power will find something quite different imposed upon them. But they will no longer have the liberty or freedom to do anything about it.

Cultural Marxism

2007-02-15T13:38:00.000-05:00

This essay by Linda Kimball, published in American Thinker today, is truly a must read in understanding the cultural war in America today.

Why the world hates America

2007-02-14T12:41:00.000-05:00

I read with interest Janet Albrechtsen's article in the Australian concerning why Europeans, and others, vilify America.

My own observation is that such hate of America is of a philosophical, albeit visceral, origin. I conclude this based upon my experience in American society, and my observations of the huge divide in the American polity. Those on the left in this country, in every matter -- cultural, political or moral -- shed themselves of any American identity. They are embarrassed by such an identity, and shun it. Their fervor strikes me as almost cult-like in its intractable absoluteness and irrationality. It's as if this group has substituted its own inviolate creed of political correctness for the creed of Judeo-Christian morality, which it rejects and abhors, but with the passionate, blind faith of fundamentalism, which it ridicules. The irrationality exhibited is the ardent passion of faith -- without religion. It is Islamic jihad without Islam.

That liberalism-turned-political-correctness-irrational-passion is the new mantle of the left, which predominates in Europe, and which competes for ascendancy in America.

I suspect Europe hates America for the same reason half of America hates America -- traditional America is an infidel to the creed of leftist political correctness.

Sane Governance

2006-12-08T12:25:00.000-05:00

A Soldier's Response to Joel Stein

2006-01-25T11:19:00.000-05:00

The following is a response from American soldier LTC Steve Russell to Joel Stein's LA Times anti-war, anti-soldier column, Warriors and Wusses. HAT TIP is to John B. Dwyer of The American Thinker:

LTC Russell commanded Task Force 1/22nd Infantry in Iraq (bagged Saddam) and is currently Chief of Tactics at the Infantry School.

Here is what LTC Russell wrote:

Mr. Stein’s commentary on soldier support is remarkable because it reflects more than just his opinion. It may even express a viewpoint.

While most of Mr. Stein’s commentary is indicative of a man who has enjoyed our freedoms with none of the responsibility (by his own admission), he has at least one point of merit. He does not conceal his true conviction. When one considers those that say they support the troops but not the war, it is hard to distinguish which is more harmful to the soldier.

Mr. Stein alludes to this as trying to have it both ways and implies this is a moral cop out. He may be right. It can also be viewed as similar to telling the trash man, “Thanks.” It is seldom sincere. It is just so the trash will keep being taken away by someone willing to do it so one does not have to get his hands dirty.

Mr. Stein’s tragedy is not his clear conviction but rather that he steals freedom from his sacrificing countrymen. He sees no moral dilemma with that—which is indicative of an attitude prevalent among some self-proclaimed, high-browed, educated types that believe there is somehow a moral superiority in non-involvement. To defend his position, Mr. Stein is critical of what he calls ‘American imperialism.’ To borrow what he surely intended as a denigrating analogy, we can indeed see parallels in attitude if not government and conquest.

Rome had its internal critics. So did Greece. But when the vast majority of Romans began to view the finer points of life as morally superior to the lower points of necessity, Roman youth lost their appreciation for what held Rome together in the first place. Soon, hired or conquered levies replaced Romans in the ranks. Why should Romans fight wars that they could not see any reason for fighting? After all, what impact did they have in Rome?

Eventually, the theory of a moral superiority in non-involvement met the cold steel of non-theoretically superior sword thrusts from Vandals and Huns that replaced Romans in the Roman empire.

I take exception to Mr. Stein’s comment about soldiers ignoring their morality. And as a soldier that has served in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, none of those experiences ever made me feel ‘lucky.’ The noble ‘wars’ and ‘fights’ are seldom noble for the soldier. They involve pain and human suffering on a grand scale. Mr. Stein I am quite certain has never killed a man and is proud of that. I have had to kill several men in desperate, close combat while I watched my opponents facial expressions change as life ebbed out of them. I am quite certain that I am not proud of that.

But what separates him from me is certainly not education. Nor is it conviction of purpose. It is indeed morality. But of a nobler kind. No greater love has a man, than he lay down his life for his friends—even when they act and write unfriendly.

As an American, I no longer draw a distinction of who qualifies to be one or is best suited to appreciate democracy. After serving nine years overseas and on multiple continents, I do not see white or black or Hispanic or Indian or oriental or educated or simple-minded Americans. I only see Americans. Even the unfriendly kind. And when I am old, I will be able to look in the mirror and know that I acted on my convictions to preserve what others will not. Cannot. Do not. And what I will see is a man with a clear conscience and a moral sense of purpose.

I am thankful I do not have to look into Mr. Stein’s mirror.

LTC Steve Russell

Force Multipliers

2006-01-05T17:26:00.000-05:00

Force Multipliers

Wikipedia: force multiplier-a military term referring to a factor that dramatically increases (hence multiplies) the combat-effectiveness of a given military force.

In Iraq an IED explodes,
An American soldier dies,
But that blast will grow as the media blow
It up before our eyes.
And trumpet to the watching world,
These fifth column falsifiers,
Like sheep they bleat we face defeat,
Our foe’s force multipliers.

Osama and his minions know,
In combat they can’t beat us;
So they hope and pray will come a day,
Our own media will defeat us.
Ignoring all the good we’ve done,
Liberals focus on the gore,
On losses mounting and body counting,
To prove we’ve lost this war.

They disgraced us once in Vietnam,
So now these leftists feel,
That again they’ll win with media spin,
And make America kneel.
But defeatists aren’t the only ones,
Learned lessons from the past;
Back then we swore we’d lose no more,
This time we’re standing fast.

The Internet’s exposed them,
As elitist media liars;
They stand unclothed and widely loathed,
Our foe’s force multipliers.
Some day when all our troops return,
With Iraq on freedom’s path,
The liberal elite who sought defeat,
May face some Righteous wrath.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

Middle Earth

2005-11-14T17:00:00.000-05:00

Entish

To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?

Born November 10, 1775

2005-11-10T11:32:00.000-05:00

United States Marine Corps

230 years of vigilance, sacrifice and honor.

Happy birthday. Semper Fi

Judge Alito Poll

2005-10-31T19:05:00.000-05:00

Vote here on whether or not you approve of President Bush's nomination of Sam Alito to SCOTUS.

Proselytizing Zealots

2005-10-25T12:29:00.000-04:00

I am put off by zealots of every stripe, from fanatical Islamists to fanatical Christians to fanatical secularists. I don't object to an individual being guided by his faith. In fact, I expect that it is important for every individual to find some sense of sanctity in life. I just don't want that individual to insist that I too be guided by his faith. The Golden Rule should be changed from, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," to, "Neither impose, nor be imposed upon." Proselytizing, whether in the form of a fundamentalist knocking at my door to introduce me to Christ, an Islamic jihadist waging war to make his faith ascendant, or politically correct thought police telling me what I can or cannot think, say or do, are merely manifestations of the same underlying zealotry. Enjoy your life and your faith. Leave me alone.

Katrina vs. Self Reliance

2005-10-07T16:09:00.000-04:00

Hurricane Katrina brought into sharp relief a far more devastating problem befalling many of the hurricane victims than mere flood waters.

Thousands of people remained in harms way during the approach of Katrina. I read that they were too poor to leave on their own – that they had no way to leave the city without governmental assistance – at whatever level. Think about that for a moment. They were so impoverished, so utterly dependent upon government in every aspect of their lives, that they could not even walk out the front door of their homes and leave the city without government assistance. They were too poor to take a bus. Too poor to leave with a neighbor, friend or relative. Too poor to even walk out of the city. Was their inertia grounded in pecuniary impoverishment, or was it an impoverishment of will?

Sadly, many of the victims of hurricane Katrina were victims long before the hurricane struck.

In place of the individualism and self reliance of our American forefathers, a paralysis of action and inertia were all that could be mustered by many of those confronting Katrina. Unable to take any action on their own behalf, they waited in desperation for the government to move them. I suppose that when one’s life revolves around government assistance, any independent, self-generated action is just not conceivable.

Of course, New Orleans and the hurricane victims are not alone in this.

Emerson and Thoreau, the intellectual apologists of the American spirit of self reliance and individualism, would not now recognize Massachusetts or the adjoining New England states, once renowned for rugged self reliance. In fact, their writings are so antithetical to the current politically correct, socialist curriculum of academia, that I doubt that these gentlemen of Concord are ever included on a reading list, notwithstanding their stature as American thinkers.

It is so across the country. The bloated and burgeoning bureaucracy is ever pandering to the citizenry, bartering promises of silver for freedom. The encroachment is upward, from the poorest to the middle class. The grip of government dependence increases even as the bureaucratic stranglehold squeezes the manhood out of the man.

If we learn anything from Katrina, it should be the profound emasculation of will and spirit brought about by abject reliance upon government, as opposed to reliance upon oneself.

In the formative years of this country people relied upon themselves, their families and their neighbors. Government rarely, if ever, intruded into their lives. Communities of self reliant people gave support to one another. Where were the families and neighbors of those too poor to leave New Orleans? Perhaps when people rely upon the government, rather than themselves, their families and neighbors, the sense of community imbued by reliance upon one another, vanishes. In place of community, all worship at the altar of government.

We are increasingly a society of entitlements and benefits. The power of government over us, at every level, increases daily -- an insidious, relentless erosion of our liberty. Proscriptions and regulations intrude even into private aspects of our lives. And yet our response is acquiescence and inertia. We will awake one morning to total government control over our lives, and wonder how such a thing could have happened. We will then be as totally reliant upon an all-powerful government as the Katrina victims were before that storm ever developed.

Flight 93 Memorial

2005-09-14T11:57:00.000-04:00

September 14, 2005

Secretary Gale Norton
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Secretary Norton,

Please add my name to the list of those who strongly object to the proposed Crescent of Embrace memorial in commemoration of Flight 93.

Surely the object of the memorial is not to honor the hijackers, which such a memorial as is proposed implies. If so, Embrace of Hatred and Death would be a more appropriate name for the memorial. If, on the other hand, the memorial is intended to honor the citizen soldiers who engaged the enemy terrorists, thwarting their heinous plan, at the cost of their own lives, then surely a more appropriate memorial depicting the "can do," "Let’s Roll" spirit is the obvious choice of theme. In fact, it is impossible to believe that the "Let’s Roll" call to battle is not the central theme of the memorial. That cry of engagement is right up there in American battle lore with "I have not yet begun to fight," "Remember the Alamo," and other famous battle cries.

Do not allow the valor and patriotism of the citizen soldiers of Flight 93 to be hijacked too.

Very truly yours,

Douglas J. Hill

Vietnam was not a military defeat

2005-08-24T11:47:00.000-04:00

Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly authored commentary which appeared in the August 24th edition of the Los Angeles Times in which he stated that Vietnam was "the nation's first-ever military defeat."

Vietnam may represent this nation's first defeat, but it most certainly was not a military defeat. It was a political defeat. The United States military never lost a battle in Vietnam. We were defeated by ourselves, here in the United States, much in the same way that many in this country now seek to bring defeat to America in Iraq.

Liberal Blog Redundancy

2005-08-11T17:53:00.000-04:00

Blogs appeared on the scene as an alternative to the main stream media, which appeared to many to filter and slant news to the purpose, less of disseminating factual information, than promoting a liberal agenda. Fed up with the propaganda of the main stream media, many turned to talk radio and the blogosphere to express their frustration and obtain a view of events free of the agenda-driven bias of the liberal press. These "Notes from Underground" were the nascent efforts of a literate, savvy segment of the population determined to disseminate the truth of matters which the main stream media ignored, covered up or outright lied about in the interest of supporting a liberal agenda. The blogosphere was born as a spontaneous, grassroots rebellion against the suffocating political correctness and tired, impotent liberalism of the main stream media.

The very notion of a liberal blog is redundant. That perspective is already amply covered by the main stream press -- which is also why Rush Limbaugh has 20 million listeners while Air America is a dismal failure, reduced to appropriating funds from the needy children and alzheimers victims of New York to fund its operations costs. Liberal views and distortions are not an alternative to the main stream press, merely a reiteration.

Little League World Series

2005-08-05T15:26:00.000-04:00

My nephew, Dylan Hill, is playing for the L. A. Dodgers Little League team in the World Series tonight under the lights. He is a rookie right fielder, pinch runner and slugger. He looks like a miniature Dennis Eckersley and plays like Johnny Damon. Big night.

Message Testing

2005-02-08T11:36:00.000-05:00

Terry McAuliffe, the outgoing DNC chair, contends that for the Democrats to be successful in 2008, they need to begin message testing in all 50 states now. Nothing epitomizes more the fundamental difference between Republicans and contemporary Democrats than that simple outlook. Devoid of a vision, McAuliffe chases after a slogan - any slogan, as long as it demonstrates some modicum of efficacy. McAuliffe's goal is an election victory. George Bush's goal is to transform the lives of Americans and the people of other countries for the better. McAuliffe's interst is the Democratic party. George Bush's interest is America.

Check out

2005-02-07T15:00:00.000-05:00

The irritation in the checkout line begins as I gaze upon the sign in the express lane which proclaims, “12 items or less,” which, of course, should read, “12 items or fewer.” It is a trivial matter, I agree, but grating nonetheless.

Grown men and women, each presumably, at a minimum, with a grammar school level education or higher, and who therefore should know better, view the sign regularly, but leave it uncorrected.

When Cape Ann Markets owned the store the sign was hand written, and one supposes, therefore, that the error was merely an oversight (notwithstanding the fact that it remained uncorrected,) but now that Star Market has acquired the store, and accomplished a truly commendable expansion and renovation, the error has not only been perpetuated, but formalized, with the creation of a plastic, fabricated sign. Alas, the improvement proved superficial, rather than fundamental.

These matters I reflected upon with the time afforded by the woman in line in front of me engaged in the purchase of a single item – by check. The proud new owner of the $1.89 acquisition was busily engaged in preparing the necessary paperwork and documentation to complete the financial transaction.

With the preceding business accomplished, my turn came, and it fell upon me to answer the age-old question: “paper or plastic?” The question is a mere query concerning bagging preference – ostensibly. Now, I don’t know about you, but if you ask me, it is a thinly veiled quiz of one’s environmental consciousness (which in me has yet to have been seriously awakened.) So I grappled for the correct answer. While the cashier patiently awaited my reply, I reasoned to myself that paper comes from trees . . . which must be cut down to manufacture the paper . . . but the trees are renewable . . . and paper is biodegradable . . . plastic is not. The cashier was becoming openly impatient, and the guy in line behind me was fidgeting too. I chose paper. The cashier was transparently disappointed. Damn, I got it wrong. But I hate those plastic bags. The baggers put only one or two items in each plastic bag. If you buy 30 items, you leave with 30 bags. I like to have everything tossed into one or two paper bags. It’s a lot easier. I think that the store would rather give me plastic.

As I leave, I fantasize of an irritation-free check out, but a distant rumble within echoes the belly laugh of my muse, ever mocking and taunting, as the following fable surfaces to consciousness with the inevitable truth:

And then one day in the deepest reaches of hell, among the fire and brimstone, there appeared a miracle. For there a tiny crystal appeared. Then another. And then another. And when the damned approached and examined these crystals a cosmic memory was awakened in each of them. For this was the stuff of sno-cones and gin and tonics and Cape Ann winters. This was ICE. And the crystals continued to grow and grow until the fires were out and the sulfuric smell was replaced by the clean, sharp smell of a North Atlantic winter’s eve. For the first time since the Prince of Darkness had been expelled from heaven, hell had frozen over.

And on the very next day Star Market allocated check out lane #2 to my exclusive use, stocking it only with paper bags.

Dump man

2005-01-31T22:53:00.000-05:00

I am having a quiet quarrel with the dump man.

At least I think I am. Our paths do not cross – I am at the office by the time he comes by the house – so the quarrel is still only a theory. I am not yet able to verify that we are having a disagreement. The conflict may be in my mind only – our clash of wills merely a wistful imagining, our fight, the sound of one hand clapping.

However, the circumstantial evidence points to a conflict . . . and that does not bode well. This, after all, is a man with whom I have basic dealings on a weekly basis – more frequently than with my accountant, my lawyer, and yes, mea culpa, my priest. Other than for my wife, only Roger, who brings the mail around every day, do I rely upon more than the dump man.

The source of concern is three bags of Christmas greens that have remained uncollected week after week for the past month or more. I have tried leaving the bags out by themselves, in combination with other bags of dump, and even with dollar bills pinned to the bags. Alas, to no avail. The bags have the requisite dump stickers, purchased for a dollar apiece, although the stickers are now looking a little weary. So far as I know the bags meet the other dumping requirements – less than 40 pounds per bag, etc. Each Thursday morning I drag them out to the curbside; each Thursday evening I drag them back.

By process of elimination, and deductive reasoning, the only conclusion I can reach is that the dump man imagines the greens to be yard waste, which, I believe, appears on the list of prohibited items that the dump will not accept. (Don’t ask me what one is supposed to do with such items – stack them in the back yard next to the old tires and other items the dump won’t accept, I guess.)

Is yard waste too risky to dispose of? By contaminating the land fill with decaying plant material might we risk turning some toxic waste sites into loam?

I recall this past winter watching truck after truck piling snow, removed from the roads, into huge mounds on Granite Pier in Rockport. I asked one of the drivers why they didn’t just dump the snow into the sea, rather than piling it up into mountainous mounds on the pier. I was told that it was prohibited to do so as the snow had road salt and sand mixed in with it. Apparently the state was concerned that dumping that melting snow, salt and sand into the sea might pollute the surrounding area. It is permitted to pump sewage and chemicals into the sea, but the state draws the line at polluting the local beaches with sand and salt water.

Pollution etiquette is an unfathomable mystery to me.

To return to my personal pollution . . . Now, even a cursory glance at my yard will reveal that there is no pine tree or conifer of any type on the premises, no hedge or bush or plant that could possibly produce the green Christmas pine items contained in the bags.

Moreover, it is unlikely that it would have escaped the dump man’s attention that for the entire Christmas season the house was festooned with Christmas greens, including pine roping along the entire length of the picket fence and around the front door, pine boughs spilling out of four window boxes in the front of the house, and four very large (home made) sprays hung from the front windows. I do not want to bore you with details; I merely wish to point out that it is very obvious where the greens came from, and that they were not yard waste.

At the time that we took the decorations down I called City Hall for disposal instructions, and was told that the Christmas tree should be brought to Poplar Street, but that the other Christmas greens would be picked up by the regular curbside service. My brother Mike was kind enough to take the tree to the designated location in his pick up truck; the other greens I put out at curbside, as instructed, but as you now know, to no effect.

Accordingly, I wrote a note to the Mayor requesting his advice and intercession. To his credit, he responded immediately by letter confirming that the Christmas greens should, indeed, be picked up at curbside. His letter said his staff had checked with the dump service and confirmed that such items were to be picked up – that there must have been some mistake. I was assured that there should be no further problem and that if I still had the bags (what did he think I would have done with them?), that I was to put them out, and they would be picked up. That was two weeks ago.

I am writing this column on a Thursday evening, having just finished dragging the bags back in from the curbside.

I don’t blame the dump man for my problem; rather, I have assumed a philosophical perspective. It is clear to me that the business of trash collection has not been immune to the increasing complexities of life that we experience all around us. It wasn’t that many years ago that trash collection was a decision-free, black and white matter – if there was dump left out, it was picked up (and, of course, the metal trash cans dented). Simple. Predictable.

It didn’t matter what you put out – leaves, old tires, or Jimmy Hoffa – if it was left at curbside, it was picked up and brought to the dump. The only exception I can think of was garbage; there was a garbage man for that. (I wonder why we refer to people by their occupations rather than by their names: dump man, garbage man, mailman, policeman, fireman . . . Nat Herreshoff, the yacht designer, is said to have addressed the numerous people working at his yacht yard by their particular specialty, due to his not being able to remember their names. We do, however, have the good taste to refrain from referring to the fellow who pumps the septic tank as the feces man (or worse).

Today the dump man is confronted with decisions and choices at every stop. Is this a prohibited material? Does the bag weigh too much? Are these those three bags of greens again? Next.

Now I understand why so many houses still have their hollyballs hanging – there is no way to get rid of them.

Metaphysical Meandering

2004-12-20T15:10:00.000-05:00

Descartes’ cogito ergo sum is irrefutable rational evidence of my own existence – a rational proof. An interesting logic arises if one posits instead: I am in pain therefore I am. While the pain is a priori to the rational conclusion, the pain proves nothing – it is merely conscious awareness of pain. Proof is a rational concept, not an existential one; therefore, Descartes was correct in that the first possible, or fundamental, proof of ones own existence grows out of the conscious rationalization of the rational existence – the rational consciousness reasons its own existence. Moreover, the concept of I, as a discrete, bounded subject reveals itself to be a rational construct, and not a predicate of consciousness. Pain, without a rational construct to interpret it, reveals itself to consciousness as awareness that there is pain [pain is] [pain exists]; as opposed to I am in pain. Animals, such as my noble dog, in their consciousness are seemingly confronted only with an awareness of pain, without comprehending that the pain is their discrete pain. Consciousness conceives of itself as I when it is rational consciousness. Further, if pain is experienced consciously only, without a rational self identity, then it is presumably without notions of horror or dread that overlay pain in a rational consciousness that is aware of its discrete contingency. For consciousness without reason there is brightness (the sun), there is wetness (rain), there is pain – an extended field of Being in the Heideggerian sense. But even here, in referring to brightness, wetness and pain, we rely on rational concepts. But consciousness precedes and surrounds reason, like Being, and therefore, lying outside of and beyond reason, frustrates rational conception. And yet, as reason operates within consciousness, consciousness is partially revealed to us. Consciousness is revealed to reason as the total and immediate, indiscriminate awareness of all being that is present to it. It does not qualify, value or judge. It is as transparent as sight. It illuminates only. There is. And that is presents itself to consciousness to the extent that the discrete consciousness is able to apprehend what is present before it through the channels of awareness available to it, i.e. sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, reason.

Keepers of the Hollyballs

2004-12-19T13:29:00.000-05:00

Christmas Hollyball

Sound the alarm. Am I too late? The hollyball season is upon us. And let’s face it, these pernicious decorations are among the most abused sights of all seasons.

How many of you have had the scents and sounds of a new spring day invaded by the sight of a brown, shriveled globe with frayed, faded ribbon, swaying lightly in a May breeze? Sometimes multiple such effronteries are suspended from a single porch – relics of Christmas past – long past.

Who are these people, these fanatical keepers of the hollyball?

They otherwise look like ordinary people, except perhaps in late November, when they can be seen lurking outside of the local florist shops, awaiting the first arrival of the infamous balls.

Many of you no doubt despair that there can be any relief from the unending displays of your neighbor. But I say, “nay, where there is a will, there is a way.” And it does not even take an Act of Congress – just an order from the City Council, or an executive order from the Mayor.

BE IT RESOLVED: Whereas the community at large is sick to death of the spring effrontery of hollyballs past their prime, so therefore, let there be enacted a deposit and return policy to control the delayed removal of said dead hollyballs; be it further resolved that hollyballs be sold only by licensed vendors trained in the evaluation of potential purchasers, and that they be armed with a list of repeat offenders; that no hollyball be sold prior to December 5th; that a $25 deposit be required upon purchase, to be fully refunded to the purchaser if returned to the place of purchase on or before January 5th, but that each day thereafter a $1-per-day penalty be assessed from the deposit for tardy returns. As a further inducement to civil obedience, be it enacted that hollyball disposal be exempted from the orange dump sticker obligation, if and only if, at the time of disposal said hollyball is green in color, and not brown – spray painting being a disqualification.

To digress slightly, one is constrained to wonder where those precious little rapscallions are who devote so much effort to instantly disposing of pumpkin displays. Are they too tired after the recent season of pumpkin pummeling to bash a few hollyballs? The parallels seem so obvious – spherical holiday season decorations displayed at the front of the house, outside, within easy reach . . . so why has the hollyball been spared – some form of unnatural selection?

Now I do not mean to incite vandalism, but consider if you will, vandals caught smashing pumpkins could be ordered by the court to a term of community service involving hollyball bashing. The timing works out perfectly; justice would be served – and swift and merciful for the community. I tell you, there is symmetry to it.

Now, I too have heard that old saw that these decrepit balls are winter havens for birds – to which I reply, that may have been so in days long past, when such balls were actually composed of intertwined holly branches, but let’s face it, today such a use would likely result in brain damage to the unwitting creatures as the collided with the Styrofoam® ball lurking just beneath the surface of the projecting holly twigs, in their unhappy attempt to descend into the bosom of that artificial nest.

I know, I know; others insist that they want to get their money’s worth. But why should that admirable spirit of parsimony be so narrowly focused, like a string of laser light, on this one modest purchase? To those I say, expand that frugal spirit to other objects of purchase! Dilute this myopic focus on the hollyball!

On the other hand, the revenues from the unclaimed deposits would probably be enough to fund the north Gloucester sewer project. Merry Christmas, everyone.

An e-mail Correspondence

2004-11-18T19:37:00.000-05:00

Attorney Walks on Water

What follows in an actual e-mail correspondence between two old friends entering their second childhood. Regrettably, I am one of the two. File this under humor (or pathos).

Hill,

Let this picture humble you.

—Pond Man

I suspect that's probably hot water you've gotten yourself into.

—Hill

Hill,

I thought you might like to know the truth of my heroic exploits this week. I have therefore attached the photo depicting what really happened this past Monday. You might still ask, however, how I got out to the rock, or was this all an illusion? Any thoughts Professor Hill?

—Pond Man

Pond Man,

Possible explanations for your dry arrival at the rock:

1) You rode out to the rock on the back of the whale that is blowing through his spout hole behind you.

2) Halo insertion from 40 thousand feet, with the evidence of your parachute buried beneath the surface of the pond.

3) Taxi cab.

4) God parted the waters of the pond, and falling into his trap, you walked out to the rock, where you remain, trapped, as the waters united. (It is an old trick to get rid of lawyers.)

5) Row boat that was scuttled once you made land (er, rock).

Do not despair, I have only just begun to examine this problem, and will inevitably get to the bottom of it.

—Hill

Nice try Hill, but no prize this time around. Perhaps you should float a few more theories. I'll give you some help.

Hint #1: I was an engineer in the military.

Hint #2: There was no boat, automobile, bicycle, or flying device of any kind to deliver me to the rock.

Hint #3: Although there was some ice on the perimeter of the pond, it was much too thin to walk on (I'm 220 pounds, solid muscle of course).

Hint #4: The water around the rock was about three feet deep, and I never got my feet wet.

Good Luck Hill. You'll need it!

—Pond Man

Pond Man,

I'm sure you don't imagine that I will fall for that "engineer" ploy. Clearly, there is no involvement of a choo choo train (notwithstanding your omission of same from hint #2), as there are no tracks, trellises, or bridgework.

You have gone to great pains to describe how little ice existed in the pond – possibly to deflect my attention from an ice floe that you floated out to the rock on, which then melted.

Then, of course, there is always the remote, unlikely possibility that you were "put in jail" to be ransomed out by donations to United Way. Probably went out there on a plank (that was subsequently removed by undergrads demanding money and better grades).

Am I getting warm?

—The Enlightened One

Hill, you should not refer to yourself as "Enlightened One," at least not for now. I knew when I referenced my engineering background that I should have added the following parenthetic phrase: (not the choo choo engineer, but the MIT-type engineer). However, when writing that last e-mail, I figured you were smart enough to recognize which type of engineer I was referencing. I apologize for giving you so much credit. I will be more specific in future correspondence.

Now, getting back to the important subject matter at hand; the distance between the shore (or "pond bank" if you will) and the rock is approximately 20 feet. Planks are only 16 feet in length (but how would you have known this, never having worked enough with wood to suffer even a splinter wound). More importantly, however, if there were a 20 foot plank, or even if you joined two planks together, my feet would have suffered water damage on my way out to the rock. A 20-foot plank would bend like hell in the middle; once again, I weigh in at 220 pounds, and as aforementioned, this is close to 220 pounds of solid, heavy muscle. As you can see, my engineering background has come in handy again in figuring the relationship between the bendability of wood and the stress that can affect it at a point in the middle of its length.

But good try.

—Pond Man (looking smarter by the moment)

Pond Man, M.E.B.S., MIT ('74)

Aahh, while it is true, grasshopper, that only a plank of immense strength would be able to support a weighty engineer, the engineering concept of tensile strength is introduced with the addition of an aluminum extension ladder for support. A veritable I-beam. Light enough to carry, yet strong enough to support. A tactical engineering triumph. On the other hand, were I you (which merciful God, I am not), I might think it easier to have one or two strong undergrads in wading boots carry me out to the rock (a third could bring some ice and scotch – just to stave off the chill, don't you know.)

—The Illustrious, Prescient, Enlightened One

OH "Enlightened One," the gig is up. You have solved the "Riddle of the Rock." Yes it is true. A 30-foot aluminum ladder was placed between the rock and the shore (pond bank, if you will). Two 10-foot boards were placed on the rungs so that I would not fall through the ladder as I made my journey to the rock. When I arrived on the rock, my assistant then removed the two boards, and then removed the ladder and hid it. After an hour on the rock, the ladder and boards were reinstalled to allow me safe passage to the place I had been before.

My reference to the fact that I had been an engineer in the military was an appropriate hint. I helped build portable bridges across ponds and streams in Vietnam. If there was a rock in the middle of a crossing, we would use it as a pillar to support our bridge. So I was right at home designing a portable instrumentality to span the distance from shore to the middle of a pond.

My biggest unknown, and my biggest fear, was the goose factor. Every day a huge gaggle of Canadian geese descend upon the pond and hang around the pond, and the rock, for a good part of the day. These geese are really big. I then learned that these geese tend to be territorial. I was therefore somewhat nervous about a possible siege while I was standing on "their" rock.

Anticipating a problem, I developed a two-pronged plan in the event of attack. The first prong of the plan involved a six-foot wooden closet pole that I brought out with me to the rock. I figured maybe I would intimidate the geese if I swung a club at them and made menacing faces. I was also prepared to whack any encroacher with my makeshift club. Prong two of my plan was a little more desperate. I brought a complete set of clothing with me in the event the club did not thwart off an attack and I had to evacuate the rock "in a hurry." With no time to reinstall the bridge system, I would have jumped in the water and run to shore as quickly as possible. I would have saved face by characterizing my flight not so much as a "retreat," but as a "strategic withdrawal." Once I had changed into dry clothing I would have returned to the pond where I would have set up a base camp along the side of the pond, holding my sign and waving to passersby.

Fortunately, I did not need to deploy either prong of my well designed plan. Only a handful of geese arrived at the pond during my visit to the rock. They stared at me from the shoreline as if saying to themselves, "What the Heck. . .? I was thankful, however, that reinforcements had not flown in. A mob-mentality might then have emerged, causing me to deploy my "untried" plan.

Once again, you are to be commended for solving the "Riddle of the Rock."

—Pond Man

日本語の話

2004-11-18T01:27:00.000-05:00

日本語を話せる人が日本語でここに書いて下さい。

Liberals Save Us From The Boy Scouts

2004-11-16T16:26:00.001-05:00

The Associated Press reports today that:

The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops, partially resolving claims that the government has engaged in religious discrimination by supporting a group that requires members to believe in God.

The settlement announced Monday is part of a series of legal challenges in recent years over how closely the government should be aligned with the Boy Scouts of America, a venerable organization that boasts a membership of more than 3.2 million members. Civil liberties advocates have set their sights on the organization's policies because the group bans openly gay scout leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU believes that direct government sponsorship of such a program amounts to discrimination.
"If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, the government should not be administering religious oaths or discriminating based on religious beliefs," said ACLU attorney Adam Schwartz.

Thank God (er, liberals?), for saving us all from the theocratic, homophobic Boy Scouts of America (shouldn't that be the People Scouts of the Global Community?) Yet another politically correct proscription limiting our individual expression and freedom -- by judicial imposition.

(In court, Mr. Schwartz put his hand on a photo of Dan Rather and said, "This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Dan.") Thus were all satisfied of the veracity of the testimony. The teary-eyed little fascist scouts were disbanded and dispersed. There was no one left to be offended by God.

Values-Based Democracy

2004-11-14T13:39:00.000-05:00

As a supplement to my recent post on Religious Morality vs. Secularism, I refer you to two pieces of commentary which contain a number of intersections of thought on this topic, and which enlarge upon the discussion of a values-based democracy, in contrast to secular democracy. In his post entitled, The Communism of the 21st Century, Wretchard of the Belmont Club considers the implications of an essay by Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, titled, Why We Need a Better Version of Democracy, which is reprinted here:

Why we need a better version of democracy

November 12, 2004

The emptiness within secular democracy can be filled with darkness by political substitutes for religion.

Does democracy really need a burgeoning porn industry and a high abortion rate, asks George Pell.

Democracy is never unqualified. We are used to speaking of "liberal democracy" which as currently understood is a synonym for "secular democracy". In Europe there are parties advocating "Christian Democracy". Lately there has been interest in the possibility of "Islamic democracy". These descriptors do not simply refer to how democracy might be constituted, but to the moral vision democracy is intended to serve.

This is especially true in the case of secular democracy, which some insist is intended to serve no moral vision at all. But as Pope John Paul argues: "The value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes." Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves.

An attempt is sometimes made to evade this point by drawing a distinction between procedural and normative democracy. Procedural democracy's claims are minimalist: democracy should be regarded as nothing more than a mechanism for regulating different interests on a purely empirical basis.

To speak of normative democracy, however, especially if one is a Catholic bishop, is to provoke panic in some quarters and derision in others. Many things underlie this response, not least certain ideological convictions about secularism. But most important of all is a failure of imagination. Democracy can only be what it is now: a constant series of "breakthroughs" against social taboo in pursuit of the individual's absolute autonomy.

But think for a moment what it means to say that there can be no other form of democracy than secular democracy. Does democracy need a burgeoning billion-dollar pornography industry to be truly democratic? Does it need an abortion rate in the tens of millions? Does it need high levels of marriage breakdown, with the growing rates of family dysfunction that come with them? Does democracy (as in Holland's case) need legalised euthanasia, extending to children under the age of 12? Does democracy need assisted reproductive technology (such as IVF) and embryonic stem cell research?

Does democracy really need these things? What would democracy look like if you took some of these things out of the picture? Would it cease to be democracy? Or would it actually become more democratic?

These are the things by which secular democracy defines itself and stakes its ground against other possibilities. They are not merely epiphenomena of freedom of speech, movement and opportunity. The alarm with which many treat people in public life who are opposed to these things often implies that they are a danger to democracy. This overreaction is, of course, a bluff, an attempt to silence opposition, almost suggesting that these practices are essential to democracy.

If we think about the answers to the questions above we begin to have an inkling about what a form of democracy other than secular democracy might look like, an alternative I call "democratic personalism". It means nothing more than democracy founded on the transcendent dignity of the human person.

Transcendence directs us to our dependence on others and our dependence on God. And dependence is how we know the reality of transcendence. There is nothing undemocratic about bringing this truth into our reflections about our political arrangements. Placing democracy on this basis does not mean theocracy. To refound democracy on our need for others, and our need to make a gift of ourselves to them, is to bring a whole new form of democracy into being. Democratic personalism is perhaps the last alternative to secular democracy still possible within Western culture as it is presently configured.

From outside Western culture, of course, come other possibilities. It is still very early in the piece, of course, but the small but growing conversion of native Westerners within Western societies to Islam carries the suggestion that Islam may provide in the 21st century the attraction that communism provided in the 20th, both for those who are alienated or embittered on the one hand, and for those who seek order or justice on the other.

So alternatives are required. The recrudescence of intolerant religion is not a problem that secular democracy can resolve, but rather a problem that it tends to engender. The past century provided examples enough of how the emptiness within secular democracy can be filled with darkness by political substitutes for religion.
Democratic personalism provides another, better possibility; one that does not require democracy to cancel itself out. Democratic personalism does not mean seizing power to pursue a project of world transformation, but broadening the imagination of democratic culture so that it can rediscover hope, and re-establish freedom in truth and the common good.

It is a work of persuasion and evangelisation, more than political activism. Its priority is culture rather than politics, and the transformation of politics through revivifying culture. It is also about salvation – not least of all the salvation of democracy itself.

Cardinal George Pell is the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney and the former archbishop of Melbourne. This is an edited extract from his address to the annual dinner of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Some on the left will scream that the right is already trying to transform our democracy into a theocracy. Level heads will understand that no such proposition is being entertained – that the proposition is essentially to leave our democracy untouched in its present form, as created, on the foundation of Judeo/Christian notions of morality. The proponents of transformation, those who would in fact change our democracy, are the “value-emptying” secularist left.

As I am not able to link directly to Wretchard’s piece on the topic, I will reprint it here: (However, you may wish to locate the post at his site, as his original post has hundreds of comments.)

Friday, November 12, 2004

The Communism of the 21st Century
Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney asks a question which is neither completely secular nor religious, one which Thomas Jefferson might have revolved in his mind but which no modern politician would dare discuss. Pell rhetorically asks whether democracy must of necessity be spiritually empty. Not whether it can occasionally be, but whether it must be. In an article published in the Australian, he says:

Lately there has been interest in the possibility of "Islamic democracy". These descriptors do not simply refer to how democracy might be constituted, but to the moral vision democracy is intended to serve. This is especially true in the case of secular democracy, which some insist is intended to serve no moral vision at all. ... But think for a moment what it means to say that there can be no other form of democracy than secular democracy. Does democracy need a burgeoning billion-dollar pornography industry to be truly democratic? Does it need an abortion rate in the tens of millions? Does it need high levels of marriage breakdown, with the growing rates of family dysfunction that come with them? Does democracy (as in Holland's case) need legalised euthanasia, extending to children under the age of 12? Does democracy need assisted reproductive technology (such as IVF) and embryonic stem cell research? Does democracy really need these things? What would democracy look like if you took some of these things out of the picture? Would it cease to be democracy? Or would it actually become more democratic?

The alarm with which many treat people in public life who are opposed to these things often implies that they are a danger to democracy. This overreaction is, of course, a bluff, an attempt to silence opposition, almost suggesting that these practices are essential to democracy. ... From outside Western culture, of course, come other possibilities. It is still very early in the piece, of course, but the small but growing conversion of native Westerners within Western societies to Islam carries the suggestion that Islam may provide in the 21st century the attraction that communism provided in the 20th, both for those who are alienated or embittered on the one hand, and for those who seek order or justice on the other.
I am not sure that the Cardinal's proposed "democratic personalism" is a viable alternative, but he asks a logical question which cannot be evaded. When the Founding Fathers created the framework for procedural democracy it was unnecessary to spell out its ends because those were largely provided by the moral, ethical and religious consensus of the underlying society. When that underlying civilizational consensus has been destroyed or diluted, as is the case in Western Europe and to a lesser extent the United States, what intrinsic ends does a value-neutral democratic mechanism serve? The answer possibly, is whatever it can be put to, like a Turing Machine which adopts whichever persona the loaded instruction set demands. Then Dutch democracy becomes the Muslim right to chuck a hand grenade out the door at policemen come to arrest them for plotting to blow up a public landmark. Democracy becomes a vehicle waiting to be hijacked; a metaphor for the old saw that someone who believes in nothing will believe in anything.

But of course the process of secularization -- or 'value emptying' as Pell might put it -- has not been entirely uniform. In actuality, while whole chunks of the West have thrown out their traditional value systems, other chunks have been busy roseletyzing theirs. As Episcopalian churches have emptied the fundamentalist Islamic mosques have filled. That uneven development, if left unchecked, may eventually mean that the magnificent mechanism of secular democracy, which serves no value of itself, will be arbitrarily assigned a goal by the majority most willing to hijack it. Pell's observation that "the small but growing conversion of native Westerners within Western societies to Islam carries the suggestion that Islam may provide in the 21st century the attraction that communism provided in the 20th ..." will mark him in liberal Australian circles as a bigot. It should mark him as a wit, for he has managed to slander those they would least offend by comparing them to those they most admire.

Jean Paul-Sartre seized upon Dostoevsky's dictum that "if God did not exist, everything would be permitted" to justify existentialism. He forgot that Dostoevsky added that if God did not exist, we would be compelled to invent him. For if, as Sartre argued "in the present one is forsaken" why should the future when it arrives be less forlorn than today? For good or ill, man can as much live under a heaven swept of stars as endure a sky without stars to dream of. If Agustine of Hippo was right, that "our soul is restless until it rests in Thee" then when all the lights of the Tabernacle are extinguished the Kaaba will beckon in the desert.

We Band of Brothers

2004-11-12T22:09:00.000-05:00

Peggy Noonan reminds us of these stirring lines from Shakespeare's King Henry V – an appropriate contemplation as U.S. forces close with the enemy in a battle for the Sunni triangle.

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors.
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forget,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Christopher Hitchens' Complaint

2004-11-11T14:22:00.000-05:00

I was just looking at Christopher Hitchens’ column on Bush’s Secularist Triumph. He had this to say:

So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

Mr. Hitchens’ disgust arises out of his equation of liberal secularism with the impotent orthodoxy of “political correctness,” which the left side has continued to equate with liberalism since the 1960’s counter-culture movement. Political correctness has devolved into a least-common-denominator philosophy of pathetic victimization. It is reminiscent of some Eastern philosophies in its inertia, its inability to tolerate any notion of confrontation or offense.

Political correctness? As if I should paint my green living room walls a neutral white to preclude the potential of offending some visitor who may be color averse to green.

Joyous traditions such as Christmas and Chanukah, with their attendant childlike excitement and joy, are to be cast away for the neutral, bland, pabulum of uniform inoffensiveness. The bright reds, greens and golds replaced with subdued grays. The politically correct will then march to discard Independence Day, to avoid giving offense to any British nationals; Labor Day will be canned to avoid offense to the idle rich. How long before we will all be uniformly buttoned up to the chin in drab, little Chairman Mao jackets, reciting from rote the ever increasing body of politically correct proscriptions? Does that have the ring of progressive liberalism? Is that your model of secularism? It is pure nonsense to suggest that traditional holidays and celebrations are somehow going to transform our democracy into a theocracy. It is that kind of suspended common sense that is at the root of the values issue. My perception is that, if anything, this country is trending toward being less religious, rather than more.

Mr. Hichens, whose thought and writing I greatly admire, by the way, shakes his head at the impotent inanity of the left’s response to Islamofascism. To paraphrase Mr. Clinton, it’s the political correctness, stupid. Liberal secularism, shorn of the albatross of political correctness, may yet flower into the future of the Democratic party.

Born November 10, 1775

2004-11-10T10:37:00.000-05:00

United States Marine Corps

229 years of vigilance, sacrifice and honor. Happy birthday.

Semper Fi

To The Secessionists

2004-11-09T19:21:00.000-05:00

To all of the hand-wringing, would-be secessionists, I have only a brief comment. In a democracy, the majority rules. If you object to the democratic principle, then leave with our blessing and good wishes for happiness and success. If you prefer to participate in a democratic society, and are unhappy with the election results, then make an effort through moral and/or logical argument to persuade a majority of the electorate of the justness of your position. That's the way it works.

Democratic Party Values Gap

2004-11-09T11:40:00.000-05:00

Dennis Prager of WorldNetDaily has a good summary of the perceived values gap of the Democratic party.

Jihad at San Francisco State University

2004-11-08T22:05:00.000-05:00

Excessive tolerance in the name of political correctness in the case of the Jihad at San Francisco State University not only misses the point of denying the College Republican Club its right to peaceful existence, it also encourages a dangerous and threatening tinderbox of hate and violence to foment on the campus. Someone is going to end up seriously injured, or worse, if the “grown ups” in the college administration don’t take precipitous action to quash this nonsense.

Religious Morality vs. Secularism

2004-11-05T22:37:00.000-05:00

The left tirelessly scorns the morality of what it refers to as the religious right (as opposed to other Judeo/Christian faiths?), implying that the religious right has designs to impose its morality on them. The left argues, properly, that not all Americans subscribe to a singular notion of faith. Agreed. Our country welcomes people of all faiths – in fact, one of the first freedoms sought by people coming to the newly discovered Americas was the freedom to practice their faith in peace. There are more varieties of faith practiced in the United States than space permits to list here. We are also home to agnostics and atheists – philosophers of every persuasion. So just how is it that evangelical Christians have become the whipping boys of the secularist left -- denigrated as red neck, bible-banging zealots hell-bent on imposing their notions of hellfire and damnation on us all? Perhaps the left has singled out that particular faith for ridicule because the sect’s belief in the literal word of the bible represents for the left the most extreme contrast of faith and rational secularism. But what exactly is it about the morality of the faithful that the left scorns, is seemingly so afraid of?

The core moral values of Judeo/Christian morality are expressed in the Ten Commandments. Moreover, our country was founded on those moral precepts. Those moral commandments inform our civil affairs as well, and are codified in our secular law. The religious/moral proscriptions against killing, stealing, etc. are paralleled in our civil laws. I do not know exactly what it is that the left finds so objectionable in such reasonable proscriptions. To object to such a moral/legal code would be to argue that it ought to be an option or a right to kill, steal, etc. In the absence of such a moral code, right or wrong does not exist. Freedom without moral parameters is anarchy.

There is no philosophical conflict between Judeo/Christian morality and secularism in this country. The two concepts conform to one another, as hand in glove. The core moral values of church and state, as discussed above, align without opposition or antagonism, and, as one, inform our moral compass.

Both capital punishment and abortion challenge our core values. There is a core moral proscription against taking life – killing another human being – but civil exceptions have been created by the judiciary. (Though even in this the judiciary has acted unevenly with regard to those two issues. In the case of capital punishment the supreme court has merely held that the notion of execution is not unconstitutional, and leaves the matter to the polity of each state to decide whether or not the political will of the people is to condone execution or not; whereas, in the case of abortion, the supreme court has taken the matter out of the hands of the polity, and prescribed by decree that abortion is sanctioned in every state of the Union. The political will of the people is not considered relevant by the court.) Both judicial exceptions to the moral proscription against killing another human being challenge a fundamental core value of our culture. (I say of our culture, as opposed to of religious morality, because as noted above, our moral sense is predicated on core values shared in parallel by notions of religious morality and by civil society, which include a proscription against killing, whether we are a person of faith or not.) Killing another human being is as morally offensive to an enlightened secularist as it is to a pious man of faith – in our culture (as opposed to, say, an Islamofacist) – whether prescribed by judicial fiat or not. Such an act offends our moral sensibilities, whether we are religious or not. Moral consistency suggests to us that killing is wrong. Period. (One could argue that the one moral, as opposed to judicial, exception would be killing in defense of one’s own life.)

An effort at cultural revolution is currently underway in this country. In its effort to advance abortion, gay marriage and other liberal initiatives, the political left has sought to reform our cultural values through judicial imposition. It derides our core moral values as theocratic morality, separate from society and state. At every turn the political left seeks by court decree to strip any reference to God or morality from our schools, courthouses and public places. Nativity scenes are no longer acceptable for viewing during Christmas – or should I say Winter Holiday. It is eerie how reminiscent of the Chinese cultural revolution, and the great purges of Chairman Mao, are the current efforts of the radical left in this country today.

Election Fraud in Chicago

2004-11-02T19:29:00.000-05:00

Republicans are being denied the right to vote in Chicago. Read this for details.

An Iraqi's View

2004-11-01T15:21:00.000-05:00

A revealing view of an Iraqi blogger's perspective of what is at stake in the U.S. presidential election is presented at Little Green Footballs.

Election Fraud

2004-11-01T13:29:00.000-05:00

As the culture of our country becomes more progressive, the idea that a single registered voter should receive a single vote in the election process has become an increasingly quaint notion. It seems that it is too much to ask of a person who is about to make a judgment concerning who is best able to lead this country to register at the appointed polling area, and to present with a valid ID at voting time. We have stricter requirements for qualification and identification at the Registry of Motor Vehicles than we do at the polls. In fact, it’s easier to vote than it is to buy a drink or a pack of cigarettes. Do we argue that people are disenfranchised from driving, drinking or smoking for having to present a valid picture ID? A person needs more identification to get a senior price ticket at a movie theatre than they do to vote. Of course, they also have to be alive, which apparently many people who have recently registered to vote are not. It is fraudulent votes that truly disenfranchise voters, canceling out the votes of genuine voters.

Another quaint, anachronistic notion of the democratic process is that ideas and positions are clearly expressed and argued; following which an informed electorate decides by majority vote which set of ideas and positions will be followed during the forthcoming term of the elected official. When a candidate “hides” his position, or otherwise dissimulates, the logical conclusion is that the candidate does not believe that his position has the merit to appeal to the majority of the electorate. When positions are not forthrightly stated by candidates, the electorate is defrauded by the candidate, who seeks power through dissimulation, rather than an opportunity for governance through ideas.

When our elections cease to be an appeal to ideas, and become an appeal to the lawyers, our democracy is in trouble. Election fraud harms us all. It corrodes the core of our liberty.

View Stolen Honor

2004-10-28T21:42:00.000-04:00

View Stolen Honor for free at this site. It should be seen by everyone.

Red Sox - World Champions

2004-10-28T01:51:00.000-04:00

Good bye old friend . . . it's a new century.

Red Sox 3, Cardinals 0

2004-10-27T23:45:00.000-04:00

WORLD CHAMPIONS!

Red Sox 4, St. Louis 1

2004-10-27T01:19:00.000-04:00

Who's your daddy? Pedro was the man, not only on the mound, but at the plate! Kiko Calero pitched around Pedro? What was that all about? And Manny with an assist at home plate from left field to prevent a score? What is the world coming to? I nominate Manny for a copper glove. And Poppi Ortiz with a strike to third to double off Suppan. David Defense. One to go, with D-Lowe on the mound with something to prove. Boston history may be made tomorrow. Go Sox!

Iraq War Rationale

2004-10-26T19:35:00.000-04:00

A lucid and compelling rationale for the Iraq war is presented at Wizbang. The introduction is here.

Red Sox 6, St. Louis 2

2004-10-24T23:48:00.000-04:00

We're on our way. Again tonight, four errors for the Sox. Three errors for Billy Mueller, but I thought he only deserved one of them. The first error I thought should have gone to Tek. It was Billy's ball, but Tek would not give way. The ball actually struck Tek's glove, and bounced off it. I have no idea why the error was called on Mueller. The second error to Mueller was a bad hop - it jumped up on him and hit the heel of his glove, bouncing away. It could be argued that he should have charged the ball more, but I still thought the error call was questionable. The third error was a true error - but by that time he was probably so shell shocked from the previous two error calls that he was self conscious in his effort to make the play. The fourth error was by Bellhorn, but he has contributed so much that it's hard to criticize him. In any case, the Sox prevailed once again. Like last night, it wasn't pretty, but it got done. Sox pitching was very effective, and the production was distributed throughout the lineup. Tuesday in St. Louis - Go Sox!

Red Sox 11, St. Louis 9

2004-10-24T01:18:00.000-04:00

One down, three to go. Notwithstanding a couple of "mannys," the Sox were able to beat back St. Louis' several attempts to make a run at them. The Cards came close, and even managed to tie the game, but never went ahead of Boston. Through all of their errors, and St. Loius' runs at them, Boston just seemed to know that, in the end, they would prevail. Nothing discourages this team. After what Boston went through in the ALCS, no setback seems insurmountable to them. They are absolutely tenacious. They will never give up, and that is why they will win this series.

Red Sox/Yankees ALCS Revisited

2004-10-22T16:57:00.000-04:00

For a "Priceless" recap of the ALCS, check out the following site:

http://hexachord.net/alcs/

RED SOX: God is on our side

2004-10-22T15:57:00.000-04:00

RED SOX: God is on our side

Red Sox Win Pennant

2004-10-21T01:04:00.000-04:00

The Red Sox have beat the Yankees and won the American League Pennant in the greatest baseball comeback in history. I am without words.

Red Sox/Yankees

2004-10-20T18:37:00.000-04:00

This ALCS game 7 tonight is the fight of the century – continued from last year’s ALCS game 7 – a heavy weight match between legendary adversaries, both of whom have already struggled mightily, and are barely standing. It’s going to get bloody. This is Red Sox/Yankees baseball, and it doesn’t get any better than this. The World Series is secondary – an anti-climax to an ALCS game 7 struggle between the Red Sox and Yankees that means everything to these two clubs, and probably to baseball nation across the country. Whatever the outcome tonight, both teams do each other great honor in this Herculean clash. This incredible game is not possible without both teams.

It may seem trite or sentimental to say that there will be no loser tonight, but it is true. These warriors have given everything they have in this amazing contest, and have been found worthy. The honor and glory each team derives is in proportion to the skill and effort of the other.

Thank you both. Go Sox!

A Prayer for the Magic Shoe

2004-10-19T19:11:00.000-04:00

By Chris Rattey of Boston.com

There once was a magic shoe,
designed by Reebok in a day or two.
For Game 6 of the ALCS,
For a dude named Schilling, who's ankle was a mess.
Everyone thought the ace's season was finished,
high Red Sox hopes were quickly diminished.
Then came the magic shoe.

Oh magic shoe, oh magic shoe,
From now until 8:19 p.m., we pray for you.
After Game 1, the Nation had never felt weaker,
all that has changed because of one super sneaker.

It's come down to this, two games in New York,
Sheffield's got a big mouth, Matsui's a dork.
And Reebok, if this works out and we win in the end,
I promise: I'll never, EVER, buy Nike again.

Representative Democracy and the South Dakota Senate Race

2004-10-16T15:10:00.000-04:00

There is a nice piece about the South Dakota senate race between Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and Republican challenger John Thune, by Kirk Victor of the National Journal, entitled Fighting For His Political Life, which appeared on Friday, October 15, 2004.

To me, the race highlights the question of just what representative democracy means. We vote for the candidate who we believe will most closely represent our interests – economic, political and social. It is unlikely that we will find a candidate who will agree with us on every issue, so we are often guided in our choice by the political philosophy and observed character of the candidate, with the hope that the judgments our representative in government is called upon to make on our behalf will reflect our own interests and beliefs. We understand that there are specific issues about which the representative will be far more informed than we, and expect him to exercise his good judgment, as our surrogate, with the understanding that he may well be held accountable to explain to us any such decisions he has made on our behalf. We also expect our representative to vote his conscience, and not merely vote as a matter of political expediency. If that vote is seemingly contrary to positions held by his constituency, then it is incumbent upon the representative to fully explain his vote – in fact to attempt to persuade his constituency of the justness of his vote, by moral or logical argument. Reasonable people of good will may disagree on issues.

The failures we see in modern representative democracy are attributable less to candidates who consciously misrepresent, or otherwise fail to reveal their true political and social philosophies to their constituents than, more importantly, to an ill-informed, apathetic electorate that fails to hold its representatives answerable for their positions and record.

Our representative democracy is further subverted by the media, which frequently colors, distorts or outright misrepresents the issues and positions of candidates, to serve its own agenda, which is often in conflict with the agenda of the constituencies. It is difficult to make an informed choice when the choices are not accurately portrayed. Good faith political discourse should involve a logical discussion of clearly-framed and understood issues and positions, not muddied misrepresentations and distortions. If you need to hide or misrepresent your position, then perhaps you need to revisit the merits of your position. Ultimately, the success or failure of representative democracy rests with the electorate, which is charged with holding the candidates and the media to task.

That is what makes the South Dakota senate race so interesting. Senator Daschle is campaigning in this close race solely on economic issues that matter to his constituency – the so-called bread and butter issues, arguing that as a power broker in Washington, he is uniquely positioned to bring home the bacon to his constituents in South Dakota. He has played down, as much as possible, his liberal social and political positions, which are antithetical to much of his constituency. He has resisted having a forthright discussion of those positions with his constituency, and failed to explain his vociferous obstruction of every effort undertaken by the current administration, which is favored by a majority of his constituency. The South Dakotan electorate, however, is an informed constituency, so it will indeed be an interesting race to follow.

Stolen Honor

2004-10-14T20:24:00.000-04:00

Today I sent the following note to the Sinclair Broadcasting Group:

As a United States Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam (1967-1968), I urge you not to back down from broadcasting Stolen Honor. It is a story that needs to be told, even now, when the spit on my face upon my return from Vietnam has long since dried. The stain of it remains. Please do not turn your back on us -- again.

Douglas Hill

Construction Notice

2004-10-12T20:25:00.000-04:00

I have just started major construction on the blog template, and the posts are temporarily without headings, which makes the entries difficult to follow. That will be corrected as soon as I can figure out the code. But not right now. It's Red Sox/Yankees time. Go Sox!

The Truth about Truth

2004-10-11T22:25:00.000-04:00

Can we ever really know Truth? Does such a thing exist? Can we know anything?

Philosophers have grappled with that question. In fact, there is an entire discipline of philosophy devoted to the subject: epistemology.

The famous 17th Century French mathematician and philosopher, René Descartes, attempting to answer that question, posited for the immutable foundation from which he was to construct his philosophy, the premise: Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. That was to be the incontrovertible certain Truth forming the starting point of his contemplation. (Even that premise, however, has been challenged.)

For those of us not inhabiting the ivory towers of academia, what, if anything, of practical value, can be said of the notion of Truth, and our ability to know it? With your indulgence I will briefly lay the foundation of the argument.

Our awareness of external objects is made possible by, while simultaneously limited by, our “channels of awareness,” i.e., sight, sound, touch, smell, and perhaps intellect, although that may merely be a projection of an internal construction (a discussion for another time.) Those are the mechanisms by which we apprehend and form our understanding of an external object. The point is, that of the many facets inhering in the existence of the object of our perception, we are limited to apprehending only those characteristics that appear to our channels of awareness. There may well be many other facets or dimensions of the object that escape our observation because we do not have the means (additional channels of awareness) with which to apprehend those dimensions of the object. (It is interesting to note that the evolution of increasingly complex life forms introduces additional channels of awareness as that evolution progresses.)

With the limitation of our perception, perspective is introduced.

A perspective necessarily represents a limited view, rather than a complete view. By analogy, consider a circle of artists drawing an asymmetrical object positioned in the center of their circle. Each, looking at the same object, will draw something different. They will see the object differently, depending upon their vantage point – their perspective. What each artist draws will be true, but only a partial truth, not the whole Truth.

Some would have us believe that Truth does not exist, that at best, it is a purely relative construct. I would argue that Truth does exist, in its fullness and immutability, but that we are limited in our ability to know it by our limited channels of awareness. Yet it is in our constant striving to know Truth that we fulfill our destiny in the evolutionary procession of life.

The Peace Movement Then and Now

2004-10-10T23:42:00.000-04:00

I take my departure into this inquiry with a brief analysis of the peace movement of the 1960s.

I make no pretense at being an historian or a sociologist, but having lived through that moment in history, I have some personal observations to make. My source is firsthand -- I was there -- as a Marine serving in the northern I Corps of Vietnam in 1968 during the Tet offensive, and as a student on the campus of a renowned liberal arts college during the height of the peace movement, when virtually all of the campuses across the country were torn apart by protests and sit-ins.

The peace movement was less a moral repudiation of war than it was a repudiation of personal risk. It was the prospect of being placed in harm’s way, rather than moral outrage at a “gook” village being razed on the other side of the world in Southeast Asia, that set aflame the ire of the protesters. It was the disagreeable call to duty, and all that implied. The majority of students – kids, really – became caught up in the excitement of the cause celebre. During protest rallies, as on other occasions, I never witnessed any substantive discussions on the moral philosophy of waging or not waging war, but heard only sloganeering. Political discussion, then, as now, was formulated on the basis of personal interest. The vast majority of students did not come to independent judgments on the issue of the Vietnam war, other than for a personal preference to not go – they chanted slogans, wore peace signs, did some drugs, got laid, missed some classes, and generally enjoyed themselves in their rôle. The “cause” made many otherwise undistinguished adolescents feel important while having a good time. They were accepted, and reinforced in their defiance, by their peers. They parroted the word as it was handed down by the leaders of the movement. Their vacuity became a purposeful repository for an infusion of group condescension which, to them, implied superiority – intellectual and moral superiority. In short, the great majority of students were led by the nose. But by whom? Who were the architects of the peace movement? It is not sufficient to merely say the “radical left,” although it was certainly an anti-American, radical left philosophy being espoused throughout the peace movement. (Understand, we are not here speaking of liberalism, but of a virulent anti-Americanism.) This was more than simply an anti-war movement. The parrots were whipped up and fomented into an ideological rejection of the entire American value structure. (Remember the hippies?)

The notion of duty, ridiculed as a conservative anachronism, was rejected in favor of personal safety and convenience. Personal responsibility was replaced with “anything goes” permissiveness. “Free love.” “Make love, not war.” The expressed notion of questioning authority degenerated into ridiculing authority. In the space of less than a decade this country went from a 1950’s “Ozzie and Harriet” mentality to Woodstock.

Born of the chaos of that time was a face-saving new morality. A moral relativism was adopted, serving as the philosophical rationalization for the rejection of duty and responsibility. The political embodiment of the new morality became “political correctness,” where critical thinking and independent thought were, and remain, anathema. Truth no longer exists. Group thought is dictated from on high, and the parrots follow in lockstep, with nary a dissenting opinion. (Witness the mainstream media. They even use the same vocabulary and phrases in their “independently” conjured articles.)

John Kerry was one of the leaders of the peace movement then, as now. His agenda, then, as now, was rooted not in moral outrage at a war, but in personal political opportunity afforded to him by subverting the efforts of his country while at war.

But Kerry, while a leader of the peace movement during the Vietnam era, was merely an opportunist, not a primary architect of the movement.

With your help, we will attempt to trace and identify the source of the radical anti-Americanism that has infected liberal thought in this country – as espoused by our own universities and media.

Ichiro wa, ichiban desu.

2004-10-09T22:29:00.000-04:00

Seattle Mariners outfielder Ichiro Suzuki declined for a second time to accept the People's Honor Award from Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for superior achievements in the game of baseball, according to the Asahi Shimbun. Ichiro broke George Sisler's major league record of 257 hits in a single season, which has stood since 1920, with 262 hits this year. Suzuki humbly demurred that at 30 years of age he was too young for such an honor, adding that accepting the award might dampen his energy for the game.

The Noble One

2004-10-07T16:00:00.000-04:00

The Noble One

Genghis Khan burial site just a steppe away?

2004-10-06T18:09:00.000-04:00

From the Asahi Shimbun:

"Archaeologists say they may be close to solving one of the world's great mysteries: the burial site of Genghis Khan, the Mongol ruler who was one of the most famous conquerors in history.

A joint team of researchers from Japan and Mongolia announced Monday in Tokyo they had found an ancient mausoleum dedicated to the warrior chieftain who died in 1227. They said the discovery could pinpoint the site of his long-sought-after tomb, which they believe is probably located within 12 kilometers of the mausoleum."

It would seem that Kerry was mistaken, and it wasn't the army of the Genghis Khan in Vietnam afterall . . .

Cheney 9, Edwards 3

2004-10-05T22:32:00.000-04:00

Go Bush Cheney!

Red Sox 9, Angels 3

2004-10-05T22:31:00.000-04:00

Go Sox!

Kerry has made a career out of subverting American troops

2004-10-04T22:45:00.000-04:00

It is difficult for me to believe that John Kerry, who launched his political career by turning on his brothers-in-arms in Vietnam, is at it again -- once again building his political aspirations on the backs of American troops, whom he is at every turn undermining and subverting. Once again his fifth column homefront subterfuge gives hope to the enemy that if they can only hold out a little longer, Kerry and the liberal media will succeed in undermining the public's determination to prosecute the war to its conclusion. The enemy is thus emboldened to intensify hostilities, as the NVA did during the Tet offensive, to break the will of the American homefront. NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap and Colonel Bui Tin have detailed how North Vietnam could not have prevailed without the help of the peace movement, and in fact, John Kerry and Jane Fonda are honored in Communist Vietnam's war museum. Now Kerry is at it again -- undermining the war in Iraq. It is not clear to me who Kerry believes he is even ostensibly helping (besides himself) by denigrating the effort in Iraq, and promoting it as a quagmire, as the troops themselves overwhelmingly support President Bush.