The Great Beacon of Academia: Postmodernism

As you can perhaps tell by the title, I have once again had the great pleasure of running into one of the great fallacies of modern liberalism: the philosophy of postmodernism. This idea flourishes on college campuses due mainly to the fact that a college campus is one of the few places were a group of people can be far enough removed from reality, for an extended period of time, to not see the absurdity inherent with it.

Many people buy into this idea believing that it represents honest questioning and research; i.e that we are trying to truly evaluate and understand both sides and be as reasonable as possible. Unfortunately, the true problem with this philosophy lies in the fact that, in an attempt to refrain from 'bias' or 'prejudice,' it omits judging and opinion-forming altogether. Furthermore, it also comes with the inevitable invoking of multiculturalism, and the standard lines that 'we don't really know right and wrong,' or that there are 'several' truths.

Today, I encountered it in history class where the discussion concerned various philosophies of and teaching methods of history. The postmodern idea of history contends that we can never 'know' historical truth because our viewpoint from the present is so diluted. Many in the class, indeed, gave responses that sounded like they were taken directly from Michael Moore or someone of the like. I even heard the contention that there probably were multiple historical truths.

So apparently, when I say that "on July 4th, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed" I'm not stating a historical truth. What? Was it signed again on the 8th? I mean come on, of course there's only one historical truth, a day or a moment only happens once, so two different things aren't happening at once. The founders didn't sign and not sign the Declaration on July 4th. They couldn't. Not unless they had a secret, evil time machine to go back and live through the day twice.

Look, I'm not saying it's not a good thing to look at evidence, and study an issue from all sides, walk a mile in someone else's shoes, if you will, but that doesn’t mean when you've walked that mile that you can't say their road just sucks. Making judgments is a good and necessary thing to do. That is where postmodernism falls apart in the real world. You can't just walk around saying I think that's wrong but that's just my opinion. What if, for instance, in my culture it's 'right' to pull out a shotgun and shoot postmodernists? Under those circumstances a postmodernist has no moral argument to prevent me from killing them. In fact, if they allowed themselves to live, based on their rules, they would be demonstrating 'intolerance' of my culture. The bottom line, however, is that if my culture pulls shotguns on postmodernists for no reason; my culture is just plain wrong.

Of course, as far as a history class is concerned, postmodernism is directly aimed at the old 'Eurocentric' model of teaching history. You know, the one where we teach kids American History and focus on the Western World. Postmodernists dislike this because it makes a judgment, a judgment that western culture is, by and large, better and superior to everyone else's. And that is, by and large, a true assessment. It was the Greeks, Romans and then Americans who first adopted this idea of a 'Republic'. It was out of the Enlightenment that we got this concept of 'unalienable' human rights. Heck, it was America that really began the total elimination of slavery. These, and many more, are the reasons why we teach from this perspective; because in the real world, it makes more sense for Americans to know a bit more about the history of Republicanism (in case they ever decide to vote) than of African tribal cultures.

Certainly, we should include lessons about the rest of the world, perhaps a mandatory 'World History' class would be a good idea, but let's not forget to emphasize Eurocentricity. We should not be afraid to draw the conclusion that Eurocentric values, traditions, etc are not just better, but right. After all, that's why we've stuck with them for so long and, interestingly enough, why the postmodernists, or the postmodernist's ancestors, came here in the first place.

The French Come To Iraq!

*Sigh* It seems that us Conservatives can no longer make fun of the French Army. After 2 strong years of holding out, they have finally decided to come support the War in Iraq, and display to the world the true might of their Armed Forces. In fact, you can see live video footage of their landings on Iraqi beaches HERE!

The N.A.I.S?

Yesterday, I was shown a rather interesting article; it seems that the animal rights activists are up to their old tricks again. Unbeknownst to me, and probably most people, many months ago the US Department of Agriculture instituted a National Animal Identification System (NAIS). At this point, the system is voluntary, but you can bet the goal is to make it mandatory in the future. The basics of the system are simple: you, as an animal owner, register your pet, farm animal etc, and then the governemnt can monitor the health of the animals, any potential diseases they carry, the breeding of the animals, do 'recordkeeping' on the animals, and probably some other things as well.

The main point of this is to help monitor diseases spread by animals here in the US (or at least that seems to be the main selling point). Of course, this hardly makes any sense because first of all the logistics of managing a system that can monitor all of the livestock in this country are mind-boggling and would render the system extremely inefficient; and second because the system does not deal with wild animals, which are, in fact, more deadly to humans.

Furthermore, the system is a complete waste of money (14.5 million was granted last summer), and a completely needless invasion of privacy. That the governemnt should be able to keep tabs on my dog or a farmer's chickens makes no sense. I mean, imagine the hassle that it would take for a farmer to have to throw in a bunch of NAIS paperwork, in order that the government might know every detail about his cattle.

Indeed, a better question would seem to be why the government would really want to keep tabs on these sorts of things, especially since the 'disease' reason makes no sense. Now, this is purely speculation, but I'm guessing it might be the desires of animal rights activists to have a legal 'gottcha' available. Imagine, if this NAIS gets passed into law, PETA can now go to a farm and instead of just yelling like idiots at how 'mean' the farmer is being to the cows, they can prosecute him under the new laws that will complement this system. So basically, this could be a way to get stricter animal cruelty laws on the books under the guise of something else.

*******Update*******

For anyone interested in finding out more about the fallacy of the NAIS, or in trying to stop the program, please check out Walter Jeffries' site: noNAIS.org

An Iranian Nutjob

Iran's new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, really is off-the-charts insane. Just to give you an idea, so far, although at this point he is still only the President-elect, he has described the Holocaust as a "myth," threatened to "[wipe Israel] off the map", decided that the state of Israel should be in Europe not the Middle East, and, most recently, openly hoped that the "criminal" Ariel Sharon will "[join] his ancestors" (a.k.a die) as a result of his illness.

Honestly, this guy must really have mental health issues. But that aside, he is also incredibly dangerous. He leads a Nation that is developing nuclear weapons, and that has some 68 million people, many of whom are either gullible or stupid (or maybe both) enough to believe and agree with each of the above quotations.

Interestingly enough, the potentially dangerous nature of the latest President of Iran, makes our our work in Iraq all the more important. The presence of a stable Republic of Iraq will make negotiating with Iran easier. One way that Iraq's rise will help us with Iran is simply by voiding the need for Iranian oil. The combination of Saudi Arabia and a stable Iraq in the Middle East will make it easy for us to simply place an embargo on Iran, which could be deadly to their economy. Additionally, having another steadying presence in the Middle East besides just Israel will facilitate economic, political and other operations in the region; a tremendous benefit when trying to deal with Rogue States, such as Iran.

The problem of course is the fact that Iran seems to be fairly close to building a nuclear weapon. The question then becomes, what would they do with a nuke? Well, since they are developing a nuclear weapon and not an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, hitting the US, Japan, or continental Europe won't be possible. That, of course, leaves the Middle East and the tiny little Nation that Iran feels should be "wiped off the map": Israel. Just one small problem, Israel also has the bomb (more than one bomb, I might add), and they are certainly not afraid to use them if Iran presses the right buttons.

So, am I saying that a nuclear war resulting (most likely) in the destruction of Iran will occur within 15 years? No. Or at least I hope not. But this complete moron who is now President in Iran is all the more reason to quickly move the Iranian issue into our playing field. The EU has tried and failed, and they will gladly continue to try and fail (over and over again), unless the United States steps in. Does this mean troops? Extremely unlikely (and not very plausible at this point), although threatening to use them might be the place for Bush to start.

The question of what to do with Iran, as you can perhaps tell from this post, is at the very least a murky one, but it is one of great concern. It needs to be addressed not only for our own sake but for the sake of our Middle Eastern ally Israel, and for the sake of the newly emerging Iraq.

Spying at the NSA

Obviously, I'm a few days late on this topic but I still felt like writing a bit about Bush's newly discovered spying techniques. Let me start out by saying that I don't mind NSA spying on certain people's phone calls. Suspicious Americans, a.k.a Muslims and/or those with Middle Eastern connections, deserve to be watched and monitered, especially in this post-9/11 world.

The President has every right to do this, as it is in the interest of National Security and helping to protect American Citizens. You might say, but 'what if the President is snooping in on your phone calls and listening to your conversations. How would you feel about that?' Well the honest answer is if he was listening to ordinary Americans phone calls there would be cause for worry, but I seriously doubt he is, and allow me to tell you why. First, this was done as a National Security measure, and while your local airport baggage screener can't tell a terror suspect from Grandma, you can bet the NSA can. Second, the NSA doesn't have a limitless supply of cash, and it would hardly make sense for them to waste thier money listening to the phone conversations of an 18 year-old white dude, who doesn't even own a gun.

And finally, if they really are listening in on ordinary Americans phone calls, well, I would have to laugh. It would be a classic example of the inefficency of Governmental Beaurocracy. C'mon, think about some super smart government guy at NSA. He probably has an advanced degree from some Ivy League school, has access to all kinds of top secret material, can do things with technology that most people can't even dream of, and he's listening to you talk with your friend about last nights dinner or what not. (Or perhaps it's two 13 year-old girls discussing the latest gossip.) I mean really. What exactly would they be trying to accomplish?? Hopefully, you can see the downright absurdity of that picture.

Now, it might be possible that you just don't see the absurdity in that last little bit. Maybe you're thinking hard, and your comparing this spying to what Nixon did back during his Presidency to his political enemies. Okay, I'll play along. First, let me note that Bush is nowhere near the paranoid wreck that Nixon was. Further, if Bush was using this to hurt his enemies, why do so many people hate his guts now? If the current image of Bush is the one he got from blackmailing political enemies, then, wow, the people at NSA really suck at their jobs. Additionally, Bush has no motive to eliminate political enemies anymore, because he can't be re-elected. So let's dismiss the foolish Nixon comparisons.

In the end there is absolutely nothing wrong with spying on and discriminating against, known and perceived threats to National Security, even if the threats are American citizens. In fact, preventing these people from doing what they want to do (harm America and some of it's citizens) is part of W's job as President.

The Eye of the Media

As I briefly mentioned in my last post, the role of the media in warfare has changed dramatically with the advances of technology. Media outlets such as CNN and FOX are able to report on the spot, without delay. In 2003 we were able to watch live pictures of Baghdad being bombed. From the First Gulf War to the conflict in Kosovo, all military movements in the 1990's were closely monitored by the mainstream media and, as the decade progressed, cable news. Perhaps most importantly, the media is able to bring us up-close and personal with the suffering that war entails. Specifically that felt by civilians, soldiers and their families.

The value of this coverage, however, is another story. Does it do us, as a Nation at war, any good to hear about all of these things so personally and so soon? In her book Statecraft, Margaret Thatcher notes that "by dramatising even more the grieving of the families of servicemen who are lost, [the media undermine] national resolve to fight and risk casualties." And I couldn't agree more.

In the past, part of what made Nations or peoples willing to fight and support wars was the fact that they were rarely confronted with the true tragedies of the war. Sure, you might have to drive your car less, or conserve more food, but the actual suffering never hit home unless you were one of the few who knew someone that died. On top of that, the Government usually did a pretty good job of propagandizing its citizens, or at least keeping them up to date with the good news. And this was for good reason. Most people just don't have the stomach to witness a war up-close and personal, the way the modern media likes to give it to them.

Most people have a sort of 'pity complex' built in to them that prevents them from pursuing the ultimate objective when they find death in the way. They want to find a way to come up with a 'safer plan,' or one 'that will cost fewer lives.' The only problem is that in war, time is blood. Or, as George Patton once put it, "A good plan implemented now, is better than a perfect plan implemented next week." Most politicians, and any good General, understand this; the majority of the public usually doesn't.

For example, D-Day in World War II came at an immense cost of life, but no one would be foolish enough to deny its importance. Conservatives often joke about how the modern media would portray the D-Day invasion - with a sensationalized importance on the cost of life, and only a passing mention of the grand achievements of that day. However, underlying the sarcasm of that remark is a hard truth. And that is simply that the modern media gives the public too much of the bad, and not enough of the good. The modern media hurts war efforts. The exposure that people get to a War nowadays, is simply too much for them to handle.

Now, this is not to say that human life is trivial and unimportant. Please don't try use that naive argument, I understand the 'cost of war.' The thing is, that in trying to find the most efficient outcome, with, interestingly enough, the lowest cost of human life in the long run, moves have to be made that don't usually set well in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, any modern war, thanks to the media, will have most of these moves put out in the open. As such, fighting a war in modern times, and maintaining support for that war, will be much, much more difficult.

The Passing of Time

As this 64th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor comes to a close, I reflect on the passing of time. As the soldiers from one War in a bygone era die off, those of a new era, and a new War, come of age. Such, unfortunately, is the state of the World. And as we face enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan today, I am compelled to examine the similarities and differences between this War and the War that embroiled the globe just over 60 years ago.

Both Wars began in the same way, with devastating, unexpected attacks on our own soil. In both cases the enemy who directly attacked us, in a way, played 'second fiddle' to another enemy. In World War II, Roosevelt felt it equally as important to pursue the Nazi's, who had never actually attacked us, in the same way Bush has become equally as focused on Iraq as he has on Afghanistan. Both leaders had good, justifiable reasons to include these other nations into the scope of their respective War.

In both cases the non-attacker who was pursued was a mass-murdering dictator. Both were fascists. Hitler, however, did his murder on a much grander scale and in a much more methodical way than Saddam, although both used religion as a means of determining their victims.

Then, as now, and perhaps always, Americans found an ally 'across the pond' in England. Of course, she no longer controls a quarter of the world's territory, yet, England still answers the call by sending Her Majesty's Soldiers. Unfortunately, no matter how highly you regard Tony Blair, he is no Churchill; and in the same way, Bush has not the leadership talents of Roosevelt.

In modern times, liberals decry the Bush relationship with Saudi Arabia, yet in World War II we allied ourselves with the most ruthless man of all time: Joseph Stalin. In the same way the alliance with the USSR was necessary to defeat Hitler, the help of the Saudi's will be required for success in the Middle East. Once again, both are justifiable actions. On a different note, let us hope that the way we ignored the Soviet threat in the aftermath of World War II will not resemble our future policy towards Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

Both FDR and Bush racked up massive wartime debts and, as a result of the Military spending, both had amazing Economic production and results. As awful as it may seem, War is good for the economy, and that's the bottom line. In fact, the lowest unemployment rate in our Nation's history was in 1942-3: a staggering less-than 1%.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the hatred of Muslims much resembled the distrust of Japanese-Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Of course, the Muslims of today had it far easier, as all they have to endure are scowls and a few extra minutes in the airport security line. This, in stark contrast to the Japanese internment camps of the early 1940's.

Nonetheless, we find the media, and its role, has changed much since the Second World War. The cries to be accepting of Muslim's are a far cry from the cartoon-like ridicules of Hirohito and Tojo that were seen in World War II era newspapers. The footage of the War presented to Americans in World War II consisted mainly of the newsreels shown in movie theaters, nowadays CNN is live in Baghdad before our own troops even get there.

After Pearl Harbor Americans were united as never before. However, within weeks of Bush declaring War on Afghanistan, the protesters had hit the streets demanding that action against the Taliban be halted. And then came Iraq, and the children of the protest-happy Vietnam era reared their collective, ugly head.

President Bush could not ever dream of using propaganda for the War today, but "I Want You" is one of the most enduring images from World War II. The debacle of the United Nations, was, thankfully, not present to hinder and disturb FDR, yet it has manifested itself in all kinds of ways in the War on Terror.

Prior to Pearl Harbor our reason for remaining peaceful was isolationism; pre-9/11, a combination of our collective ignorance and the look-the-other-way strategy of the Clinton Administration caused us to ignore that which we now fight.

Perhaps, the most obvious difference lies with the fighting styles. The Greatest Generation combated the Armies of Nation's; the soldiers of today are fighting guerillas who appear in a variety of outfits.

The passing of time changes many things, yet one thing remains constant, the evil we see in the World. Yes, evil, that's the right word. Conservatives usually catch a lot of crap for saying that word, but that's okay. The other thing that seems to remain constant is that American Soldiers are the ones fighting that evil. Whether you agree or disagree with the War in Iraq, one thing must be admitted: the spirit of the American G.I remains unchanged by time. He still selflessly fights for good and truth, with courage and strength, just as he did in World War II.

December 7th, 2005 has now faded to December 8th and my reflection has come to an end. However, in honor of those who perished on that Date of Infamy, I leave with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free."

Is Discrimination Against Christians Ok?

As you've probably seen on the news, there has been quite a lot of nitpicking about religion during this annual Christmas Season. The scenarios have included everything from Rep. Hastert renaming Capitol Hill's 'Holiday Tree' a Christmas Tree, to the ACLU threatening lawsuits against schools that have Christmas Carols as a part of their 'holiday' performances. If you haven't seen the pattern yet, allow me to state the obvious. It all involves discrimination against Christians.

Yes, that's right, all over the United States it is now Politically Incorrect to be a Christian on public property. You can't set up a Christmas tree, or a Manger scene, and God forbid you say the C-word (Christ). Of course, the problem here is the double standard. The ACLU is suing the same schools for inappropriate uses of 'Christmas' that it sued for not allowing Muslims a special place for prayer during Ramadan. And oddly enough, no one seems to mind it when Jews discuss Hanukah. But please, don't ever even mention 'Joy to the World'.

The worst thing about this is that these anti-Christians don't see the double standard that they have. They don't think of it as discrimination. Although it most certainly is. It's perfectly fine for anyone to criticize religion in schools: as long as it's Christianity that they're criticizing. However, once we cross that PC line and start discussing Judaism or Islam or any other religion, the multiculturalists come swooping down; 'Don't discriminate', 'It's just their culture', 'You have to respect their religion', and the list, of course, goes on. These are the same people who, despite not believing in a universal right and wrong or truth, find some way to make the claim that having a Christmas float in the town 'holiday' parade is 'wrong'.

When are we going to stop pretending we don't know the roots of our country? When is someone finally going to say that toleration specifically for Muslims just won't cut it? So far this month, the Christian populace in this country has shown signs that it will at least put up a fight; and that's good. The Christian establishment in this country has stood by and watched as one of its 2 most important holidays has taken a theoretical beating from the media and the multiculturalists. Hopefully, we can find a way to put a stop the blatant and unnecesary discrimination against Christmas.

A Good Old-Fashion..... Hindu Christmas?

Just yesterday, I attended the University's 'Lighting of the Quad' ceremony, where students gathered to celebrate the 'spirit of the season' and light up a tall fir tree with ornaments on it (certainly not a Christmas tree though). In the middle of the whole ceremony, amidst all the hymns about some strange 'Messiah' person, a senior female student got up and spoke about how she loved the 'spirit of the season' and the 'time of year'. Only problem was, she practiced the hajik religion or something or other; I couldn't even make out what she called her religion, much less tell you what it entailed. But that made me wonder, why was she there? If she loves the discounts and excessive shopping, well that may work for her, but that’s not exactly the 'spirit of the season'.

Unfortunately for this girl, and all the other agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews present, the 'Spirit of the Season' pertains to something very specific. Something this, admittedly, non-Christian student couldn't quite put her finger on. Oh, there was a lot of talk about the 'feeling of peace' and the 'unity of mankind' that all these non-Christians feel, but no one seemed to wonder where all those feelings came from. The answer, of course, is extraordinarily simple: Jesus Christ. That's right, the 'Spirit of the Season' is all about celebrating the fact that God loved us enough to send his only Son, to save all mankind. That's powerful stuff, in fact, that’s powerful enough to induce all of those feelings of 'unity' and 'brotherhood' that everyone at the Lighting Ceremony was talking so much about.

But this brought me to a new question, the thing that was truly bugging me as I stood there and listened to this student drone on, how can non-Christians celebrate Christmas? The whole reason we have the 'Season' in the first place is because of traditions that started under the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope hundreds of years ago. And the reason that we have the Season and all these traditions, reasons non-Christians can never explain very precisely, is because of a baby that was born a little over 2,000 years ago.

If you want to celebrate Kwanza or Haunakah, that’s fine, but c'mon. When you have a Christmas tree, or are singing Christmas Carols, or are discussing Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men (hmmmm, I wonder where we got those quotes from....), its not the 'Holiday Season', it's Christmas! So please, spare me your phrases about good spirit and such, I’ve heard (read) them all before, in the New Testament. And please, if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the One true Son of God who came to save our sins, stop celebrating Christmas!! It's not your holiday! By not being Christian, you have admitted you don’t believe in Christmas!

So for all the Hindus, Pagans etc. out there, enjoy the time off from school or work, and have a happy New Year, but please, stop wishing me 'Happy Holidays'.

Fireside Chats on Iraq? Why Not?

Senator John Warner recently made a very interesting suggestion. He wants President Bush to give the American public frequent updates about how the War in Iraq is going; as he noted this would be very similar to FDR's 'fireside chats' during World War II. But would this really be a good idea? The honest answer is yes. What does the President have to lose?

It seems that people want to hear what he has to say, or at least need to, since they are begining to become more unsure and unsupportive of the War by the day. Furthermore, it would provide an antidote to all the biased mainstream media coverage in Iraq these days. Instead of stories focusing on the bad, Bush would be able to focus on the positive, and give the American Public a new perspective on the War that they don't get from CBS. In fact, a 'fireside chat' type deal would play to Bush's strengths by enabling him to be more personable and casual with ordinary folks. Indeed, the perception of Bush as the 'average guy' has always proved to be an advantage for him, and this would be a great opportunity to play that card.

Part of what FDR was so good at during his Presidency was creating the right P.R image, a task at which the Bush administration has failed miserably this past year. 'Chatting' with the electorate about what is going on in Iraq would be a great opportunity to re-create the image. And quite honestly, how could it possibly hurt the President? The media can't spin the War any worse than they already have, his support for the War won't diminish any farther, and his P.R image can't really get much worse.

George Patton once said that success is a measure of how high you bounce when you hit the bottom. Mr President, you've hit the bottom, and maybe this 'chat' idea will get the bounce going.

The Real International Virus

Not that I was worried about the bird flu anyways, but another story I saw today showed me what the true international viral infection is: Trial Lawyers armed with bogus cases. In Australia, lawyers are currently arguing a case before the High Court to get a 24-year-old disabled woman compensation for 'lifelong suffering'. Yes, that's right, a 24 year old female, who was born blind and deaf with rubella is suing, with the help of her mother, the doctor who misdiagnosed the rubella in her Mother's first trimester 25 years ago. The woman, Alexia Harrington, is suing saying that her Mother, Olga, would have aborted her had she known that the child was going to be retarded. And as one final note, the family says that the trial is not about money, but that it is about getting compensation for a "rubella afflicted life".

Okay, there are, oh so many ways in which this case has problems, but I will try to deal mainly with one. However, I will say it is quite odd that a mother is helping her 24-year-old daughter sue for not being aborted. It must be an Australian form of a Mother-Daughter relationship too complex for a simple American like me to understand. Of course, this brings up the whole issue of abortion itself, but that requires it own full post at a later date.

First of all, why in the world did these people wait for 24 YEARS to do this. Surely the mother knew from birthday number one that her baby was disabled and was going to require intensive, costly care. If not, then perhaps the mother should be checked for some form of 'Reality Comprehension' Syndrome. Unfourtunately, I think it is much more likely that this mother, and her daughter, suffer from the 'Trial Lawyer sees a potentially good money-making case' Syndrome. It is dispicable that these lawyers are using this mother and her handicapped daughter for some sort of publicity, money-making stunt.

Oh, and please don't say that the lawyers are doing it for the poor, rubella-struck woman's good. If she was truly so unhappy with her life that she wishes to have never been born, there are plenty of ways to solve that; a shotgun or small handgun might provide a quick and easy solution. Secondly, if this is for the money, why does the Doctor have to pay off hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) in damages? Blaming your local Obstetrician for an unfourtunate act of God, doesn't do you much good. And to be honest, his mistaken diagnosis doesn't merit the amount of money the case will be for, especially when you consider that the actual woman of the prosecution will only get maybe half of the money, and her lawyer the rest.

Furthurmore, the question of whether or not a child may be disabled isn't quite black and white. Many times a Doctor will indicate to the parents that there is a high probability of a child being physically or mentally retarded, and the child turns out just fine. The point being, a diagnosis of retardation made in the first trimester of pregnancy is hardly as concrete as, say, the Laws of Gravity, making it extremely difficult to fault the Doctor for 24 years of 'pain and suffering'. The simple fact is that disability is something that comes at the fault of no, one, particular human being, so it is quite childish of this family to blame all this on the Doctor.

What is really sad about this case is that it so closely resembles malpractice cases here in the US. Trial Lawyers here seem unable to comprehend that, 99% of the time a doctor has as much to do with the disabilities of a child as they do with the eye color of the child. They are unable to understand that Down's Syndrome, the subject of more than a few cases here in the U.S.A, is actually a genetic disorder, or that that rubella is a microscopic virus, not an full-grown, human Obstetrician.

Which is why it's time for the Trial Lawyers of the world to stop spreading their 'virus' around the world, because Obstetricians really need a break. They would prefer to spend their week in the ER, not the courtroom. And for the sake of women all over the world, let's hope that they stay in buisness instead of retiring from rising malpractice insurance premiums. Better yet, let's hope we find a vaccine for the highly contagious 'bogus lawsuit' virus.

Is Zarqawi's Gig Up?

Today in Amman, Jordanians hit the streets in full force, armed with a fierce protest. But there was something unusual about this one. It did not contain the typical anti-semetic hate, or even the anti-Americanism; rather, it was filled with ire directed at Iraq's terrorist leader Musab al-Zarqawi. The novelty of the situation paints an intriguing picture.

First and foremost, it's good to see Muslims finally standing up to al-Zarqawi and his ruthless gang of terrorists. The fury with which they protested is, hopefully, a sign that ordinary Muslims and Arabs are not going to stand for this kind of crap anymore. They appear to have grown weary of Zarqawi taking out his frustrations with America primarily on Iraqi and other Arabic peoples (innocent civilians at that). They are finally coming to see that Musab's Machiavellian-like tactics don't achieve a 'just' or, if I may say so, an 'Allah-happy' end.

However, the response of these Jordanians demonstrates something else that is far more important to American citizens. In the Muslim world, al-Zarqawi is loosing support. His numbers dwindle, and the vanishing of popular support is spelling out his eventual defeat. This is in stark contrast to the 'quagmire' that was described by Liberal sages not to long ago. One of the chief components of this 'quagmire' was the fact that the people there would never support us. That our actions fueld the terrorists, and strengthend not just their numbers but their popular support as well.

Yet, as the War in Iraq continues, we are informed by men on the ground that the terrorists' numbers are shrinking; and now we are seeing that the Muslim public is begining to view them in a not-so positive light. Indeed, now it appears that the Terrorists' actions, and not our's, are the ones provoking a sour attitude amongst the Arabs. In fact, Zarqawi was so dimayed he felt the need to personally explain what exactly his bombers were doing the other day at the Hyatt. That Zarqawi is now having to come out and depict the 'holiness' behind his murders simply does not bode well for his organization.

Most importantly for al-Zarqawi, the continuation of this type of public outcry will force him to change his tactics. Recently, his men have begun to include more civilian targets in their attacks, in an attempt to create a sense of anti-war sensationalism with the media. The massive backfire that this has created in Jordan today should cause much concern in Zaqawi's rat-hole tonight. And of course this begs the question: is a massive public 'Death to Zarqawi' cry the begining of the end for al-Qaeda Iraq?

I'd have to say that the answer is most definitely 'Yes'.

Muslims Get Taste of 'Down Under' Jails

Just in case you didn't notice, or were watching CNN complain about the lack of French compassion instead, something absolutely astounding happened today in Australia. 16 Muslim men, 7 from Sydney and 9 from Melbourne were arrested for plotting a terror attack. As it turns out, these men were apparently plotting a 9/11 type attack (at least in magnitude) in Melbourne. According to authorities, they had bombs made and ready for use, and were operating a 'mini-factory', of sorts, that they were using to produce more. Additionally, these terrorists are under the leadership of Abu Bakr, a man who is well noted in Australia for his extreme devotion to jihad and Osama bin Laden.

The fact that this plot has not only been discovered, but stopped, speaks volumes to the anti-terror forces in Australia. A great deal of praise and credit is owed to Australian authorities and police forces for their superb work in uncovering this plot. It is victories like these that demonstrate to us that the War on Terror is indeed winable; and that also help add to the sense of desperation that our enemies are rapidly begining feel.

Since late 2001, Australia and Prime Minister John Howard have been perhaps the strongest American allies besides Tony Blair and Britian. The fact that they can put a halt to this type of terror plot speaks highly of thier ability to be brilliant allies in the War on Terror. Furthermore, with the current debacle in France, it is extremely comforting to see a country that can actually deal with, and solve, its own problems. So kudos to John Howard and his government, and here's to many more succesful 'outings' of al-Qaeda plots, where ever they so happen to be.

The Not-So 'Gai Paris'

It seems that everyone's favorite Socialist Nation is again being put in the hot seat by its Muslim immigrants. For 10 days now, specific suburbs of Paris have been rocked by violent uprisings of young Muslim men. Cars have been blown apart, hundreds have been arrested, and buildings have been burned. On top of all this, the French government has demonstrated utter ineptitude in its attempts to halt the violence. Unfourtunately for France, it isn't just the current problem of curtailing the violence that the French Government faces. It is much deeper than that.

The root of the problem is, of course, France's abominable immigration policy. Muslims stream in daily, undocumented and unchecked. Many of the people involved in the Paris rioting aren't even French citizens, merely illegals who have no place being in France in the first place. And of course this problem is caused by another, much bigger, problem: socialism.

The immigrants come in the first place because they are assured of free health care, and the possibility of making large sums simply from welfare checks. However, the world is a rather imperfect place and so unlike the Frecnh citizens, these Muslims dont get the sums of cash. They get unemployment instead. Another side effect of the French governemnt's socialist policies and economy is an ever skyrocketing 12% unemployment rate. Furthurmore, as would be expected, this rate most affects poor men and women in France; such as Muslim immigrants.

Additionally, the current problem the French are having stems from their beloved 'multiculturalist' attitude. France is so afraid to come off as anti-muslim, racist, or, worse yet, oppressive. In doing so they have placed Muslims above the law. As is apparent in Paris these days, Muslims dont think they have to comply with the law. The reason for this is simply that Muslims have been given preferential treatment for so long in France, they think it will never end. France is afraid to say that certain radical Islamic ideals are unacceptable, because the French don't want to insult anyone, unless they live on the other side of the Atlantic.

The French need to grow up, or at least develop some guts. My only hope is that this rioting will expose certain glaring defficiencies in the French system, and spark change. Immigration is something that the French had better do something about fast, or they may quickly become Francistan. As for socialism, the Frecnh economy has been stagnant for months now, and if Chirac and all the other monsieurs in Paris don't make changes fast, the French may find themselves in a Great Depression-like state.

France is a wonderful country, and they make the best 'vin rouge' in the world; but the people in the suburbs of France's most famous city are in serious need of authoritarian aid right now. And I, for one, sure as hell hope they dont have to call 'Team America' to come save their asses again.

To Filibuster, Or Not to Filibuster?

With the recent nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Democrats in the Senate are facing a decisively uphill battle. Clearly, parts of the Democratic Party do not like Alito, he has already been called a wingnut, an idealogue, and perhaps most telling 'Scalito' or 'Scalia-lite'. The A.C.L.U, N.O.W, and the other big name liberal organizations are, after recovering from their convulsion fits, probably preparing to launch a full scale war against the confirmation of Judge Alito.

Unfourtunately, the likelyhood of this doing any good is virtually non-existant. The harder they fight the bigger and more impressive the victory is for the Republicans. And the Republicans will win this one, make no mistake. They have that 55-45 advantage in the Senate, and it looks like the gang of 14 is not going to butt in and screw around. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the semi-Republican from my home state, has already said the "filibuster will not stand", and it appears the other 6 RINO's are falling in step with him. In other words, all the Republicans will likely be voting to confirm Alito, and could very well invoke the 'nuclear option' if the Democrats try to use the filibuster. Furthurmore, it appears as though the 'gang of 14' Democrats, such as Sen Mark Pryor, do not seem to consider this an 'extraordinary circumstance' and thus have shown little intrest in a filibuster.

So the bottom line is this: Democrats just need to let this nomination happen, because bickering and fighting only hurts them. Bush now has his base strongly behind him, and the plan is apparently to win a nice victory and then launch into a new part of the agenda. For instance, the high tide from an Alito confirmation would be a great launching pad for, say, Social Security reform. So the Democrats may want to save their ammo for later fights.

But now that I think about it, Karl Rove probably has an extra plan ready, just in case the Democrats don't take his bait......