The Poppies Blow

On this Memorial Day, in honor of all Americans who have served their country, I offer up one of my favorites: In Flanders Fields.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep,
though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Before I conclude, I'll just add one more thought from my favorite General:

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the [soldiers] who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived." ~ G.S.P

Thank you, Veterans.

It's Tough To Give It Up

Yesterday, the South Carolina State Legislature concluded a rather contentious round of Judicial Elections by selecting S.C Appeals Court Justice Donald Beatty to the State's Supreme Court. Of course, in typical South Carolina fashion, in doing so, they unapologetically passed on a Judicial candidate who, to quote The Sun News, had "[more] experience [and a higher] Bar Association rating:" the Chief Justice of the State's Appeals Court, Kaye Hearn.

In other words, the S.C State Legislature didn't feel that it needed to select the most qualified Justice for the position. You see, the winner of this State Supreme Court nomination, Justice Beatty, happens to be black, and, thanks to the fact that only 1 African-American has served on the State Supreme Court since Reconstruction, in recent years the Legislature has taken some heat for the lack of 'diversity' on the Bench. So to be blunt, the election of Beatty to the S.C Supreme Court was the purest form of Legislative politicking and political ass-covering. Indeed, to make matters worse, the 3rd Candidate for the position, Appellate Court Justice Brian Williams, necessitated multiple rounds of balloting for the position, because a solid block of Legislative Republicans refused to vote for Beatty, whom they deemed 'too liberal'. In fact, at the end of the day, the Justice who, on paper at least, appeared to be the most qualified candidate for the job ended up a distant 3rd in a contest of 3.

Confused yet? Heh, you probably should be - the politicking, bargaining and outright vote-swapping which go into South Carolina Judicial Elections have become notorious in the last decade. Indeed, the blatant dubiousness of the behind-the-scenes action that went into South Carolina Judicial Elections prompted, back in 1997, the creation of a Judicial Merit Selection Committee; in order that South Carolina's abominable method of Judicial Selection might be made somewhat less worse.

See, South Carolina, along with Virginia, is one of the last 2 States in the Union which select the Judges for the top 3 State Courts (Supreme, Appeals, Curcuit) via an election within the State Legislature. As you might expect, this particular system not only invites but enourages the practice of cronyism; and, indeed, of the 14 Justices serving on South Carolina's Supreme and Appeals Courts, 9 of them were, at one point in their lives, members of the State Legislature. In neighboring States (excluding Virginia, of course) similar Courts have generally between 0 and 2 members with such experience - despite the fact that all such States have more than 14 Judgeships available.

Moreover, on top of the blatant cronyism found in this Judicial Selection method, one of course finds the aforementioned occurrences of vote-swapping, bartering and deal-making. While these are, unsurprisingly, typical features of the Legislative (lawmaking) process, one would think that when it comes to selecting Judges for something as important as your State's Supreme Court, Legislators might go out of their way to burden themselves with the efforts necessary to determine and select the Judge best qualified for the available position. Afterall, the Judicial Branch of Government is, in theory at least, supposed to be the most objective and impartial of the 3 Branches. Sadly, this is not the case in South Carolina. Politics, interest groups, and in-State regional influences are what determine the awarding of South Carolina judgeships - not credentials.

The dubious nature of this politicking got so bad that, in 1996, even the typically lackadaisical residents of South Carolina were forced to take notice and demand reform. The result was the adoption of a new State Constitutional Amendment, the following year, mandating that all Judges 1st be approved by a Judicial Merit Committee before being voted upon by the State's General Assembly. Of course, in a political maneuver that would have made even the slickest of Lawyers quite proud, the new amendment was worded such that 6 of the 10 people sitting on the Merit Committee are none other than elected members of the State Legislature.

In other words, the core nature of the system remains the same, South Carolina's State Legislators, exclusively, select our State's Judges, and thus the flaws of the old system remain with us in the new - and that's why South Carolina needs a change. Legislative Selection of Justices is, to put it mildly, an outdated and downright terrible method for selecting Judges. I mean, if the 3 branches of Government are to be equal, doesn't it seem a bit irrational that one of the 3 would be entirely a function of another? But that's what South Carolina has - the Judiciary Branch of the South Carolina Government really is just an extension of the State Legislature. Couple that fact with the fact that the S.C Governor remains one of the weakest such officers in the Country, and you have what is, relatively speaking, one of, if not the, most powerful State Legislature in the Union.

When it comes to Judicial Selection, there is, admittedly, no easy answer. However, there is one, very clear, wrong answer - Legislative Selection. South Carolina would greatly benefit by changing its Judicial selection process to something which closely resembles the Federal model. In other words, Gubernatorial appointment with State Senate approval. In doing so, this State would go a long ways towards solving the two problems I mentioned above: the dependency of the Judiciary and the weakness of the Chief Executive.

Not that I expect the issue to be raised anytime soon, especially by the State Legislators who stand the most to lose by a change in the process. Besides, change is something that rarely happens quickly in South Carolina politics - something which, given its people and the all-powerful nature of its State Legislature, should come as no great surprise.

The 2008 GOP Race Comes Home

Last night I watched the 2nd Debate between the Republican Candidates for President, and while I can't say I was all that impressed, this was certainly much better than the 1st one on MSNBC, which was basically a contest to see who could say "Ronald Reagan" the most. Part of the reason for that, of course, was the fact that FOX hosted this debate, and they did an awesome job. The questions were tough, the format was good, and the only real flaw was that they seemed to completely ignore Duncan Hunter. The debate was hosted right here in the great State of South Carolina; although, despite this fact, the candidates, surprisingly, weren't overbearing in their attempts to pander to South Carolina's social Conservatives.

Alright, well, enough with the blah, and on to some real (well-sort of) analysis of the candidates!

Ron Paul would be golden if he could just manage to utterly and completely avoid talking about foreign policy. Seriously, the guy nails fiscal issues and domestic policy on the head....but then he starts talking about 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and other International issues and I suddenly get this burning desire to smack him in the head with a baseball bat.

On the other hand, he could be Tommy Thompson, who makes me want to wail on his ass with a baseball bat every time he opens his mouth. Please, GOP, if you have some decency left in you, do all that you can, use the Police if necessary, to prevent this man from coming on stage at the next debate. He adds abso-freakin-loutely nothing to the debates - and he....Just. Needs. To. Go.
For that matter, Jim Gilmore can also be banned from coming up on stage. While he's not nearly as irritating as Thompson, his presence on stage, like Thompson's, serves no purpose other than to waste air time that could be spent on other, more important, candidates.

As much as I like the guy, Tom Tancredo (who after bombing in the 1st debate, did very well last night) has absolutely no chance at the nomination. Zippo. None. However, I do hope that he stays in the race so that he can keep chiding the other candidates on Illegal Immigration.

Duncan Hunter, as mentioned above, was completely and utterly ignored. Honestly, I think he got 4 questions total during the entire 1.5 hours. He nailed what he got, but it's hard for a lesser-known guy to make headway when he gets no airtime. Brit Hume, you must work on this for next time.

Sam Brownback is just another run-of-the-mill, big-government Republican. Unless you really dig the hardcore evangelical thing, there is absolutely no reason to let this guy back into the debates. I don't dig the hardcore evangelical thing. Therefore, I think he should join Gilmore and Thompson on the sidelines. Besides, he has no chance anyways.

John McCain, so far, has looked extremely defensive in these debates. For him, that's not good, since his campaign numbers, recently, seem to have been going in the wrong direction. He needs to take a new, more aggressive approach. He's certainly not my favorite of the candidates out there, and won't be voting for him, but I have to admit, I do admire (and agree with) the principled stand he has taken on Iraq and on foreign policy in general. You gotta admit, at the end of the day (despite Rudy's whole "I was Mayor on 9/11" thing) McCain does have the most credibility of this batch when it comes to National Security issues.

Speaking of Rudy, he clearly had the line of the night when he smacked down Ron Paul's childish "blame America for 9/11" argument. Clearly, National Security is Rudy's forte and he looked very comfortable there tonight. However, there is this little problem he has; that being this whole 'pro-choice' position he's got going - and he got crucified for in this debate. Rudy's chances of winning the nomination now sorely rest on his claim (which he, interestingly, hinted at on stage tonight) that he is the only Republican nominee capable of beating Hillary in the general election. Unfortunately, he may not have the chance to prove that. In my opinion, tonight, Rudy lost any chance he had of winning the crucial S.C primary. In this State, a fair number of Democrats are more pro-life than Rudy, and for most of the Republicans, this issue ranks pretty high on their list of importance. Put another way, South Carolina doesn't have some of the Nation's strictest abortion laws for nuthin'.

Mitt Romney treaded water tonight. Not near as great a performance as he had in the 1st debate, but he didn't really hurt himself. Of course, given how low his poll numbers are in S.C (he's polling behind 2 guys who haven't even declared yet!!), that may not be what he wanted or needed. Indeed, while Massachusetts may have been ready for a Mormon Governor, it appears that the South is still not ready for a Mormon President. It sucks and it's unfair, but it still may be his doom.

The former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, was, in my estimation, the man who clearly came prepared tonight. In the past, I haven't thought highly of his chances, but he turned in a standout performance tonight. His comparison of Congressional spending to John Edwards in a beauty parlor was the most memorable line of the night, and he clearly, more so than any other candidate, helped himself up there last night. He scored some good points with S.C voters when he took Rudy to town on abortion, he had excellent responses to the challenges/though questions that were posed to him, and of all the guys who were there, I thought he was the winner.

However, overall, as I said earlier, I'm still not, in any way, overly impressed with this GOP field. However, the coming of late entrants into the field may be a saving grace. Here, of course, as political junkies will surely know, I'm speaking of former Tennessee Senator and long-time actor, Fred Thompson. Indeed, while Huckabee was the winner of those present, the overall winner of this debate may just be Fred. In case you haven't heard, Fred has been rumored to be entering the race for some time now, and all indications are that he's going to jump in at some point. He's been polling extremely well among the GOP base, generally finishing in the top 3, despite not having yet declared; and sitting around and letting voters be unimpressed with the current crop of candidates, while they beat up on each other, may be a well calculated, and intelligent, move on his part.

So there you have it, that's my take on South Carolina's 1st 2008 GOP debate; and here's to hoping we have more debates that are as well-run as this one, and, while were at it, here's to hoping Fred Thompson is around for the next one.

Oklahoman Diversity

Found this and it was too funny not to post.

Now, having been there a few times in my life, I know that Oklahoma isn't exactly the 'Melting Pot' capital of the United States....but, um, I had no idea their definition of diversity could be so.....uniform.

Apparently, a few years back, the Oklahoma Governor, by executive order, created the "Governor's Ethnic American Council" for the State of Oklahoma. From what I gather, it's supposed to help advise the Governor on matters that concern Ethnic Americans....oh, screw it. Just click here, scroll down, and look at the names of the Council's members.

You just gotta love all that ethnic diversity, eh?

Did I mention that the Governor, Brad Henry, happens to be from the self-proclaimed Party of Diversity?

Oftentimes, with politics, the jokes just write themselves.

Oh, A Change Could Do Them Good

With the conclusion of the high-profile debate earlier today, the race for the Presidency is entering its final stages. In France that is. What, did that one pass under your radar? Well, it shouldn't have. Indeed, all Americans interested in seeing someone, anyone, put a stop to the massive economic, cultural, and societal decline that's happening in France should take note of a man by the name of Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy is one of the two candidates who made it to the final round of voting in the French Presidential election. His opponent, Segolene Royal, hails from France's well-established Socialist Party making Sarkozy, particularly by French standards, a real right-winger of a candidate.

And let me assure you that, in France, the term 'right-wing' is quite relative.

Indeed, only in France would one be branded as "a danger to the Nation" for suggesting that, with a 12% unemployment rate, it might be time to take a second look at the mandatory 35-hour work week; or, in the aftermath of the massive 'youth' riots a couple years back, that tightening up the immigration policies and enforcing "law and order" might be a good idea.

Sarkozy, of course, for all the juvenile, ad hominem attacks he has endured at the hands of his opponents, is not, in any way, a "danger" to France. Hell, given the abominable state of the country these days, he might be the closest thing to a savior they've seen since De Gaulle. While Royal has been running a campaign based on emotion, mudslinging, and...uh, her own ego, Sarkozy has been running a campaign based on his qualifications and his positions on the issues. Indeed, in France, there appears to be no real question as to who is the more qualified candidate, they've conceded that one to Sarkozy, the real question seems to be whether a legit, policy driven President will serve them better than a pandering, ideologically-scattered President who they're not as scared of.

Political competence as a secondary issue - only in France.

Sarkozy, however, has bet that a majority of French voters are, in fact, smarter than I'd give them credit for, and will choose his ability over Royal's nonsense - and so far, the polls indicate that this bet will pay off. So what exactly might a Sarkozy victory mean? Well, consider some of his campaign platforms:

- Easing the restrictions on Overtime work, partly by reducing/eliminating the taxes placed on post-35th hour wages.
- Tightening up the immigration policy and keeping better track of all the immigrants who are allowed in
- Increasing criminal sentences and reducing crime, especially violent crime
- Lowering personal taxes

Sounds reasonable, no? To my, admittedly, outsider's eyes, the consequences of a Sarkozy victory would be a re-introduction of common sense into French Politics. Moreover, it would seem to indicate the beginning of a period of liberalization (in the historical, Jeffersonian sense of the word) in economic policy. In short, a Sarkozy victory might be a forbearer of change in French politics. That can only be a good thing.

I suppose we'll see on May 6th, when the 2nd vote takes place, whether or not the French agree with my assesment, and if they are willing to change and start down what could be a very long road to recovery. On the Campaign trail, Mr. Sarkozy has said that "the French are not afraid of change. They're waiting for it." Indeed, let's hope so - and let's hope that Sarkozy, if elected, actually delivers on the promise of change; because no 1st-World-Country needs change more than France.

The Suit Run Amok

Check out this story, and just try to tell me it's not the most ridiculous thing you've seen this week. I mean, seriously, $67 Mil for a dry cleaning mistake??? C'mon now:

" Plaintiff Roy Pearson, a judge in Washington, D.C., says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench.

He says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."

He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit on his first day of work.

He's suing for 10 years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store. [ed. note: the amount he's suing for totals $67 million]

The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.

'Satisfaction Guaranteed.' "

While we're on the subject of advertising slogans, here's one for you: 'Got Liability Reform??"

What does it say about the legal atmosphere we have in this country, that this Judge/plaintiff would actually take this case to court? It either means:

a) The guy feels he can win (and that speaks volumes); or
b) He feels that our court system is some kind of grievance forum, where people get to come and give other people/companies a bad name by complaining about their faults.

Of course, the above notwithstanding, the good ol' trial lawyers and their lobbyists will happily explain how this particular case, while outrageous, is not really indicative of the overall lawsuit industry (and it is an industry) in the United States - but it is. Only in U.S Court can you sue McDonalds for having hot coffee, or anyone you so choose for causing you 'emotional pain,' whatever the hell that is. Indeed, to go back to my point 'b)' above, it seems the Legal System of the United States, sadly, no longer concerns itself with Justice or common sense; instead, the Courtroom has become something of a group therapy session. People come and whine, complain, and flat-out bitch about how badly something has made them feel - which, naturally, is the jist of it. Simply put, these days people take someone else to court, not to seek justice, but in order to feel better about themselves.

In fact, for the plaintiffs, it's not so much about the money as it is just wanting to solve 'emotional' problems. The lawyers, of course, who help convince these people they have 'emotional' problems, are the ones really in it for the money. So in a nutshell: Overly-greedy Trial Lawyers + 'Emotionally-unstable' Morons = The Modern American Judicial System.

Hell of a world, huh?

Les Haters du France

This is just too funny to ignore!!! Check out this Link and prepare for a good laugh.

Now, personally, when it comes to French-bashing, I am never one to be outdone; moreover, as General Patton said, it is truly un-American to finish in 2nd place - HOWEVER, in this case, I think even the General would have to make an exception.

Seriously, when it comes to French-bashing, how could we possibly compete with the French themselves?!?!

The British Edge

All over the world, Freedom is hailed for its positive influences and outright necessity. Of course, when we speak of Freedom, we typically reference political Freedom - things like free speech, free press, etc. However, in doing so, we omit a crucial component of the term: Economic Freedom. Recently, I happened upon the annual Index of Economic Freedom, released earlier this year by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, which ranks the Nations of the world in terms of their Economic freedom. Unsurprisingly, the top 7, (Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland) was a clean sweep for the former British Empire; which founded economic systems based on British Capitalism in all 7 of the list-topping countries.

Indeed, Capitalism, it seems, after all these years, (and for all the vileness of its evil, Imperial, British inventors,) still works; and those Nations who are smart enough to continue implementing it do pretty well - especially when it comes to the question of that Freedom which we all value so highly.

So here's to the Adam Smiths, Milton Friedmans, Sir John Cowperthwaites, and Margaret Thatchers of the world for giving us, and maintaining, the best Economic system there ever was.

A Message From The General

...Because given how intent the Democratic Leadership seems on surrendering in Iraq, we could all use a little refresher course in what it means to be fighting a War.

For those of you purists, who perhaps find the (significantly) less-vulgar movie version a bit inauthentic, here's the link to the actual text of THE Speech the General made on June 5th, 1944: To the 3rd Army

Enjoy:



If only he were still around today.....

LBJ is your Big Brother

You know, a long time ago, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to one of his friends on the subject of public welfare. In this letter, Mr. Franklin acknowledged the idealistic potential for good that was present in such programs; nevertheless, he concluded the letter by stating that he would, in fact, be strongly opposed to such programs. Why? Well, you see, Mr. Franklin's feeling was that if the Government were to introduce welfare programs many people would try to take advantage of, and abuse, the system. Moreover, he felt that such programs would also cause people to become dependent on the Government.

Turns out, he was right.

Nowadays, over 70 years after the beginning of the New Deal, over 50% of Americans now receive a significant portion of their income from the Government. Yes, that's right, over half of the people in this country have become dependents of the Federal Government. For some perspective, in 1950, that number was around 28%. It hit its high in 1980, at 55%, started to recede as a consequence of the Reagan Revolution and has now started to rise again with the onset of the open-arms, 'compassionate' conservatism of President Bush. (Of course, Compassionate Conservatism is basically just liberalism with tax cuts - not that I'm complaining about the tax cut part, mind you, it's just all that....spending.)

Yes, believe it or not, the creation and installation of massive amounts of welfare programs, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, has had exactly the effect that us Libertarian-Conservatives told you it would: it makes people less dependent on themselves and more dependent on the Government. I know, you're probably wondering why I have to spell all this out - but apparently, a whole lotta people still don't get it.

I mean, if freedom is defined as the ability to do your own thing (being independent), how exactly are Americans supposed to be 'free' if they don't even earn significant portions of their own incomes? How do you expect to be able to prevent a Government from becoming oppressive when half of its citizens depend on said Government in order to maintain their lifestyles?

And I haven't even mentioned the huge, massive, overwhelming deficits we're currently running trying to maintain these stupid programs.

I guess this is just further proof that guys like FDR and LBJ were complete idiots, as their social programs have, quite literally, given a 'Big Brother-esque' quality to the American state. The U.S Government has, since the left-wing revolution of the 1930's and the Socialist revolution of the 1960's, become the do-all, cure-all, and save-all for an unseemly amount of its citizens. Of course, that's not what Government is supposed to be. You are supposed to be responsible for yourself. Well, you were, until FDR and LBJ came along and said that it was really the Government's job to look after you.

I guess they got what they wanted.

Sad, really.

Stop Gun Abuse....Restrict Voting?

As I was reading through my rather large collection of quotes a few minutes ago, I came across this gem from Teddy Roosevelt:

"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends on the character of the user."

After reading it, and giving it the usual, appropriate snicker, it got me thinking; and you know what, T.R just might have a great argument for 2nd Amendment Rights in there. Consider this: what do many folks on the left lobby for on the issue of gun-control? Well, they want stricter, more effective restrictions on gun ownership and use. Why? Well, it's very simple (they say), guns kill people; thus to stop the killing, we should restrict the people who use the guns.

Sounds like a plausible line of thinking, right?

Now, consider the following argument which I will pose to you. I want stricter more efficient restrictions on voting. I want fewer people to be able to vote. Why? Well, because, as any opponent of the Iraq War will gladly tell you, electing the wrong politician gets people killed. And, naturally, we need to restrict the people who enable this killing which, in a Democracy, means 'We the (voting) People'!! So, end the violence, restrict....uh, anyone who's not a college professor from voting!!! Yeah!!

The logic doesn't sound as plausible anymore, now does it?

I haven't given this particular argument a great degree of thought, so it could still have some holes in it; however, I always take great pleasure in turning anti-2nd Amendment folks' ridiculous arguments upside-down and couldn't resist the opportunity. At the very least, it's some food for thought!

Governmental Brilliance!!

Finally, we discover why liberals have struggled with improving public education and proven unable to deal with out-of-control spending. It's just plain stupidity. Why else would the Democrats in the Michigan State Legislature, with a State budget deficit of over $1 billion, decide that giving every child an iPod would be a good idea? No, seriously, the Democrats in the Michigan State House actually proposed a bill, this past week, which would make it State law that every school child receive an iPod or an MP3 player, courtesy of the State Government.

And you thought Grandma was spoiling your kid!

Aside from the obvious qualms one might have about wasting money buying kids iPods when you have a one billion dollar deficit on your hands, please take note of the fact that these Democrats are trying to argue that such a policy would, in fact, be beneficial to Michigan children's education.

Because, you know, listening to a bunch of rap music about sex with 'hos, smoking pot and gun violence will surely improve the kids' SAT scores.

Oh wait, maybe they just want all the kids to have an opportunity to listen to Bob Dylan, with the hopes that 7th graders will proceed to skip class and go protest George Bush's eeeeevil foreign policy.

Just think of the educational possibilities......

Nah, come to think of it, they're just f*#@ing morons.

Oderint Dum Metuant?

Well, well, well - it seems as if my post from last Thursday (2 down) was, unfortunately, somewhat prophetic in its nature. Whilst I was busy writing about how Western powers needed to beware of Iran calling some of their military bluffs, Iran was but hours away from capturing 15 British soldiers, making a mockery out of the (once) Mighty British Empire, and proving my point in the process. Indeed, it seems that right now, the Iranian Government has about as much respect for Tony Blair as it did for Jimmy Carter when he crashed those helicopters in the desert back during the last major go-round of Iranian hostage taking. As a result, Iran feels perfectly safe venturing into Iraqi waters to capture 15 of Mr. Blair's troops; and, so far, their fear of reprisal, or rather, lack thereof, has proved singularly correct in the face of Prime Minister Blair's rather bland and unsuccessful attempts at rescue.

What I believe Mr. Blair should be doing is using this as an opportunity to, ahem, remind the Iranians who the World Power is in this inter-national relationship; because, honestly, if you were new to International Politics, at this point you might think it was the Iranians. So Jason, you might say, are you suggesting that the British need to go in and indiscriminately bomb Iran until they release the soldiers? Absolutely not. Such action would be unethical and unnecessary.

Yet, we obviously can't sit around and do nothing. The question is what, precisely, we should do that would be forceful and assertive, yet, at the same time, not over-the-top, Stalin-esque? Let's turn to the British playbook to review our options. Tony Blair has already gone to work turning up the heat in the rhetorical oven, and while that's certainly a viable option, it's, uhh, not very likely to achieve any results. So let's move on to the next page in the playbook, which involves turning up the 'diplomatic pressure.' This, of course, is option number one in the, widely acclaimed, European Union Playbook, making it a widely popular choice in hostage situations throughout the world. Sadly, this option was also number one in the, much-less acclaimed, Jimmy Carter Playbook and, uhh, well, I think we all know how smashingly well that particular Playbook worked.

A third option (not technically in any Playbook), and my personal favorite, would be for Tony Blair to simply get the hell down to MI6 and send James Bond in after the bloody hostages! I mean seriously, this option involves twice the destruction, triple the sweet-ass tech toys, and, for kicks and grins, he'll destroy their atomic reactors on the way out. Heck, as an added bonus he'd also manage to find the only chic in Iran not wearing that stupid head-scarf thing. You know you want to use this option.

Nevertheless, while James Bond might be my favorite modus operandi, there are more realistic and reasonable ones which could easily be pursued. The best of these, in my opinion, seems to be the one which centers around attacking Iranian oil production. However, let me note that these are British soldiers which are being held hostage, which ultimately makes this Tony Blair's call, not ours. Given that, perhaps the best way to read this next part is as my suggestion for what might be done if the hostages taken had been Americans.

Now, the problem, for Iran, is that they have only ONE oil pipeline which carries all of their exportable oil. Furthermore, they also import a fair amount of oil through their few ports on the Arabian Sea; and these two sources of oil are the lifeblood of their economy. Consequently, the idea behind this strategy is to tell the Iranians that, if they don't release the captives within a day or two, we'll simply destroy their only oil pipeline and blockade their ports. It's very simple, and likely would cause few if any casualties on either side. Of course, the concern is, given our addiction to oil; can we possible withstand destroying Iran's oil producing abilities? I believe the answer is yes. Would oil prices soar? Absolutely. Would this cause problems for us? Certainly. However, it's probably not as bad as you might think. For starters, take a look at the data here, which shows the top importers of oil to the United States.

Take note of the fact that Iran is not even in the top 15 of oil importers to the United States.

Again, this is not to say you wouldn't be paying a fair bit more at the pump the day after such an incident were to occur, the point is that, while bad, the loss of Iranian oil would not be completely destructive for the United States (or the U.K, for that matter). On the other hand, it would be catastrophic for Iran. It seems to be no real secret that the Iranian economy, despite its oil revenues, just flat-out stinks right now; indeed, one might easily conclude that Iran has virtually no economy productivity outside of its oil sector. Thus, were its oil revenues sent from billions to $0 in a single day, I believe the Iranian economy would collapse, which, needless to say, would have some serious consequences for Iran.

Perhaps most importantly, such an operation would clarify to Iran the point we have been (unsuccessfully) trying to make with all those Naval Task forces sitting off their coast: that we are the Superpower here, not you. This goes back to my last post: we have to make them fear us, and respect the fact that we are more powerful than they are - and what better way to do that than to cripple their entire economy with one well-aimed bomb and a few Battleships. A sort of 'crash course' in Peace Through Superior Fire Power.

I know, you're probably wondering about the effects this might have on regular Iranians. Won't they hate us more? Won't they like America even less after such an incident? The honest answer: probably - and let me tell you why I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

First, I'm not sure if the Iranians really can hate us much more than they already do; and second, I don't care if they hate us. In fact, it doesn't matter to me whether or not they like us - I just want them to fear us. This post's title is a quote from the Roman poet Lucius Accius, which translates as "let them hate, so long as they fear." It applies perfectly to Iran. Sure, we might incite the few supporters we have left there to change their opinion of us and to turn to terrorism; but honestly, when your approval rating in a country is down in the single digits, doesn't it make more sense to spend your time and effort fighting the 90+% who already hate you rather than trying to preserve that 7% who might, possibly still like you? And also, if Iran were to retaliate by sending troops and resources over the border to ferment conflict in Iraq.....oh wait, they've already been doing that for 2 or 3 years now. Iran just has to know that certain things just won't be tolerated, and the only way they will learn that lesson is if they fear our potential retaliation, just enough.

The best of luck is to be wished for Tony Blair in his negotiations with Iran. If he can resolve this quickly and 'diplomatically' much kudos to him and (depending on how little he gives up in return) much admiration for the bargaining chips of the British Empire will be in order; but the longer this crisis goes on the weaker he and his Nation will look. Indeed, the one lesson that I think he can learn from Jimmy Carter's disastrous performance in the '79 Iranian hostage crisis is that World Power status is not for the faint of heart; and weak-willed Superpowers garner little respect from radical, rogue states - and deserve even less.

¡Fantástico!

After the Spanish capitulation to Islamic Fascism in the aftermath of the Madrid Bombings, you probably thought that there was no one left in Spain who still had some serious guts. Well, you were wrong. One of the widows from the 2004 Madrid train bombings went to the suspects' trial today wearing a T-shirt with one of the Muhammed Cartoons on it. Yes, those Muhammed Cartoons - the ones that caused all those riots.

Awesome!!

Threatening or Playing Games?

Now here's some interesting news; it seems the French have moved the FS Charles De Gaulle, the only non-American nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier in the world, and its task force into the Arabian Sea. In doing so, it has become the 4th Western Aircraft Carrier currently within striking distance of Iran. Moreover, it is said to be working in cooperation with the American Naval task forces in the area.

Have the French finally decided to flex their military muscles in the Middle East? I mean, it's not that they don't have any (indeed, the French are considered to have, after the United States and Great Britain, perhaps the greatest 'power projection' capabilities in the world); but, rather, it's that they consistently fail to use them effectively. Now, this metaphor of flexing muscles brings me to my main point: what exactly are we going to do with all these Aircraft Carriers and Naval Task Forces sitting off the Iranian coast? Are they there to sit around, conduct drills and 'intimidate' Iran? 'Cause if that's the case, I don't think it's working.

In order for these shows of Naval Force, whether done by France or the United States, to be effective our enemies must actually feel, you know, threatened by them. If Iran thinks that the Charles de Gaulle is going to sit in the Arabian Sea, play a few war games, and never actually bomb them, they're probably not going to get too concerned about it. This, of course, is the real problem with this whole situation: we can put all the Aircraft Carriers and Battleships we want within striking distance of Iran; but at this point, Ahmadinejad knows we're bluffing.

When the situation arises, we must be willing to use these great symbols of Naval supremacy. Otherwise, we're just wasting our time.