Of God And Communism

In the face of the overwhelming success of its capitalist economics over the last decade or so, China's communist ideology has begun to lose some of its luster. Make no mistake, the government is as totalitarian as ever, and it still claims to be communist and pretends to worship "Chairman Mao" (as all the Chinese still call him); but, in actually, the Communist Party of China has a political ideology which is simply all over the map. So, with Mao's Little Red Book becoming more politically and economically irrelevant, the Chinese have begun turning, at an exponential rate, to the world's all-time best selling book: The Holy Bible.

Indeed, Amity Printing, China's only government-authorized Bible publisher, has already published some 50 million copies and, after it moves into a larger factory next year, is set to become the world largest publisher of the Christian Bible. And all of this in country where, just 25 years ago, simply bringing a Bible through customs could get you thrown in jail; and where, even today, the book is not sold in bookstores, but only through a Church-managed distribution system.

As far as Christianity is concerned, China is, in some ways, the last frontier for the faith. At various points in history, Christian missionaries have come, usually alongside European armies, and set up shop in coastal Chinese cities, but thier attempts largely failed. Thus, particularly after the institution of atheism as the official State religion in 1949, China was left as a vast, almost entirely untapped market for the message of Christ.

Of course, I've never been much of a religious missionary, so my extent of concern over the religious implications of this news extend no further than the satisfaction which comes with the knowledge that millions of others, having heard the same message as me, came to the same conclusion. However, there are, potentially, far greater and more tangible political implications to this news; and that seems to be what satisfies me most about it.

Indeed, one need look no further than the fall of Soviet Communism in Poland to witness the effect that Christianity can have on Communism. In Poland, where nearly 90% of the population is Catholic, the Catholic Church and then-Pope John Paul II are, rightfully, credited with being one of the primary forces that toppled the Communist regime there. Indeed, Pope John Paul II, himself a Pole, is seen by many as a member of a triumvirate, along with Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher, that led the charge against Soviet Communism during the 1980's; ultimately bringing about that ideology's end. Put simply, a strong Christian community does not mix well with Communism; in fact Christianity proves quite degrading to, even openly hostile to, Communist ideology.

The main reason for this stems from Communism's dependency upon atheism. In order to promote communism and make it viable, the concept of the 'great socialist state', or some similar idea, must be promoted. This is because in order to make communism work you must convince everyone within your country that there is nothing greater than social equality. In other words, when the people go out to work, not for money, but to help support the State, the commune, etc., they have to believe that economic equality amongst all really is the greatest of goals; otherwise, they wouldn't be effective workers and would undermine the entire viability of the system. As we know, of course, this kind of steroid-boosted, all-encompassing egalitarianism is quite contrary to human nature - which is why the people of a society must be indoctrinated with it. Consequently, the indoctrination of belief in the 'great socialist cause' becomes crucial to the continuing function of any Communist state.

That is why religion, especially Christianity, poses a serious threat to Communism. It deprives the State of its doctrinal monopoly on what the ultimate goal of a person or a society should be; and it gives them hope for something better than the Communist ideal. Indeed, by its very definition, Christianity transcends anything that Communist propaganda could throw at people. Think about it, how could one be excited about doing one's part for the betterment of socialism if the do-all, end-all of life was not, in fact, the State? Christianity, then, gives people something bigger to believe in - something bigger than, not only themselves, but Communist ideology as well.

In China, this 'great socialist state' ideal is, in some ways, similar to that of Stalinist Russia; mixing a bit of Nationalism with socialist ideals and blending that with a personality cult surrounding the dictator. The only difference is that in China, unlike Stalinist Russia, the 'cult of personality' has been maintained long after the dictator's death. And that's why Mao, even when official government policy contradicts his actual teachings, continues to have god-like status in China - he has to. As long as Mao (or something like him) is maintained, the unifying ideological force of Chinese Communism remains; but without that ideal, the system begins to fall apart, people begin to question why they make the sacrifices they do, and human nature reveals itself.

Thus we can begin to see why the Chinese government has, in the past, been so afraid of the Bible and why an increase in Chinese Christians is a positive sign. Jesus Christ, or rather belief in him, immediately transcends the myth of Mao and anything it may offer; thus relegating that myth, the central and most important tenant of Chinese Communism, to, at best, second place in those believers' lives. Most important, the adoption of this position (or any similar one) by a great percentage of Chinese would be a death kneel for Chinese Communism. Now, at only 4-5% of the country's population, Chinese Christians have a really long way to go before they turn their country into the second coming of the 1989 Polish Revolution; yet nevertheless, it must be admitted that The Bible's newest popularity surge can only mean good things in days to come.

Because It's Just So Dang Fun....

....to make fun of Le French. Although, with this video, I don't really have to make fun of them - they kind of pull it off all by themselves!



Now go forth and feel très intelligent. Well, at least compared to this douche.

Anything You Coerce, I Coerce Better

Finally, after months of silence on the issue, the bastion of this Presidential Election's socialist talking points, John Edwards himself, has risen to the challenge of proving to you, the concerned men and women of that 'other' America, that his Socialized Medi..., er, Universal Health Care program is several degrees of mastery above those of his closest rivals for the title of best able to mimic Eurotrash, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Of course, in differentiating his plan from theirs, Mr. Edwards was not trying to sling political mud. No, he was "[talking] about what we need to do for healthcare;" you know, to make it better for all Americans - because he's always looking out for you, the common man. It may be from the window of his $6 million, 28,200 square foot mansion that he's looking out for us common folks - but, rest assured, looking out for you he is.

Anyways, back to what he actually had to say about the good Senators Obama and Clinton's health care plans (this talking about them, of course, came after he said that he "[didn't] want to talk about them" - which really forces one to admire his brilliance at constantly speaking out both sides of his mouth at the same time).

Edwards' problem with Senator Obama's plan was simply that it did not sufficiently expand the role of the federal government; because, per Mr. Edwards, "it just does not cover everyone." And by gosh, who would want to be left out of all the fun and excitement that comes with Universal Health Care. Why, not covering everybody would mean that some people might not get to spend months, even years, on medical waiting lists! They might not have the pleasure of having to drive hundreds of miles to find a mere Dentist! And worst of all, they might miss out on paying the massive tax increases that would be necessary to support such a system!!!

Yet, we must give credit where credit is due; Mr. Edwards has hit on a rather important nugget of information here; as this marks the first time in many years in which Senator Obama has actually been to the Right of someone on issues of public policy.

Another stroke of genius from Edwards comes in his criticism of Madame Clinton's Health Care policy (which, for those of you who remember correctly, is, in her words, most certainly not Government-run). In this case, Edwards says that while her plan does have the proper mandates to force Health Care down all of our collective throats, she forgot to come up with a "way to enforce the mandates" - and hey, what good would big government be if it didn't have a massive bureaucracy around to make sure you did as you were told? Of course, Mr. Edwards' idea of enforcing his mandates amounts to making sure that "every time you come into contact with the healthcare system or the government you get signed up." In other words, if you show your face in public, we will keep tabs on you - like in a police state, only, in this case, it's to make sure you get free Health Care, which is a good thing, so don't worry about it.

No word yet on how he plans to deal with the first invasion of privacy lawsuit that gets slapped on him when he forces your Doctor to turn over all your private info to his government.

The amazing thing is, Edwards continually criticizes President Bush for wiretapping phone lines, calling it a violation of peoples' right to privacy. ("Pot, meet Kettle.....").

Finally, in what was, perhaps, the best part of Mr. Edwards' little talk about his Universal Health Care plan, he decided to take questions form reporters, presumably so they might help him clarify his brilliant plan to those of us living in the 'other' America. While doing this, one of the reporters asked him what would happen if someone didn't want to get involved in his Health Care plan. Mr. Edwards' response? I kid you not: "You don't get that choice."

Indeed. One could hardly think of a better way to so succinctly summarize the folly of Universal Health Care.

So Much For An American Version!

Finally, definitive proof that Socialized Medicine just won't work here in the United States! In New Zealand, this past weekend, a British woman, looking to join her husband there, was denied entrance to the country because she was too fat. The reason her excessive weight was a problem? Well, according to the New Zealand Government, their universal health care system cannot take on anymore overweight people because it cannot afford to provide care for them.

That's right, socialized medicine in New Zealand has come under too much financial strain from the burden of the overweight and obese.

Now, in New Zealand, 50% of all adults are either overweight or obese; whereas, in the United States, that percentage has 'stabilized' at, ahem, 66.2%. So, if New Zealand officials feel they must deny long-term entry to overweight folks to preserve their Health Care system, imagine the problems we might have with such a Health Care system in this, the most vastly and disgustingly overweight Nation in the world?

But who the hell am I kidding? The people who want an American, socialized Medical system won't be concerned with the potentially devastating costs from the obesity epidemic - they'll just jack taxes way up to pay for it all.

But hey, at least it'll be free, right?

Socialized Medicine - Continuing to Impress

Imagine: you're laying on the table in an O.R in an Australian hospital, about to go into surgery, feeling pretty good, given that your surgery is "free" and whatnot, and then, YEECH, a cockroach runs up onto the operating table with you!! Ah, well, if you go in for surgery at Sydney, Australia's RNS Hospital, you won't have to imagine, as it's actually happening.

Gosh, just gives you all sorts of confidence in their sanitation procedures down there, doesn't it?

Of course, this isn't the only thing going wrong at the RNS Hospital; other problems there include an operating table which broke in half, while a patient was anesthetized on it, because it was so old, and (the whole reason they're having to investigate the hospital in the 1st place), a woman miscarrying in the hospital's E.R bathroom after having waited 2 hours to see the Doctor.

Lovely, isn't it?

Indeed, like all businesses run by the Government, it seems Australian Healthcare has become inefficient, sloppy, and poorly managed - and why not? It's not like they have any competition for the services they offer. Thus, the government can afford to be negligent with things like hospital sanitization; they're petty, time-consuming, and not really necessary in a stagnant market.

Well, that is except at election time, when the Pols will have to, at the very least, pay lip service to better Healthcare in order to rack up a few extra votes (and hey, whadda you know, Australia has Parliamentary elections soon!).

But hey - it's "free," so no worries, right mate?

On War - And Idiots

You know, sometimes it's scary who we elect to be our leaders in this country. Sometimes it's a guy like Strom Thurmond, who's dead 20 years before he gets out of office, other times it's a guy like John Edwards, who's a conniving, closeted socialist, and other times it's a guy like Chris Dodd, who's just plain stupid. With Dodd, however, the most frightening aspect of his stupidity is not that it got him elected to the U.S Senate, but that it's deluded him into thinking that he deserves more. That's why he is running (quite unsuccessfully, I might add) for the Democrats' Presidential Nomination. This quote, from a speech he made earlier today, is why he shouldn't be running for the Democrats' Presidential Nomination:

"....In fact, [the trial of the al-Qaeda terrorist Zaccarias] Moussaoui is the perfect victory. Our system is shown to be fair. The court struck a balance that protects both our values and our security. We didn't lose anything. Moussaoui ultimately showed himself to be a fool--deranged, a joke, hardly someone that we'd think of as a great Middle East martyr. Ultimately he's imprisoned in a place where his name will be forgotten forever. How is that not a great victory?"

Compare that case to the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who organized the attacks of 9/11. He was held in a secret prison, where he claims he was tortured severely. Whether he is lying or not, by our actions we have allowed Khalid Mohammed to claim the moral high ground. Khalid Mohammed plays martyr to a world that is inclined to believe it.

Torture does not work....."

Yes folks, you read that right, Senator Dodd, a man who wants to be President, believes that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, has the "moral high-ground" against us. And why does he have the moral high ground? Because he was 'waterboarded' while in U.S custody.

Since there is clearly such moral parity between making an admitted terrorist endure a painful drowning simulation and masterminding the death of 3,000 innocent civilians.

Seriously, what planet is Dodd from? It would be a stretch to call Khalid Sheikh Muhammad a human being, much less one who could hold any kind of moral ground - even at the below-ground level. I think he'll find that many people, myself included, are somewhat sympathetic to his position on the issue of 'torture' - but telling all those people that they are the moral equals of terrorist masterminds doesn't strike me as a great way to win converts to your cause.

Ultimately, however, for all the problems with his style and presentation, there is one thing which the Senator's words make abundantly clear, and it is the thing that makes his status as an elected official so damned frightening - and that is how the Senator completely and utterly misunderstands our enemies. Read that first paragraph in the above quote again - you'll see an underlying sentiment there that, somehow, these Islamic fascists we're fighting actually care how we treat our prisoners of war.

Really? Does the Senator think that giving Zaccarias Moussaoui a fair trail makes it any less likely that an American Soldier captured by al-Qaeda will be beheaded? Does he think that potential jihad recruits in the Middle East will look at the U.S's fair trial of Moussaoui and go, 'geez, since they convicted him at a jury trial, the Americans must be the good guys'? Surely he's observant enough to realize that they'd be more likely to call the whole thing a pre-arranged Zionist scam than to credit America for having done the right thing.

And remember, just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean they think it's the right thing to do.

Indeed, Al-Qaeda doesn't care what we do when we catch their little terrorists; they just care about whether or not we catch them. The only time Islamic Radicals find our trials useful and 'convincing' is when they can use them for their own propaganda purposes - which is why Al-Qaeda explicitly directs jihadists, once they get to court, to claim they were tortured and abused while in prison. No really, it's in their freakin' training manual.

And that's what's scary about Chris Dodd - he really thinks they care about what we do, and, more importantly, he thinks that they will respond to it in a rational, Western way. Just look at what he said about Moussaoui; he claimed that, as a result of the damage done to him by the trial, he was "hardly someone that we'd think of as a great Middle East martyr."

Well, whoop-de-doo-da Senator, of course WE don't think he'd make a great martyr, but, again, it doesn't matter what we think - it matters what THEY think; and we don't have much of a say-so in who they think will make a great martyr. Indeed, this is one of those times when multi-culturalism is actually quite useful; because in order to defeat someone in a war, you have to understand where they're coming from and be able to think about things from their perspective - irrespective of how flipping crazy they are.

You know, come to think of it, for an open-minded, multi-cultural, liberal, Mr. Dodd sure has one hell of an arrogant, western perspective on the situation.

And herein lies the problem with many on Mr. Dodd's side: their Eurocentrism. They still seem to be operating, as most Europeans are, with the built in assumption that war and politics fall within the realm of the Nation-State and the rational actor. It is, if you will, a Clausewitzian perspective on a decidedly non-Clausewitzian world; and thus, it is a perspective which has fostered a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemy and his goals on the part of many of our leaders.

This is not the 18th or 19th Century, and the battle against Islamic radicalism is a far cry from the Napoleonic Wars in which Carl von Clausewitz learned the lessons that shaped his famous theories, including those in On War. But times change, and war does too - it, of all things, certainly hasn't remained stuck in the past.

It would be helpful if our leaders might somehow figure that out too.

The News You Need To See

A bombshell news item out of Iraq today, albeit one you likely won't read in any newspapers or see on TV. Thankfully, however, we have Michael Yon, the tireless, freelance reporter, to give us the full story from Iraq. And the story that he reported earlier today is a stunning one; and that is that, according to the leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party "Al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated."

Read the whole thing here.

And, for you doubters who might be a bit skeptical of the IIP's leader, consider this story from, of all places, the Washington Post just a few weeks ago. The U.S Military harbors similar sentiments on the state of Al Qaeda in Iraq - but, after President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' fiasco, haven't come forth due to reservations about the political consequences of making such statements.

The task is not finished and there's some serious work left to be done - but the defeat of Al Qaeda sure would make things a hell of a lot easier. And for that, we offer the sincerest of thanks and the heartiest of salutes to General David Petraeus - the man who seems to be doing the impossible.

A Reason To Care

One would think that by now, given all the statistics that have been compiled and predictions that have been made on the subject, Washington politicians would have realized that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare reform is an issue that needs to be brought to the forefront and dealt with immediately. Sadly, of course, they haven't, and our oversized, bloated federal programs remain on track to create a fiscal catastrophe in the not-so-distant future.

Thankfully (or rather, frighteningly), we have evidence of what will happen if we continue down this path towards Democratic Socialism. The evidence, of course, is Europe. We have the high unemployment rates in France and Germany, the horrors of Britain's National Health Service, and the stagnated growth rates in Scandinavia, all of which, understandably, should warn us of the perils of Democratic Socialism. Even more frightening than the consequences of such programs, however, are the solutions that one must implement if one refuses to downsize or privatize these massive programs in the face of a rapidly ageing population. The obvious one is to increase the tax burden on the young and force them to finance the handsome pensions of their parents' and grandparents' generations; and in Britain, that's exactly what they've decided to do.
This article, from The Times, reports a shocking new statistic: that British college graduates could lose up to one-half of their starting salary to taxation. What a terribly large amount of money to have removed from one's paycheck to help finance government welfare programs - but, unfortunately, this is what has to happen in Britain. With declining birthrates, increased spending on welfare programs, and increasing longevity, increasing taxes on the young is one of the few ways to make the numbers work. The reason is simple; one of the most profitable taxes, from a government perspective, is the income tax - and old people don't work! So, youngsters will begin to see less and less of their paychecks if the system is to be maintained.

There is, of course, another downside to this that any good supply-sider will have already recognized; and that is that drastic tax increases on your workers' paychecks translates into less disposable income. This, in turn, means that people will be less likely to spend money and contribute to the overall economy. In other words, as President Reagan proved, higher income taxes means less overall economic productivity and an all-around, weaker economy.

And that brings me back to the United States, a country where we still have the pleasure of deciding whether we want our future to be like Britain's (or France's, or Sweden's....) or if we want it to be, well, as American as it's always been.

It's hard to talk about things like privatizing Social Security; or to tell our Senior citizens that they just might have to endure a benefit cut; hell, these days it's becoming hard to simply oppose, outright, all forms of socialized medicine; but at the end of the day, these are the things that we need to talk about - and must do. Especially considering that the alternative is figuring out how to distribute a massive tax burden.

Because Power Is Fun - And Profitable!

Surprise, surprise. It seems that one of Myrtle Beach's State Senators, Luke Rankin, who has dedicated himself to opposing workers' comp reform in the S.C. State Legislature, just so happens to be making a bundle from workers' comp-related litigation fees at his law firm! Gosh, it's no wonder he's not too fond of workers' comp reform; I suppose I'd probably be the same way if I was making $659,200 over a 3 year period ('04-'06) off the stuff.

Of course, I already knew that Senator Rankin was a self-serving kindda guy - he is, afterall, the man who switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party right before the 2004 elections, not because he had an ideological change of heart, but because he wanted to hold on to as much power as he possible could. Indeed, after a few other Democratic-to-Republican defections following the 2000 elections, the results of which had left the State Senate evenly split, the Republicans had gained control of the S.C Senate, and it had become clear that in the 2004 elections, for the 1st time since Reconstruction, the Republican Party was going to win a legitimate majority. And ol' Luke wasn't about to be left in the Minority.

The sad thing is, he may not be done with these kind of stunts; as he is one of 4 Republican State Senators who, having just switched to the Republican Party after 2000, it's rumored will happily switch back to his original party if the 2008 Elections go the Democrat's way.

A man of principle, that one. Too bad the principle is himself.

Cold War Redux

You know, you'd think that, since Putin's whole gig revolves around trumping up the awesomeness that is Russia, he wouldn't exactly be quick to bring up one of their more humiliating foreign policy episodes of the past half-century; but he's welcome to make Cuban Missile Crisis analogies if he wants to.

Of course, in one very distinct way, the current situation to which Mr. Putin refers, the U.S's attempts to install a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, is quite different; namely in that Russia deployed actual missiles to Cuba, not a shield to protect against the launch of such missiles. Their's was an act of aggression, ours is one of defense.

Nevertheless, there is one important similarity here - one which Putin either has not understood or not thought through.

The reason that Khrushev lost the Cuban Missile Crisis was because he bluffed, and President Kennedy called him on it; and, naturally, when they then had to lay down their cards Kennedy had the better hand. Of course, in the 40+ years since 1962, the gap between the Russian and American hands has only grown - as we have a much greater advantage over Russia now than we ever did during the Cold War.

Which means that if President Bush were to simply call Mr. Putin's bluff, Putin would be screwed; and surely he's not foolish enough to think of President Bush as the 'backing down' type. (If he did, he would certainly be one of few.) So unless Putin's counting on Congressional liberals and U.N/E.U political 'elites' to intervene on his behalf (which, given their recent history, he very well may be), something tells me this isn't one of his better moments.

Hopefully, the Bush Administration will recognize this, and plow ahead in its negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on the installation of the Missile Defense shield. Why? Because, after nearly 100 years of having to deal with German expansionism and Soviet communism, not to mention the U.S turning it's back on them after WWII, the Poles and Czechs deserve our military support.

And after all, Russian autocrats become tiresome rather quickly.

Maine Gives SexEd A Makeover

Ah, the strange things that can happen when your Moral Compass goes batshit and just starts spinning in all sorts of.....crazy directions.

Please, feel free to give that article a second read folks, because I can assure you that allowing birth-control pills to be given out in Middle Schools is one you haven't heard before.

Clearly it's in the best interest of our society to encourage little 11 year-olds to run around and have sex, Right? Especially when, assuming the parents have o.k'ed their child's treatment by the school Nurse, the parents of the kids don't have to be notified that their Middle-school-aged daughters are receiving birth-control.

Fun, no?

Oh wait, better question: given that the legal Age of Consent in Maine is 16, doesn't that mean that these School Board Members and Schools are aiding and abetting in Statutory Rape?

Oh, the joys of Modern Society....

***Update 10/26***

It seems that the answer to my above question is, indeed, 'yes' - giving birth control to someone underage is illegal; and the Cumberland County DA has stepped in to, ahem, remind these idiots at the Middle School that they have to report anyone having sex who is underage. I was, however, wrong on one point, as it seems that the legal age of consent in Maine may be 14 and not 16. Either way, there are still kids as young as 11 in the school in question....

Why Does He Even Bother?

This article brings to mind that ol' story about President Bush and the Pope.

You know, the one where the two men are riding down the Potomac in a boat with several other diplomats and such, when the Pontiff's white hat thing blows off into the river. President Bush then calmly climbs over the side of the boat, walks across the top of the water to retrieve the hat, then walks back and hands it to the Pope. The headline in the media the next day: "Bush Can't Swim!!!"

Seriously, the number of civilian and Military deaths in Iraq is going down, so what do these brilliant reporters decide to write a story about? Why, how these declining casualty rates have negatively affected the funeral businesses in Iraq!

Spin that war coverage, baby - spin that shit like your life depends on it!

Come to think of it, it's no wonder most people in this country are opposed to The War - when you get media coverage as crappy as this, it's hard to be a fan.

As Painful As Pulling Teeth

Ah, the wonders of Socialized Health Care, they just never stop coming:

"[In the U.K,] large numbers of people are going without dental treatment and some even report extracting their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist in their area"

Gosh that sounds like fun, having to pull my own teeth out because I can't find a dentist - hey wait a minute, I guess this means you really do get free health care under socialized medicine!! I mean, you're certainly not going to pay yourself for doing your own Dental Work.

But hey, at least this dental shortage has spawned some of that good ol' creativity:

"Some of the respondents show considerable ingenuity. 'Filled own teeth - clove oil and Polyfilla,' said one in Essex. Another fixed a crown with Superglue and a third used a screwdriver to scrape off plaque."

There's some crafty ol' chaps still left in Britain, yes sir; and good thing too, because I can't say I really expect their MPs to do anything about it - anything that will work, at least.

Indeed, one Liberal Democrat spokesman, quoted in the article, noted that "this survey shows the system is at breaking point." Really?!? Maybe it's just me, but if you have a system that's been around for 8 years (as this one has) that's supposed to provide Universal Dental Care, and people are still having to pull their own teeth, the system ain't at a 'breaking point' - it's already busted.

Moreover, the solution of the London politicians, whether Liberal Democrat, Labour, or even Tory, will be to 'reform' the program - you know, make some changes so that the NHS will 'work better' and 'be more responsive to peoples' needs,' and all those other tried and true slogans politicians use. But none of the reforms they can propose will work.

Why? Because, ultimately, the problem isn't a kink in the system - it's the system itself.

Say What Now?

Reason number 234,125,906,866 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President, via a FOX article about candidate screw-ups on the campaign trail:

...and in South Carolina, where the H is silent in Horry Country, the names matter. Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who mastered most of the names during her husband's campaigns, goofed by calling the state's coastal area "the lowlands" rather than the preferred "Lowcountry."

Bitch. Seriously, the lowlands?? What, does she think I live in Holland or something? Please, it's the South Carolina Lowcountry, plain an' simple.

'Course, Hillary ain't the only one that's screwed up on the S.C campaign trail. Fred Thompson thought the man in the Governors Mansion was Mark Sandford, as opposed to the real guy who's there - Mark Sanford.

And John McCain left one crowd quite puzzled when he told them that, despite his conversion from the Episcopalian Church to the Baptist Church, he "didn't find it necessary" to be Baptized into his new Church - and this to a crowd composed entirely of not just Baptists, but Southern Baptists. I'm guessing he didn't win any converts with that one.

In addition to amusing anecdotes about candidate screw-ups, FOX also offers some sage advice to candidates for future trials along the campaign trail:

...don't assume food comes ready to eat, as candidates in South Carolina have done. In that state, political barbecue means roasted pig and hands-on messiness. "You peel shrimp and shuck oysters," said Romney political consultant Warren Tompkins. More than 20 years later, some remember when Walter Mondale didn't peel and got more than a mouthful.

Yes indeed, all visitors to S.C would do well to realize that, sometimes, the seafood ain't exactly 'cooked to order.' Although we do understand that eating the shrimp's shell is acceptable in some parts of the world - but imitating the French probably ain't a winning campaign strategy in the Lowcountry.

"We Are In A War"

Earlier today, with limited pomp, circumstance, and media attention, Marine General Peter Pace left his post as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before riding off into the sunset, however, General Pace had some parting words for his and, by extension, the War's critics.

"I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about 'Can we vote our way out of a war.' We have an enemy who has declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives. So the dialogue is not about 'Are we in a war' but how and where and when to best fight that war to preserve our freedom and to preserve our way of life and to do so with the least damage to our own society and the least damage to those who we're fighting against so we can put the pieces back together on the end of this. We will prevail. There's no doubt about that."

The emphasis was added to highlight the most important point, one which many on the anti-war side continually fail to grasp, and that is this: no one has ever defeated an Islamic Jihad by running away. Politicians in the United States, including the President, are fond of downplaying the influence of religion on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the larger, so-called, War on Terror - but they do so at their own peril. The label of 'Terror' is a misnomer, as we are not out to eliminate the threat of terrorism; indeed, to do so would be an impossibility. Given this, I have long thought that this war should be called either the 'War on Islamic Fascism,' or, in more 'PC' terms, the 'War on Islamic Fundamentalism.'

Indeed, like it or not, we are in a Religious War. And it is a Religious War because they have defined it as such - and to ignore them would be a disaster. Indeed, as Carl von Clausewitz wrote in the famous, On War:

"The supreme, most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish, by that test, the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature."

Or, in the simpler words of Sun-Tzu's The Art of War; "know thy enemy." I sense a similar warning from General Pace to those in Washington, and throughout the U.S, who wish us to believe that this War is something we can end simply by leaving Iraq.

Now, this war is not a Religious War in the Medieval sense of term, where one religion battled another; but a more modern one, as we find the battle lines drawn not between two religions, but between one religion, Islam, and the Secularists, who oppose its agenda. Of course, Islam fighting a Religious War is nothing new - Islam has been at war with the infidels since Muhammad and his first Muslim converts began attacking Arabic caravans traveling across the Arabian Desert in the 620's. It then continued with a frenzy until, finally, in 732, Charles Martel sent the Islamic warriors into retreat at the Battle of Tours. But Islamic jihad did not vanish - it only rested and regrouped. In 1453, the hordes of Muhammad finally overcame the walls of Constantinople, and with them the Byzantine Empire, thus beginning, yet again, a march of Islamic warriors towards the heart of Europe. As before, they were turned back by Europeans, this time while trying to siege the city of Vienna in 1683. Despite being forced into retreat yet again, the Muslims held on as long as was possible, until the crumbling ruins of the Ottoman Empire were finally destroyed in the First World War.

Then, sometime during the middle of the 20th Century, around the time many Europeans were reeling from their own disastrous experiments with the likes of Fascism and Imperialism, and others about to reel thanks to their experiments with Communism - Islam began to rumble again. Influenced by everything from Nazi ideology to the polarity of the Cold War world, Islam became re-acquainted with its warrior jihad of old; and slowly began to channel this spirit through organizations like Al-Qaeda, ultimately culminating in what should have been an obvious sign to all in the West that a new onslaught of jihad was back, and taking aim at them: the 9/11 attacks.

With that loose framework of the three major 'waves' of Islamic jihad, I now come back to General Pace, and, specifically, the last part of his remarks which I quoted above. Here, in discussing the eventual "end" of this War, he hints at what we are doing differently in this phase of the fight against jihad. In the past, the solution to Islamic jihad has been simply to kill as many Muslims as was feasible, and, eventually, through military strength, beat the jihad back into Arabia and out of your 'world.' As you can see though, setting aside, even, the fact that Arabia is no longer 'out of our world,' this strategy has proven vastly ineffective at preventing future assaults of jihadists. This time, we are attempting to address this problem - and doing so by attempting to reform the Islamic world from within. Just as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were able to temper and eventually eliminate 'Crusaders' and able to moderate Christianity, we are planning to use similar ideological tools to temper jihadists.

It is, in all respects, a phenomenal and over-whelming task. We are hoping that by instituting Democracy we can not only beat back, this, the third wave of jihad, but also pre-empt a potential fourth wave; although given history, it seems unlikely that the latter might be possible. Yet, one thing is clear; Democracy would be, in most all respects, a death blow for the third wave of jihad. It would not end it, but it would certainly be its Tours. That is the significance of the battle of Iraq in this greater War on Islamic Fascism; and, whether he meant to or not, it is what General Pace hinted at today when he talked about putting the pieces of, not just our society, but their society back together when this War is over. He's hoping that pieces of the Iraq we put back together will be new ones. 'Enlightened' ones, if you will. He's asking people to not give up on this vision, and he's not asking because he feels it's the better choice between continuing the fight in Iraq and ending the War. He's asking because he knows that, if we want to win, in the end, we have no choice.

After all, we are in a War - whether we like it or not.