Read it here, or there
I posted my essay yesterday on the factual and methodological errors of a UC Berkeley research fellow's op-ed in the WaPo. The subject was the import of the casualty in Iraq, compared with the rates of World War 2 and the Vietnam war.

RealClearPolitics has picked up the essay and run it on their site, complete with my misspelling of "sanguinary" as "saguinary." That's my fault, of course, not RCP's, to whom I extend my thanks for the compliment.

by Donald Sensing, 11/30/2004 08:00:00 PM. Permalink |

Linkagery

Whatever this is, a "tank silencer" isn't it. Assuming the photo is legit, the vehicle in the pic is an M109-series, self-propelled howitzer, not a tank. It would be some kind of test structure, but I can't imagine what would be tested. Anyone know?

Bare Politics is a new discussion board, if you're into boards.

George Will recently wrote about the leftist domination of American colleges. A blogging faculty member speaks up in agreeement.

Kos, unsurprisingly, accuses opponents of his position on gay marriage of basing their arguments "entirely, 100 percent, on emotion." (As if he is always the serene voice of reason, you see.) Anyway, he actually had an idea about the subject on 11/29 that I wrote of at length way back in February: get the state tend to legal contracts between persons and to allow the church to tend exclusively to spiritual aspects of marriage. However, I argued myself out of it a little while later in a fit of untenable emotionalism.

by Donald Sensing, 11/30/2004 07:56:00 PM. Permalink |

Can the jihad last?
I recounted a short history of jihad in late October, in which I explained how the long but victorious war against the Soviets in Afghanistan had created a mentality of jihad among tens of thousands of Muslims who fought or supported the war. Later I posted about why "martyrdom operations" are literally self defeating and of the internal contradictions of the concept of holy war.

Martydom might be a fine thing in the abstract, but I'm guessing that it has much less appeal in the concrete. "Martyrdom operations" are literally self defeating anyway: they consume your own troops at a 100-percent rate and leave no one to come home a hero, where gleamy-eyed potential recruits can gaze gauzily at them, wanting to be one, too. ...

There is also the important question of why holy jihadist warriors are losing badly to the infidel dogs, making the Arab street (remember it?) probably wonder whether Allah intends to show up for the match anytime soon.

Comes now two new views on the subject. Historian and military analyst James Dunnigan says that the Muslim world is awakening to the internal dangers of Islamic radicalism:

Iraq has been a real turning point. In the beginning, even many Iraqis believed that the al Qaeda attacks, which killed so many Iraqi civilians, were somehow staged by the American. No more. Not only have the Iraqis concluded that Islamic terrorism is evil, but so have most Moslems in the rest of the world. The conspiracy theories about the CIA staging terrorist attacks can still get traction, as can stories about mass rapes of Iraqi women by American soldiers, and similar atrocities. But the dark secret about Islamic conservatives is out in the open. The Islamic conservatives are still there, still spewing their hate, and still being listened to by some. And many of those that listen to the hateful talk about evil Westerners are still willing to act on it. The catch is that the Islamic reactionaries now find themselves confronting fellow Moslems more often. And their fellow Moslems don’t like Islamic terrorism any more than New Yorkers do.

James concludes that "the reformation in under way." It's salutary that Muslims are awakening, however slowly, to the fact that they are as endangered by radical Islamism as the West. After all, al Qaeda's primary war is against other Muslims, and the sooner the Muslim world understands it, the better the whole world will be.

Next, T. Bevan of RealClearPolitics examines the state of the jihad and draws similar conclusions. The evidence, he says, shows that "the enthusiasm for terrorism, death and jihad isn't as great as the bad guys had hoped."

Imagine what continued success could look like a year from now: the first freely elected government in Iraqi history, significantly reduced U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and movement toward settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Arafat now out of the way. Where exactly would this leave Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri and their grievances of the oppression of Muslims? Same cave. Same handy cam. But with far fewer followers and far less influence.

Don't forget that Musab Abu al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's point man in Iraq, said that democracy is "suffocation" to al Qaeda's attempts to radicalize Iraq. The crippling, though not total defeat the insurgents have suffered this month in Fallujah is real and will be longlasting. The calls for jihadist volunteers Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden's right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahri have made are being mostly unheeded by their audience. Jihadism is losing steam among Arab populations just as Iraqis move with increasing vigor toward democracy.

by Donald Sensing, 11/30/2004 05:46:00 PM. Permalink |

This generation's most widespread burden
The greatest burden to be borne by the generation now coming into adulthood is the fight against Islamofascism. But the most widespread burden is much closer to home - the crushing load of debt they are already shouldering.

I wrote about this before, and now the CS Monitor documents the problem.

by Donald Sensing, 11/30/2004 06:13:00 AM. Permalink |

A Blogad refused
A little while ago I rejected a Blogad submitted for the SmogBuster, "A quarter sized disc you stick, glue, or tape to the bottom of your fuel tank to achieve increased fuel savings; gas or diesel. Emissions are reduced greatly, oftentimes to immeasurable levels."

SmogBuster™ is a small green hologram about the size of a quarter. It installs in seconds and it's simple to do it! To attach the hologram, you will need to clean a small area on the "bottom of your gas tank". (use a wire brush if necessary) For added security we recommend using super glue or equivalent to securely fasten the disc to the tank. This is easily done at your local oil change facility.

You will need to watch your oil and change it sooner than normal after application of the SmogBuster™. The carbon deposits that have built up in the heads and engine will be removed and dropped into the oil pan causing you to need an oil change quicker than normal. We recommend on passenger vehicles an oil change at approximately 500 and 1,500 miles once SmogBuster™ is applied.

Yep, you read right: it's a hologram attached to the outside of your gas tank that cleans your engine. And according to this "test page" it will cut your vehicle's zero-to-sixty time by up to 23 percent!

And it's only $299! A great gift for Christmas!

by Donald Sensing, 11/29/2004 08:43:00 PM. Permalink |

The myth of counting casualties
Berkeley researcher can't do math and his piece doesn't add up anyway

Brian Gifford writes in the WaPo that the "historically light" casualties of American forces in Iraq are deceptive in their import and that they bode much worse than things might seem. But as a research fellow with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation at the University of California at Berkeley, he should have been able to do better research.

First his claim, coming at the end of his piece:

The focus on how "light" casualties have been so far rather than on what those casualties signify serves to rationalize the continued conduct of the war and prevents us as a nation from confronting the realities of conditions in Iraq. Even more troubling, daily casualties have almost tripled since before the first attack on Fallujah in April. Conditions are getting worse, not improving. To be sure, American forces are winning the body count. That the insurgency is nonetheless growing more effective in the face of heavier losses makes it difficult to imagine an exit strategy that any reasonable person would recognize as a "victory."

I'll discuss the non-merits of this claim later. First, here are the figures he uses to buttress his claim:

Gifford writes of American casualties in World War Two and Vietnam (skipping Korea, for some reason).

Compared with the more than 405,000 American personnel killed in World War II and the 58,000 killed in Vietnam, Iraq hardly seems like a war at all.

Gifford's method, though, is deficient. There were indeed approximately 405,000 deaths from all causes among all US troops in WW2, including troops who never left the States. During the years of the Vietnam war American forces lost 47,410 KIA, approximately 10,000 non-battle dead in Vietnam and 32,000 dead elsewhere in the world. Hence, from all causes and in all places, American forces suffered not 58,000 but 90,000 dead during the Vietnam war (cite).

Gifford next delineates the obvious fact that the ratio of dead to wounded in the Iraq war is the lowest of any of America's wars, but he gets the numbers wrong there, too.

In World War II there were 1.7 wounded for every fatality, and 2.6 in Vietnam; in Iraq the ratio of wounded to killed is 7.6. This means that if our wounded today had the same chances of survival as their fathers did in Vietnam, we would probably now have more than 3,500 deaths in the Iraq war.

Problem is that Gifford computes the ratio of killed to wounded for WW2 based on deaths from all causes anywhere, the ratio for Vietnam based on battle and non-battle dead only in the Vietnam theater, and never explains what raw numbers he uses for Iraq. Because thewhole basis for his argument is the numerical relation of dead to living, these errors are fatal. As well, he misstates the number of living in those wars, too.

Let's compare apples to apples. The ratio of killed to wounded can't sensibly include non-battle dead. It can only meaningfully compare killed in action to wounded in action. So -

World War Two's ratio of combat wounded (671,846) to combat deaths (291,557) in WW2 was 2.3:1, not 1.7:1 as Gifford avers.

The same ratio for Vietnam was 153,303 to 47,410, or 3.28:1, not 2.6 as Gifford claims(see tables).

According to a DOD fact sheet dated today, in Iraq there have been 9,326 wounded and 981 battle deaths, for a ratio of 9.5:1, not 7.6:1 as Gifford writes.

Another Gifford stat:

During World War II, the United States lost an average of 300 military personnel per day [from all causes, anywhere - DS]. The daily figure in Vietnam was about 15 [it was actually about 23 per day from all causes, anywhere - DS].

The Iraq average is two per day, says Gifford (pretty close, I think, but he doesn't account for non-Iraq deaths). Gifford says that the effect of losing two troops per day is greater than one might think because the total force is so much smaller than earlier wars. During the Vietnam war, he says, America had 3.5 million troops in uniform at its height, compared to 1.4 million today. But the Vietnam war cost only one-fourth more casualties as the Iraq war when measured as a percentage of the total active-duty force, says Gifford.

Again, Gifford can't keep his numbers straight. There weren't 3.5 million troops in uniform during the Vietnam war, there were that many who served there over the war's ten-year period. There were 8.7 million who served somewhere, including Vietnam, during the ten years. Likewise, there are approximately 1.4 million service members overall today, but about 140,000 serving in Iraq.

If we want to do what Gifford tries to do - compute the ratio of KIA to the overall force, by war, then we have to use corresponding numbers for each war:

During World War Two, 16 million men and women served altogether. Of them, 1.82 percent were killed in battle; 2.53 percent died from all causes.

During Vietnam, 8,744,000 served altogether. Of them, 0.54 percent were KIA, 1.03 percent died from all causes.

The Iraq war is not over yet, so any figures are preliminary. The 2004 active-duty end strength authorized for all the services is 1.4 million (it will increase slightly next year). Because the war is only three years old, there hasn't been near the personnel turnover that the other two wars experienced over their periods. Neither has there been a massive expansion of the force. There has been a large callup of the reserve components, though, and these troops are no longer counted against end-strength totals as they were before. So somewhat more than 1.4 million persons have served; I am going to guess about 1.7 million.

Of them, 1,041 (0.06 percent) were KIA (not only in Iraq). I was not able to find the number on non-battle, non-theater deaths since 2001, but did learn that 435 members died accidentally in 2000. Because the overall accident rate since 2001 has been rising, I'll presume that 2002-2004 have claimed the lives of 1,500 members total by accident, including accidental deaths in theaters. That means that of the 1.7 million persons I estimate to have served since 2001, approximately 2,451 have died from all causes, an overall rate of 0.15 percent.

These numbers mean that Gifford is quite wrong. The Vietnam loss rate per the total force was not a mere one-fourth higher than today, it was almost seven times higher than today, and the WW2 rate was almost 17 times higher.

So Gifford has completed a mathematical non-sequitur. His numerical categories are inconsistent from one war to the next. And he concludes that the overall force can't take the strain, over the long haul, of its loss rate of two per day because its effect is greater proportionally than that of earlier wars. But he simply didn't compute correctly. The GWOT's loss rate is many times smaller proportionally than any earlier war.

Then Gifford leaps from incorrect math to conclusions unjustified by any math, correctly computed or not. Gifford says that the Iraq insurgency is "growing more effective" because, as he notes, "daily [American] casualties have almost tripled" since April. But heavier direct combat would naturally result in higher friendly casualties. Gifford simply dismisses the fact that "American forces are winning the body count" because he doesn't understand the saguinary calculus of war.

In the Civil War, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant observed he could lose two soldiers for every one Gen. Lee lost, and still win. An article in the Air Force Association magazine in 2003 discussed casualties in their historical context, including this nugget:

Departing from the more cautious approaches of his predecessors, Grant threw the mass of his Army of the Potomac, again and again, against Robert E. Lee’s retreating Army of Northern Virginia.

Grant’s campaign was marked by the large numbers of killed and wounded. To get the job done, he was willing to accept higher casualties than he inflicted.

In the first month, according to Weigley, the Army of the Potomac “suffered 55,000 casualties, not far from the total strength with which the rival Army of Northern Virginia began the month.” Lee’s army took 32,000 casualties that month, but Lee had more difficulty than Grant did in replenishing his ranks.

Militaries have known for centuries what Mr. Gifford does not: engaging the enemy in intensive combat is more costly in lives than not engaging them. Rising US casualties at the moment are not related to whether we are winning or losing overall. By Gifford's reasoning, we were winning WW2 in 1942 but losing it in 1945. We invaded Guadalcanal in August 1942, for example, losing 1,600 dead and 4,400 wounded securing it. In 1945 we invaded Iwo Jima and secured it only after losing 6,800 dead and 19,200 wounded - more American casualties there than Japanese, in fact.

In fact, the number of American dead and wounded rose every year during World War Two, culminating in the abattoir of Okinawa, where so many Americans died in battle (12,000) that it led directly to President Truman's decision to atom-bomb Japan.

Gifford's says his math supports his contention that "conditions are getting worse, not improving" because "the insurgency is nonetheless growing more effective." Hence, there is no end to the war that "any reasonable person would recognize as a 'victory.'" But this conclusion is an ideological one, not a mathematical one. It is qualitative, not quantitative.

Gifford's mathematical house of cards falls from two fundamental causes: his math is wrong and his conclusions can't be supported by math to begin with. It all just proves that figures lie and, well, you know the rest.

by Donald Sensing, 11/29/2004 03:47:00 PM. Permalink |

A little revolution now and then would be a good thing
Why the Founders said that the proper attitude toward all government is one of deep, continuous suspicion: a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer from April 2003 and republished on the site of Gillies Coffee Co.

The worst part of waking up is finding Big Brother in your cup.

Gillies Coffee Co. of Brooklyn has roasted beans for 163 years, claiming the title of America's oldest coffee merchant. But the firm is now threatened, due to a shocking discovery by geniuses at the New York City Department of Environmental Protection:

The roasting process, the DEP found, emits odors that smell suspiciously like roasted coffee.

A neighbor's complaint about the strong smell of java resulted in the DEP fining Gillies $400 for giving off "fugitive odors."

Consider yourself on notice, coffee lovers. That's not the sweet smell of Jamaican Blue or Full-City Roast rising from your mugs. According to the DEP, it's air pollution.

A judge has ordered the coffee company to stop its emissions. The firm even hired engineers, who concluded it's impossible to prevent a coffee-roasting plant from smelling like roasted coffee.

And this aromatic controversy is taking place in New York, of all places. City of a thousand smells. You would think a whiff of roasting coffee every now and then would be welcome relief from the garden-variety Gotham bouquet.

The DEP has also fined pickle companies, bagel bakeries, and Krispy Kreme outlets.

It's too bad NYC officials can't discern the difference between pleasurable aromas and air pollution. What a bland world this would be without life's distinct scents.

Let's hope the overreacting DEP backs off. The city that never sleeps needs all the caffeine it can get.

This just proves Den Beste's law: the job of bureaucrats is to regulate, and left to themselves they will regulate everything they can.

by Donald Sensing, 11/28/2004 07:52:00 PM. Permalink |

Michael Jordan and me
What do basketball superstar Michael Joran and I have in common?

Well, nothing. But Michael's older brother is Command Sgt. Maj. James Jordan of XVIII Airborne Corps's 35th Signal Brigade at Ft. Bragg, N.C. I served for a few months on the staff of that Brigade from 1986-1987, then transferred to the Corps staff.

CSM Jordan has asked his mandatory retirement date be waived so that he can deploy to Iraq with the brigade. More here. (ht: Instapundit)

by Donald Sensing, 11/28/2004 07:36:00 PM. Permalink |

Hey, hey, goodbye
The Tennessee Titans's season is effectively over now that they have fallen to 4-7, defeated by Houston, who was the home team.

Plagued by too many injured or playing-hurt key personnel, the flash of Titans-of-yore the team showed in the first half today just couldn't be carried through the whole game. QB Steve McNair (now sometimes known as "Impaired McNair" he's been hurt so often) was brilliant during the first few possessions, but couldn't keep it up. Shaken up in the third quarter, he gamely loped through to the end of the game.

Problem was, he turned the ball over three times with two fumbles and a game-killing interception in the last two minutes of the game. Behind 24-21, Tennessee was outside field goal range when McNair threw the ball directly into the arms of a defensive secondary.

What to do for the last five games? A week from now they play the red-hot Colts in Indy. Let's get real, T. fans, it ain't gonna happen. And at this point in the season, even if it did it really wouldn't much matter. The team should concentrate on physical recovery, especially of McNair. He's only 31 and should have a few good years left, but he needs to get well. And the team needs him well next year.

The playoffs are now out of reach for sure. Best to stop worrying about the rest of season and play to minimize player stesses.

by Donald Sensing, 11/28/2004 06:38:00 PM. Permalink |

Ya learn something new every day
Auctions are "all about the money."

by Donald Sensing, 11/28/2004 01:48:00 PM. Permalink |

Well, I'd leave the area, too!
Headline: "N.J. residents split over F-16 strafing"

by Donald Sensing, 11/28/2004 01:44:00 PM. Permalink |

Maybe they should help veterans instead
Headline: "Communities open hearts to hurt vets"

by Donald Sensing, 11/28/2004 01:42:00 PM. Permalink |

The Sunday Sermon
My sermon for First Sunday of Advent is now posted.

by Donald Sensing, 11/28/2004 01:37:00 PM. Permalink |

National Treasure - a review
We all went today to see the noontime viewing of National Treasure, currently the number one movie in America.

A great movie? Heck no, not by a long shot.

An enjoyable, entertaining movie that's fun for the whole fam? Absolutely!

My youngest is 11 and there was not one objectionable word or scene. These days, that's a big deal out of Hollywood. And it worked at the adult level, too.

Forget that the entire premise is utterly unbelievable, a fact that the script actually mocks itself about. The movie is utterly bereft of cosmic wisdom and believe me, don't place any stock in its rendition of American history. And its lead is Nicolas Cage playing Nicolas Cage.

But so what. This flick combines elements of several good-fun movies into one: a techno-heist story, a cops-and-robbers story, a treasure hunt story (of course), some elements of Indiana Jones and The Mummy. But most of all it's really The Goonies for grownups, less all the profanity and with all the comic relief.

The movie keeps your attention and entertains. So I give it two all-seeing eyes wide open.

Update: Roger Ebert wrote,

"National Treasure" is so silly that the Monty Python version could use the same screenplay, line for line.

This is true, and Roger thinks it's a backhand. But he fails to consider that maybe that's a good thing because all right-thinking people love Monty Python! Probably the movie is so enjoyable because it has a certain Pythonesque style and doesn't take itself seriously as Roger apparently thinks it does.

by Donald Sensing, 11/27/2004 03:48:00 PM. Permalink |

Alexander - a very brief review
Wednesday my nephew, 26 and niece, 24, got into town for Thanksgiving (their hometown is too far for a brief trip) and that night they took Son 2 to see Alexander.

Nephew said the movie was "incredibly bad." How bad? This bad:

With about 15 minutes left to go, the projection system broke. The screen went blank and the sound quit. After a few seconds, when the audience realized that it wasn't just a sudden gap between reels or the like, they clapped and cheered.

My intrepid kin ducked into the next screening room of the multiplex and saw the final minutes anyway. But they're not sure why.

Update, 11/27: I saw National Treasure today and give it a much more positive review.


by Donald Sensing, 11/26/2004 04:56:00 PM. Permalink |

Playing tug of war with God
Is Europe about to have a great awakening?

More than a million people from all over Europe are to deliver a petition to Tony Blair and fellow EU leaders calling for changes to the constitution recognising Europe's Christian heritage.

One robin does not make a spring, and one instance of mass protest does not make a revolution. But does this petition has collected more than one million signatures in a short time. Coupled with the rising realization that Europe's greatest threat is religious - radicalized Islam (see here and here) then it may well be that secularized Europeans will be drawn to re-examine their continents' Christian religious roots.

Meanwhile, back in the colonies ...

The religious roots of America are being given the equivalent of educational Round Up.

Young students across [Maryland] read stories about the Pilgrims and Native Americans, simulate Mayflower voyages, hold mock feasts and learn about the famous meal that temporarily allied two very different groups.

But what teachers don't mention when they describe the feast is that the Pilgrims not only thanked the Native Americans for their peaceful three-day indulgence, but repeatedly thanked God.

"We teach about Thanksgiving from a purely historical perspective, not from a religious perspective," said Charles Ridgell, St. Mary's County Public Schools curriculum and instruction director.

School administrators statewide agree, saying religion never coincides with how they teach Thanksgiving to students. [link]

Except, of course, that the Pilgrims' Thanksgiving was all about thanking God. Censoring their religion and teaching about the day from its "purely historical perspective" is like trying to teach about democracy while making no mention of voting. Taking the Pilgrims' religion out of the pedagogy simply guts the subject.

by Donald Sensing, 11/26/2004 01:34:00 PM. Permalink |

Happy Thanksgiving!
I am not going to be tied up writing at the computer today, so here are some links you may wish to peruse, in various categories.


Thanksgiving-related posts

My own photo-essay illustrating what I'm thankful for.

James Jewell has two posts of interest, the first about to whom thanks are given and the second relating an insight of Prof. Langdon Gilkey on how the answer to greed and injustice is not less wealth but the development of moral character.

Langdon was one of my professors in seminary, and I didn't know until I read James's post that he recently died. It's a great loss.

Austin Bay recently returned from several months on active duty in Iraq and has a focused perspective on what to be thankful for.

Titusonenine links to two worthy reads:

The Union Leader's piece, "America's religious holiday."

Mark D. Roberts on "Our Need for Gratitude."

The crumbling edifice of the United Nations

Diplomad blog documents that UN staff see Corruption as a Way of Life.

Former Sen. John Danforth, now the US ambassador to the United Nations, actually wondered aloud whether the UN has any real utlity anymore.

Employees of the UN Secretariat in New York actually cast a vote of no confidence in the United Nation's management because of corruption scandals.

William Rusher at Human Events asks, "Is the United Nations Worth Saving?"

And it seems that at least one UN agency actually employs members of terrorist organizations on its payroll.

Belmont Club weighs in with a good rollup of the UN's main problems.

And while we're on the topic, it might be helpful to review what the UN was really founded to do (surprise!).


GWOT related

A Marine captain fighting in Iraq is delighted to have a CBS News crew embedded with his company. Seriously. Anyone who thinks that embeds should summarily be yanked should ponder this officer's letter a lot.

A retired Marine pilot returned to duty in the Air Force Reserve and wound up flying a plane full of Marine coffins back to the States. As Marine dad this piece really got to me. I am so thankful we have men (and women) like this serving.

You really should read about three amazing medics in combat in Iraq known as Charlie's Angels.

Blackfive posts emails home in Thanksgiving in Fallujah.

Joe Gandelman offers more exploration of the meanings in bin Laden's recent videotape.

The IHT elaborates on how Europe is paying the price for cultural naivete, namely that Muslims immigrants have largely rejected the multiculturalist "tolerance" on which Europe prides itself.

OTOH, Tony Blankley thinks that Europe is starting to wake up to the danger.

Belmont Club has a third installment about the Triangle of Death.


This and that

It's baaaaccckkk -- Mt St. Helens is rapidly rebuilding itself to its former size. And I always was taught that geologic processess were slooooooooooww - you know, eons long.

A physicist has some thoughts about religion and morality.

Might the now-infamous basketbrawl between the Pacers and Pistons been an elaborate hoax? The mind boggles!


A camel's nose inside the tent? Heck, we've got the whole darn hump now!

A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.

by Donald Sensing, 11/25/2004 10:51:00 AM. Permalink |

What I am thankful for

Little girls who wear braces but still smile




Sons who grow up to honorable manhood




The Missoula Children's Theater




High school sports events




Good music and the people who make it ...




... especially American-born music.




The interstate highway system




The saving love of God




Pioneer women, who actually settled the country - the men only occupied it.




That this man and his peers lived when they did




For all those who labor in the healing arts and sciences (this is Alexander Fleming, discoverer of penicillin)




For Boy Scout leaders and Eagle Scouts




And for goofy Girl Scout parties, too!




That America went to the moon and I got to watch it live on TV ...




... and for private dreamers who made the moon come true, and will again.




That I lived to see another day in 1998




For Christmas mornings




For the magnificence of this land




For those who build our country ...




... and who just go to work each day




For the heroes of our home soil ...




... who lifted our hearts in darkened days




For sacrifices of past generations ...




... and of the present one (Lance Cpl. Stephen Sensing, USMC, vic. Fallujah, Iraq, 5 Nov. 2005)




For the hearts of American GIs - past ...




... and present ...




... who fight for freedom ...




... and bear the scars on their souls.


"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." Thomas Jefferson

by Donald Sensing, 11/24/2004 06:37:00 AM. Permalink |

MNF intro so tame
The just-completed intro to tonight's Monday Night Football program was so tame that I have to think the network canned its already-taped intro because it might have been racy like last week's intro.

The intro tonight simply showed several players from the contending teams, in full uniform less helmet, saying a variation of "It's Monday night at nine p.m. And you know what that means."

Then came an Al Michaels voiceover describing the upcoming contest between the Pats and Chiefs. The whole thing lasted maybe 30 seconds, then cut to Hank Junior's standard dance and sing gig.

Yeah, the intro was dull as dishwater, and there wasn't a female to be found.

by Donald Sensing, 11/22/2004 07:59:00 PM. Permalink |

Beer-cup thrower identified
The "fan" who threw the beer cup at Indiana Pacers player Ron Artest, sending him into a furious charge into the stands near the end of Friday's game with the Detroit Pistons, has been identified, reports a Detroit TV station.

John Green, of West Bloomfield, was caught on tape throwing his cup of beer onto Indiana Pacers player Ron Artest, Local 4 reported. The act sent Artest into a rage in the stands, where players and fans then fought during the game between the Pistons and the Pacers.

Local 4 learned that Green has a criminal history, which includes the following offenses:

2003 -- Operating under the influence of liquor/operating while visibly impaired (second offense)

1989 -- Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder

1989 -- Escape from prison

1986 -- Carrying concealed weapons

1986 -- Uttering and publishing, which is using a false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, deed or instrument to injure or defraud.

Artest had already been struck by Pistons player Ben Wallace on the court. Artest retreated and laid down atop a scorer's table when the beer cup came sailing to hit him on the chest. That was the end of Artest's serenity. He blasted into the stands and went straight for Green, but

Green stepped aside and another person took the initial blow. The tape of Friday's fight then shows Green attacking Artest from behind.

The other, innocent guy went down hard, too.

Detroit police have said that "anyone who threw a cup or a punch -- including players and fans -- could face criminal charges." As well they should. Artest's rage has already cost him almost $5 million, his remaining salary for the season. NBA Commissioner David Stern suspended Artest for the rest of the season, and he won't be paid during his suspension. Eight other players were also suspended, though none for the rest of the season.

by Donald Sensing, 11/22/2004 07:46:00 PM. Permalink |

Linkagery

A tragedy befell a reporter where fellow blogger Michael Silence works, the Knoxville (TN) News. One of Michael's colleagues collapsed and died in the newsroom this afternoon. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Bill Whittle is selling his book on his site, a precursor to later sales on Amazon, B&N, etc.

Speaking of books, Scott Ott's Axis of Weasels is still going fairly strong on Amazon.

Over at V. D. Hanson's site, Joseph D'Hippolito compares the rhetoric of jihadism and Nazism In Their Own Words.

Joe Gandelman says this is the Dumb Idea Of The Century: Embedding Reporters With Jihadists.

Michael Crane is updating Political Junkie Handbook to include new information, such as "Comparing Economic Freedom with Political Orientation."

David Kaspar in Germany says that Matthias Doepfner, chief executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in the daily WELT against the cowardice of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat: "Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice."

Slowplay.com is a new blog that offers political commentary as well as sports and entertainment stories. See what you think.

Barbara K. Kaye, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Tennessee-Knoxville and a research partner of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale are conducting an online survey that examines the credibility of online and traditional media, and the motivations for accessing the Web, weblogs, chat rooms, bulletin boards and other Internet resources for political information. To participate, click here.

The Jerry Falwell comeback - a good thing? James Jewell says certainly not. He's right, too.

Phone cards are needed by the troops.

Evolution in the headlines again. Does the standard evolutionary model fail Stephen Hawking's two requirements of a good theory? Hawkings wrote,

A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

A scientist says it fails the second requirement, and passes the first.

If you haven't read The Diplomad, a blog by active and retired foreign service officers, you should.

For that matter, Peaktalk is also worth your time.

Speaking of evolution, a peer-reviewed biology publication of the Smithsonian Institution published an article in August that "argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms" and which "proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa."

by Donald Sensing, 11/22/2004 06:24:00 PM. Permalink |

NBC videographer speaks out
Kevin Sites was the videographer who captured on tape the Marine shooting a wounded Iraqi insurgent in the head inside a Fallujah mosque on Nov. 13.

The video generated enormous controversy and Sites himself has become a focal point of debate. Now, on his own blog, Sites explains at length what happened that day and what he saw. Here's a zinger.

Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.

We all knew it was a complicated story, and if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation -- providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.

So Sites can hardly be fairly accused of being an antiwar propagandist. The real question here is why the Marine commanders didn't accept his offer to sit on the story until they could get an investigation properly started.

In the event, the video was shared with every other news outlet covering the battle, as it had to be under the media pool rules in effect. It was broadcast in the US two days after the shooting. But it immediately gave a huge propaganda coup to our opponents and domestically engendered a debate about the place of media on the battlefield. This debate, however, has hardly risen above the level of background noise which shows it isn't really very important. And the best example of mdeia self-examination I've seen comes from Britain, not America. Yesterday the UK Telegraph published a piece by Kevin Myers that examines the complexity of the question - and of the circumstances our soldiers find in battle:

Lance Corporal Ian Malone and Piper Christian Muzvuru, 1st Battalion, Irish Guards, RIP, took no such precautions in Basra in April last year. They simply ignored the body of the dead fedayeen fighter as they dismounted from their Warrior armoured fighting vehicle - and it, being on a suicide mission, promptly rose up and shot them both, before itself being blown apart. Thenceforth, the "Micks" probably made it their business to re-kill every corpse they saw.

And almost of this shooting will done away from the camera lens. Myers concludes,

We in the media must learn what our role in that struggle will be. Vicarious indignation at so-called atrocities is a moral frivolity: it proves that we are unaware of the scale of the crisis we face, now and into the foreseeable future. Our common enemy has vision, dedication, courage and intelligence. He is profoundly grateful for whatever tit-bits come his way: our media have a moral obligation to ensure that we are scattering absolutely none in his direction.

This self-examining debate doesn't seem to be going on at all in American media. Apparently, American media continue to think they are reporting "just the facts" and where the chips fall is not relevant to the jobs of those reporting the first draft of history. But there is no unbiased reporting. "All text has intention" was one of the insights I learned in seminary. All text springs from the points of view of the author(s), is selective in what it includes and omits, and in what perspective it tells its story.

The beginning of reportage wisdom would be to recognize that bias in inherent in all reporting. "Objectivity" is not truly obtainable (but "balance" is, though only roughly). The question, then, is not whether to be biased, but which biases shall be chosen, and why.

As I wrote back in May, there are only four basic outcomes of this war:

1. Over time, the United States engenders deep-rooted reformist impulses in the Islamic lands, leading their societies away from the self- and other-destructive patterns they now exhibit. It is almost certainly too much to ask that the societies become principally democratic as we conceive democracy (at least not for a very long time), but we can (and must) work to help them remit radical Islamofascism from their cultures so that terrorism does not threaten.

2. The Islamofascists achieve their goals of Islamicization of the entire Middle East (at the minimum), the ejection of all non-Muslims from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf, the destruction of Israel, and the deaths of countless numbers of Americans.

3. Absent achieving the goals stated just above, al Qaeda successfully unleashes a mass-destructive, mass-casualty attack against the United States and total war erupts between the US and several Islamic countries.

4. None of the above happen, so the conflict sputters along for decades more with no real changes: we send our troops into combat intermittently, suffer non-catastrophic attacks intermittently, and neither side possesses all of the will, the means and the opportunity to achieve decisive victory. The war becomes the Forever War.

Perhaps you can think of another, different outcome, but I think these pretty much cover them.

So the question for commentati, whether based on the web or in traditional media, is this: which of these outcomes is best?

As for me, I choose the first, and have no qualms admitting I am heavily biased in favor thereof. And that bias certainly shapes what I write in this blog!

As for the news media, I ask you: which outcome do you want? It is not possible to pretend neutrality here, for the power of the media to frame the public's debate is too great to claim you are merely being "fair and balanced." There is no neutral ground here, no "God's eye view" of events, and hence no possibility of not taking sides. One way or another, what you print or broadcast, what stories you cover and how you cover them, what attention you pay to what issues and how you describe them - all these things mean that you will support one outcome over another. Which will you choose? How will you support it? These are the most important questions of your vocation today. But you seem not to be facing them at all.

Roger Simon is right: this war is war at its most basic: "It's about civilization versus a death cult. Make a choice!"

by Donald Sensing, 11/22/2004 07:10:00 AM. Permalink |

Ford's Salute to the Armed Forces
Yes, it's an ad, but it's also a great tribute in streaming video.

My Marine son went to the field for two weeks of Marine Combat Training at Camp Lejeune three days ago. This Thursday will be the first Thanksgiving he hasn't been home, and the first Thanksgiving meal he'll eat from a mess kit. So maybe Ford's salute hit me a little harder than otherwise.

by Donald Sensing, 11/21/2004 09:16:00 PM. Permalink |

No more "any soldier" mail or packages
Do not mail cards or packages addressed to "any soldier" (or any Marine, airman, sailor, etc.).

The military's capacity to transport mail and packages to overseas areas, principally combat theaters, is so strained that the Defense Dept. has announced it will not accept any mail or packages addressed to "any soldier" serving overseas.

This year, with full combat in Fallujah and increased attacks on convoys carrying fuel, bombs and bullets, the Department of Defense is limiting the mail to items addressed by name only — and asking that they be sent only by immediate family and friends... .

People will still send "any soldier" mail, of course, but it will not be accepted by military postal services and won't reach anyone. Actual military supplies always take priority. And the services won't warehouse "any soldier" mail until transport becomes available. It will just get pitched.

by Donald Sensing, 11/21/2004 07:12:00 PM. Permalink |

The Sunday sermon, 11-21
My sermon for Thanksgiving Sunday is up.

by Donald Sensing, 11/21/2004 04:35:00 PM. Permalink |

Assimilation message spreads to Germany
Just a few days after prominent, conservative Dutch politician Geert Wilders demanded that Muslim immigrants either assimilate into the mainstream of Dutch culture and politics or leave the country, one of Europe's leading liberal leaders echoed his words.

[Germany's] Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called on Muslims to better integrate themselves into German society and warned over what he called a "conflict of cultures."

The same article covers a 20,000-strong march in Cologne today, "to protest against the use of violence in the name of Islam." Significantly, the march originated from both a mosque and a cathedral. The marchers "converged in the middle of the city for the event organized by the Islamic-Turkish Union with the slogan 'Hand in Hand for Peace and Against Terror.'" As Glenn Reynolds said, "It's a start," hopefully toward an interfaith alliance against religious terrorism. The Muslim marchers, though, were almost excusively Turks who hail from the most democratic and liberalized societies in the Islamic world.

The article doesn't say, but I would guess the cathedral was, well, the Cologne Cathderal, one of the architectural treasures of all Europe. Miraculously, it escaped serious damage during World War II, despite being located almost next to the city's main train station, which was heavily, repetitively bombed by the Royal Air Force. The target of the first 1,000-bomber raid of the war, 95 percent of the city center was turned to utter ruin, all around the cathedral.

In the mid-1980s, when I was stationed in Germany, my wife and I visted the cathedral a few times. One day were buttonholed by a man who gave us a discourse about being a child seeking shelter inside the cathedral from the bombs falling all around. Miraculously - I almost use the word quite seriously - the flying bomb splinters and concussions did not damage the priceless and irreplaceable stain-glass windows.

by Donald Sensing, 11/21/2004 02:44:00 PM. Permalink |

Politics through an evangelical prism
The New Republic has a piece about whether evangelical Christians really are under liberal attack in America today. On the whole, it's a fair though short (hence, superficial) article.

But it comes up short here.

What ... liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there's something dangerous in that. And they're right. It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological.

Almost right, but still wrong enough to be plain wrong. It's condescending to say "it's fine" for religion to influence one's moral values, then insist that religion be set aside in making public arguments. This reveals one of the major weaknesses of the left side of the aisle in addressing religion: TNR and its ideological allies grudgingly allow me to be religious (as if I need their acquiescence) but insist that I leave my religion at home when venturing into the public domain. What gives this author the right to set such rules? Nothing.

If liberals, as TNR uses the term, were to be true to their longstanding, self-stated principles, they would welcome any basis for arguing public policy. The United States somehow manages to putter along with every other stripe of ideology active in the public square, but TNR thinks that evangelicals alone are "dangerous."

But then, instead of explaining why evangelicalism is "dangerous" to the republic, TNR instead claims it is merely impractical: evangelical arguments aren't "accessible" to non-evangelicals and hence "don't persuade" them. If true, how can unpersuasive, narrowly-constructed arguments with no broad appeal be dangerous?

It strikes an incongruous chord for the writer to say that evangelicals' claims of anti-Christian bigotry are overstated while claiming that evangelicals are dangerous.

Even so, the broader point seems right: religious arguments don't persuade anyone outside the religion. "The Bible says" is a claim of decreasing power in America today, and has been for a long, long time. TNR continues,

Sometimes, conservative evangelicals grasp this and find nonreligious justifications for their views. (Christian conservatives sometimes argue that embryonic stem cells hold little scientific promise, or that gay marriage leads to fewer straight ones. On abortion, they sometimes cite medical advances to show that fetuses are more like infants than pro-choicers recognize. Such arguments are accessible to all, and thus permit fruitful debate.) But, since the election, the airwaves have been full of a different kind of argument. What many conservatives are now saying is that, since certain views are part of evangelicals' identity, harshly criticizing those views represents discrimination.

It is discrimination or bigotry when criticizing evangelicals' arguments is done simply because evangelicals make them. Nonetheless, a particular weakness of theologically conservative Christians is that they often are close to absolutism. Insistence on absolute truth is a religious weakness, not strength, especially in the broader, public arena. I agree that religiously-founded beliefs, to be translated into some sort of public policy, need to include arguments from reason as well as revelation. That is the tactic I used to write about same-sex marriage last February, for example.

In the secular democracy of the United States, all public-square arguments are finally judged on their merits, whether they are religious or not. If an increasing number of people find religious arguments politically persuasive, then welcome to a working democracy. Personally, I think the chance of that is somewhere between slim and none, and slim has left town.

Update: This evangelical thinks,

The Presidential election of 2004 will be a miserable victory for evangelicals. They coalesced in record numbers to vote for a man who didn't mean what he said and didn't deserve their vote. They voted for a lame duck who no longer needs their votes.

The heartbreaker is that such a vote of solidarity was unprecedented. It's unlikely to happen again anytime soon.

Yep, slim is out of town. (ht: Dean's World)

Update: Check Pelto has a lot more to say on this topic and the TNR article over at his blog.

by Donald Sensing, 11/20/2004 07:17:00 PM. Permalink |

Speaking of sports brawls


This was an on-field meleee that broke out at the South Carolina-Clemson game today. That's USC Coach Lou Holtz in the pic, trying to restore order.

by Donald Sensing, 11/20/2004 06:13:00 PM. Permalink |

How to say thanks to a troop
Reader Matt H. emails,

I live in Berkeley, CA - perhaps the heartland of the anti-war "movement". As a somewhat grudging Republican and a full supporter of the GWOT, I'm often in my own flavor of enemy territory. That said, I on rare occasion see a man in uniform and feel a strong urge to communicate my feelings of gratefulness and thanks.

I'm stumped, however, as to how to express that. In Berkeley, I feel like my simple "I just wanted to thank you for your service" might be interpereted as ridicule or ... something less than I intend. I just don't know how to approach a serviceman and express my appreciation in a clear and respectful way. I thought I'd write you and ask what you think would be the best way to tell someone in uniform how much I appreciate their efforts and sacrifice.

Actually, Matt, I think that if you said just that, and said it in a way that indicated no insincerity (as I know you would), it would be accepted and appreciated. Try something like this:

"Hello, my name is Matt H. I don't see many people in the armed forces around here, but when I do I take a moment to say how much I am grateful I am for their service. So want to thank you for defending America."

No need to speak longer than that. Or you could print something like that on Avery do-it-yourself business cards and hand one to the service member.

by Donald Sensing, 11/20/2004 05:39:00 PM. Permalink |

Basket-brawl in Detroit
That's how ESPN characterized the near-riot that erupted last night in the last minute of the NBA game between host team Detroit Pistons and visitors Indiana Pacers. The fight, which involved both benches and a number of fans, was one of the worst sports brawls ever.

The AP reports today,

The NBA suspended four players indefinitely Saturday for their roles in one of the worst-ever brawls in the league, a fight with fans that commissioner David Stern called "shocking, repulsive and inexcusable." Indiana's Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson and Detroit's Ben Wallace were suspended, the NBA said Saturday.

Police in Auburn Hills, Mich., were investigating, but did not comment on who might be charged.

The fight broke out after Pacer player Artest fouled Piston Wallace during a layup. Wallace retaliated by striking Artest in the upper body or neck with both hands, sending him reeling backward. To his credit, Artest backed away, encouraged by an official. Even when Wallace continued to lunge at him, Artest did not respond aggressively. In fact, Artest actually laid down on his back atop a table a courtside, either an officials table or an announcers table. Meanwhile coaches and other players were succeeding, gradually, in calming Wallace.

That would have been the end of it, no doubt, had not a spectator thrown a plastic cup, filled with either beer or soft drink (beer gets my vote) directly at Artest, striking him on the chest. It was not a hard blow, obviously, but it enraged Artest, who immediately leaped up and charged into the seats, attacking a man he believed had thrown the cup. Teammate Jackson joined in and within seconds, a general melee had erupted in the stands. Several other spectators rushed apparently to defend the fan Artest had attacked, but more likely just to fight. One pounded Artest from behind. Another fan bashed Pacer Fred Jones from behind as well.

After a short while, Artest returned to the court where another fan verbally confronted him. Artest slugged the man in the face, knocking him down. As the fan was getting up, Pacer Jermaine O'Neal cold-cocked him on the side of his face, knocking him back down.

With police and venue officials working hard to restrain the crowd and players, both teams grudgingly returned to the lockers, but the players, mainly Pacers, were assailed by spectators the whole way. Attendees threw drinks and popcorn and clothing items at them, leading to more brawls breaking out near the tunnel. Pacer Jemal Tinsley actually came back form the tunnel brandishing a metal dustpan above his head, as if to strike, but apparently thought better of it and went back inside.

So who's to blame? Well, Wallace started the whole thing. As ESPN commentators pointed out, Artest's foul on him from behind wasn't all that hard. Unquestionably, Wallace far over-reacted.

But Artest can't be let off the hook. He did right by "chilling" through the first few moments, but he entirely over-reacted to being struck by a plastic beer cup.

Finally, sports fans are such idiots. Okay, some sports fans are such idiots. Last night the idiots ruled and clearly exacerbated the situation. Whomever threw the cup at Artest should be charged, as should others who attacked some of the players. In fact, a number of players and spectators alike should stare at the world through bars.

Both low- and high-resolution video of the brawl can be seen or downloaded here.

by Donald Sensing, 11/20/2004 04:41:00 PM. Permalink |