Baghdad mayor wants statue up
No, not a statue of Saddam. A statue of President Bush.

by Donald Sensing, 1/31/2005 05:23:00 PM. Permalink |

Funny how blogs come together . . .
Glenn Reynolds links to two blogs, "Free Will" and "And I Am Not Lying, For Real," by Jeff Simmermon. Simmermon describes himself as a "loudmouthed critic of the Bush administration." When I read the linked posts, I was struck on how they unwittingly propped each other up. Below is a photo from Free Will and some text from Jeff, reflecting on some protests he had attended. As Glenn might say, "Heh!"

... I looked around those protests and saw legitimately angry people who were well-fed and intentionally scruffy. Not to be presumptuous, but I didn't detect sadness and suffering ringing the eyes of most protestors. People were angry, loudly vocal, and legitimate in the depth of their feeling...but I didn't see anyone from the middle East. ... I doubt any of them had an Iraqi stamp in their passports. [italics added - DS]

Both posts are readworthy, especially Jeff's original interviews with Iraqis who voted in America over the weekend. After conversing with several, a certain theme of their sentiments emerged:

"The insurgents and the people fighting the United States are the ones who were favored under Hussein's regime. They had land and houses when nobody else had anything. Now that Saddam is captured, they are fighting violently to cling to what is already gone. They do not represent Iraq. ...

"Almost all Iraqis in America will vote Republican for the rest of their lives, as will their children and their children's children. George Bush has freed us and we are grateful forever for this. ...

"Maybe Bush did not do it the way that the world wanted him to, but he has done a wonderful thing, and I think that the rest of the world will look to Iraq and America as a model."

To these insights and others offered by the Iraqi voters, Jeff says,

You may think that you have felt dumb before, but let me tell you something: until you have stood in front of a man who knows real pain and told him that you are against your country's alleviation of his country's state-sponsored murderous suffering, you have not felt truly, deeply, like a total ----ing moron.

And then, after realizing his "moral compass is tired and busted," Jeff admits,

I feel like such a whiner and I don't know what to think anymore.

This essay is from a soul-searching man, let there be no doubt. But if Jeff doesn't know what to think anymore, then he also doesn't know what to do. What to do? I don't know how old Jeff is, but if he's still young, I guarantee here is what he can do to make a real difference on behalf of true freedom.

by Donald Sensing, 1/31/2005 04:29:00 PM. Permalink |

Freedom at the hands of the people
I need add no commentary to this outstanding photo-essay by Iraq veteran Citizen Smash, "Liberty Marches Forward."

Syndicated columnist and Iraq veteran Col. Austin Bay wrote of the purple-stained fingers of Iraqi voters,

That’s an identifying mark – one that almost literally shoves a finger in the eye of terror.

Indeed. Iraqi voter Samir Saleh, who voted here, was quoted in this morning's Tennessean,

"As someone said to me, this voting card is a bullet in the heart of the terrorists."

The paper also reported,

Saleh said he planned to keep his registration card to show his grandchildren one day. He lauded the work of U.S. troops in making the election possible.

History was made yesterday, and it will not be stopped now.

by Donald Sensing, 1/31/2005 10:39:00 AM. Permalink |

Terrorists claim they shot down Brit plane
Iraqi terrorists claim that the video from which I grabbed these stills shows the downing by missile of a British C-130 aircraft yesterday. The UK government said 10 soldiers and airmen died in the crash.

The beginning of the tape shows a small missile being fired and the camera tracks it until both at and the C-130 are shown in the same frame. The plane is at some distance from the camera. FoxNews either did not have or did not show the missile jitting the plane. The tape includes the scenes from the crash site.

The tape was first broadcast on al-Jazeera and its authenticity has not been confirmed. But it looks real to me.

by Donald Sensing, 1/31/2005 10:29:00 AM. Permalink |

Iraqi election blogging
Don't forget the cooperative effort by which Iraqis are covering the elections on "Friends of Democracy: Ground Level Election News From the People of Iraq" sponsored by Spirit of America. Michael Totten is selecting, editing, and posting the reports and photos, but they are all written by Iraqis themselves. This post will stay on top through Monday morning.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2005 11:59:00 PM. Permalink |

Marines get the Medal of Honor for this
I haven't been blogging the election this afternoon because I have been tending to urgent family business. In my reading to catch up with the news, I spotted this entry:

From a source in the Iraqi Ministry of Interior:

Baghdad Police HQ reported that at 1200 hrs today, Police Constable Abd al Amir was killed in the line of duty at the Khalil bin Walid Polling Center in the Yarmuk section of Baghdad. Abd al Amir identified a suspicious man wearing an explosives belt, and immediately tackled him, shielding the lines of voters with his body, and dying instantly when the terrorist detonated his belt.

In the US military, sacrificing oneself like this is usually recognized by the presentation of the Medal of Honor to the next of kin. For example, Marine Pfc. Richard Anderson, who "fearlessly chose to sacrifice himself and save his companions by hurling his body upon the grenade and taking the full impact of the explosion" while serving with the 4th Marine Division on Roi Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands, 1 February 1944.

However, Police Constable Abd al Amir cannot be awarded the MOH by the US government, for only members of the US military are eligible for the award. One hopes he will be appropriately memorialized by the new Iraqi government.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2005 06:11:00 PM. Permalink |

First reports
Initial reports from Iraq indicates that Sunni voter turnout is less than hoped for but that overall turnout is strong - Reuters reports the Iraqi Electoral Commission says it is 72 percent.

I predicted yesterday that celebrations would break out in the streets, and at least one has.

The terrorists had promised to attack polling places and they did, but only a few.



They have not made Iraq a river of blood as they threatened; as of this posting 29 Iraqis have died from attacks - tragedies for their families to be sure, but hardly the result of an effective national insurgency.

by Donald Sensing, 1/30/2005 06:33:00 AM. Permalink |

Iraqis begin voting
The polls have been open in Iraq 10 minutes as I write. The first Iraqi to vote in Baghdad was this man, Interim President Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer.

Al-Yawer is, significantly, a Sunni Muslim. The reporter said that his status as the first voter was intentionally choreographed to signal all Sunnis to vote.

After al-Yawer came others.



Thomas at Rant Wraith says that if the terrorists are going to sabotage the elections successfully, they have to do it early.

The terrorists need to keep people from going to the polls. That means they need to scare people enough that they don't vote. Blowing up a polling place 10 minutes before the polls close won't do it. Too many will have voted by then. The terrorists need lots of big, widely-publicized attacks early in the day to terrorize the populace.

Quite. The first few hours will be crucial and will tell the tale.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2005 10:10:00 PM. Permalink |

In admiration (and awe also)
I have to say I agree with this sentiment:

I'd like to ask a favor: Regardless of one's political inclination, irrespective of your confidence in the electoral process employed, or the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, no matter what the outcome, let us all stand united in our admiration for those courageous Iraqi's who will brave gunfire, RPGs, bombs, and reprisal, to determine their own fate. For they choose to do so in bold defiance of promised violence and certain intimidation.

In just a little over an hour we will begin to see the courage and determination of ordinary men and women.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2005 08:46:00 PM. Permalink |

Circus blogging
I was gone all day today, first on family business and then to a long-planned attendance at the RB,B&B; Circus, which is performing in Nashville this weekend. After that we went to the Nashville Auto Show. My daughter, 11, had never been to a circus

So here are some circus shots.



The ringmaster is a young man who sang the National Anthem beautifully at the beginning. Neat stuff, having an elephant be the color bearer. Any subliminal symbolism there? Who knows?




Lions and tigers and bears! Oh, my! Okay, well, lions, anyway. Yes, the tamer did put his head inside a lion's mouth.




Elephants acting up. My favorite circus acts are the aerial acts - trapeze and high wire and the guy on the revolving drum. But those are fast-moving acts and my camera was too slow to capture them. Of the animal acts, the elephants are my fave, then the lions. This circus was the first one I've seen that had a cow act. Hopefully, it'll be the last.




This is the closing parade. Needless to say, from our seats the camera's flash was useless. I set the camera on "night" and hoped the action wasn't too fast for the exposure length. Most of the time it worked reasonably well.

I took a short video of another fave act, the cage-of-death motorcyclists, but for some reason it won't ftp to the server. I'll try again later.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2005 07:25:00 PM. Permalink |

Muslim imam quotes Martin Luther King, Jr.
With polls set to open in Iraq in less than three hours, FoxNews just broadcast a clip of this Iraqi imam in the United States preaching to his congregation.



In the clip, al-Husainy first thanked God for freedom and for the right to vote. Then he quoted that famous line from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s most famous speech. "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we're free at last!"

I'm going to put on my Amazing Karnak hat and make two predictions:

1. The terrorist attempts to break up the election won't do so and will be actually less violent than expected. In fact, I predict that election day will be a bonanza day for suppressing the terrorists through capture or counterattack.

2. When the above becomes known among Iraqis, Sunday evening and Monday will bring forth the most widespread celebrations among the Iraqi people seen since the downfall of Saddam. There will be dancing in the streets and brief period in which these newly liberated people will be drunk on democracy, for a day or two anyway.

I know I'm out on a limb, and if anyone thinks I am engaging in wishful predictions, I plead guilty. But I still think this will be so.

Update: Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz in Baghdad was asked by Geraldo Rivera in this interview today (just broadcast), Do you expect to see an elevated level of violence from the insurgents tomorrow?

Lt. Gen. Metz answered, "Not really," and went on to explain that the focus of US and Iraqi security forces has been neutralizing the terrorists' ability to attack the elections.

Update, Sunday a.m.: With polls just closed, I claim validation in these predictions, except for the "bonanza" day against the terrorists - who certainly did not enjoy a bonanza against democracy, either..

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2005 07:15:00 PM. Permalink |

Evolution stopped short?
This pretty much explains everything. "Intelligent" design - hah!



I have no idea where I found this. I'd be glad to give credit if anyone knows.

by Donald Sensing, 1/29/2005 07:05:00 PM. Permalink |

Oh, no! Not Intelligent Design again!
Bill Hobbs links to a piece by ID proponent Steve Meyer. Meyer says that the fact of microevolution, variations within a species, is undisputed. The sticking point is macroevolution, the (presumed) formation of new species from the stock of other species. Even staunch evolutionists, says Meyer, know that the problem of macroevolution has never been solved, and that the actual dynamics of how macroevolution occurs (assuming it does occur at all) are as yet unknown. He gives cites.

Okay, I can't solve that problem one way or the other. But Meyer fails to see the hole in his own argument. That evolution theory may be false in some particulars, even major ones, does not mean that any other theory (such as ID) is correct. It may be useful for ID proponents to show where even evolution advocates admit that evolution theory comes up short, but that's all.

Failure to explain the origin of species through natural causes exclusively does not mean that the cause is supernatural.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2005 08:12:00 PM. Permalink |

Linkagery for Jan. 28
Gerard Van der Leun is right: Science Made Stupid Online is a fabulously funny site, a sort of Dave Barry takes on technical writing. I'd excerpt, but I wouldn't know where to stop.

Belmont University in Nashville, where works Bill Hobbs, will host a C.S. Lewis academic conference Nov. 3-5. The school has issued a call for academic papers, so start that writing now!

David Klinghoofer writes for OpinionJounral on whether scientists who have religious beliefs are welcome at the Smithsonian.

Iraqis are covering the elections there on "Friends of Democracy: Ground Level Election News From the People of Iraq" sponsored by Spirit of America. Michael Totten is selecting, editing, and posting the reports and photos, but they
are all written by Iraqis themselves.

Doug Petch sends word of an essay on his group blog about some of the moral dilemmas of the "right to die" argument and how one husband resolved the agony of watching his wife waste away in terrible pain. Hint: it was an awful resolution.

Mohammed at Iraq the Model writes, "Go, Iraq, go!" Brief but heartfelt, read the whole thing.

by Donald Sensing, 1/28/2005 07:12:00 PM. Permalink |

Outstanding seamanship, this

This is an official photo released by the US Navy showing the damage sustained by USS San Francisco when it ran aground underwater on Jan. 8. It hit an uncharted undersea mountain.

It's amazing that the sub didn't sink. The captain and crew did an incredible job saving the boat. Many of the crew were injured when the sub hit the mount at 30 knots or so, some seriously. Regrettably, Machinist Mate 2nd Class Allen Ashley died from massive head injuries. The crew sailed the damaged boat 350 miles to its Guam home port.

Credit photo: Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Mark Allen Leonesio.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2005 08:14:00 PM. Permalink |

Activist fantasies, part two
In an unintentional companion piece to Michael Totten's essay about tjhe ideology of activism (its done for its own sake; the purpose of a demonstration is to demonstrate) comes Joe Katzman's highly read-worthy piece, "Activism Onanist Fantasy Ideology." It's woider ranging than Michael's piece and brings in more cites (Michael's piece was a personal reflection), but it winds up in the same place. But this insight by Joe deserves pondering:

Thus, it seems that my generation is an extraordinary mixture of greatness and narcissism, and that strange amalgam has affected almost everything we do. We don't seem content to simply have a fine new idea, we must have the new paradigm that will herald one of the greatest transformations in the history of the world. We don't really want to just recycle bottles and paper; we need to see ourrselves dramatically saving the planet and saving Gaia and resurrecting the Goddess that previous generations had brutally repressed but we will finally liberate.... We need to see ourselves as the vanguard of something unprecedented in all history: the extraordinarywonder of being us.

It a good thing to be a trooper in the service of a great cause, but the cause isn't oneself. That's what the fantasists seems not to understand.

I wrote at some length of Christian theological fantasists in which I quoted theologian Dr. Telford Work:

Even more insidious is the way – especially in my own theological circles – the Christian category of "witness" is being assimilated into the image of the protest demonstration. It is increasingly common to misread the Church's martyreia to rulers, to individuals, and to crowds as being no more than a modern-day protest whose effectiveness is measured by whether the moral agent is persuaded to favor the Church's cause... .

This is one of those areas where the vigorous non-western Church is going to be tutoring (or, more accurately, correcting) the flaccid western Church over the twenty-first century. (I just hope they do it before too many of them come here for theological education and we ruin them.)

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2005 07:50:00 PM. Permalink |

World income inequality decreasing
That's the good news from James Joyner, citing research by Penn States's Population Research Institute:

Global income inequality is on the decline, contrary to popularly accepted beliefs that the income gulf between nations is growing, says a researcher at Penn State.

"The main thing that is driving this is rapid income growth in China and southern Asia," says Dr. Glenn Firebaugh, professor of sociology and demography, and author of the book, "The New Geography of Global Income Inequality, " published recently by Harvard University Press.

"On average, incomes world wide are increasing at a little less than 2 percent a year, but China is increasing at about 6 percent," Firebaugh explains. "About 40 percent of the world's population lives in China or south Asia, and with such a substantial portion of the world's population moving up in income, this has been compressing income inequality worldwide.

James has other data cites as well and some color charts that illustrate the trend.

But these data should not surprise anyone, really, because the world has been getting steadily richer since 1975, according to UC Berkeley (Berkeley, mind you!) Prof. J. Bradford DeLong:

Since 1975 the world has not only become a richer place, but the world's poor have seen their incomes grow faster than the world's rich... .

DeLong says that most of the improvement has taken place among the 2.5 billion people who live in only two countries, India and China (which James's sites support), which have both freed their economies substantially from statist suffocation since 1975. Says DeLong,

Centrally-planned states have managed to invest more and grow faster for short periods only, and at immense and unacceptable human cost.

See also my post on economic iconoclasm, which has much more info along these lines.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2005 07:32:00 PM. Permalink |

Thailand and the EU - who's really playing hardball?
As it turns out, the European Union seems not to have put the screws to Thailand over its purchase of the new A380 airliner.

The issue, as reported by The Scotsman newspaper, was that the EU was raising the tariff on Thai-exported prawns, a kind of large shrimp, unless Thailand agreed to buy more super-jumbo Airbus A380 planes at about a half-billion each.

But as EUBusiness now reports, The Scotsman got it wrong.

A major aircraft deal between Thailand and European consortium Airbus is likely to go ahead despite threats of a delay by the Thai government blamed on political grandstanding ahead of national elections, analysts said.
Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra said Tuesday that national flag carrier Thai Airways International would delay signing a purchase agreement for eight Airbus aircraft, including six A380 superjumbos, while demanding that the European Union ease trade rules covering Thailand's shrimp, poultry and farm products.
The Thai cabinet had approved the 96.3 billion baht (2.4 billion dollars) deal to buy 14 aircraft for the national carrier, to be split between rival manufacturers Boeing and the European consortium Airbus, but it rejected a cash-only deal.
Analysts said, however, that the Airbus deal was on the verge of being completed and the delay threat was for the benefit of a domestic audience ahead of a Thaksin re-election bid expected in February next year.

An Airbus executove said the deal was expected to be concluded tomorrow.

So, who was messing with whom? The water is maybe a little murky, but I'm betting on EUBusiness' report over The Scotsman's. Thanks to Ralf Goergens for the tip via email.

by Donald Sensing, 1/27/2005 07:11:00 PM. Permalink |

The Aviator and Oscar potential
The Oscar nominations were released today. Martin Scorcese's directorial film, The Aviator was nominated for 11 - count 'em, 11 - Academy Awards, including nods for best picture, best director, best actor and supporting actor and actress.

My family and I happened to have seen the movie last Saturday. Herewith some thoughts. First up, my eleven-year-old daughter's review:

Lately, I have seen a really good movie, The Aviator. This completely new movie is about the widely-known Howard Hughes. He was extremely futuristic. He was also really into aerodynamics.

The movie is unbelievably long. It is especially good. But in the end Howard is finally congratulated for his giant plane, the Hercules, and kind of goes loony.

Looney, all right. Let me pause here and say that had I known the dialogue was a profanity-laced as it was, I would not have taken daughter to the movie. We actually went to see Phantom of the Opera, but it sold out as we waited in line ( a very long line). Having invested all that time to get to the front of the line, we opted for the Hughes biopic.

And herewith a caution: you'd expect a movie titled The Aviator to be about flying in some way. But this movie isn't about flying, though there are some decent flying sequences in it. It's a psycho-profile of Howard Hughes's descent into obsessive-compulsive reclusiveness.

For his performance of a man slowly losing control of his mind and body - even the control of his speech - Leonard DiCaprio rightly deserves the Oscar nom. He won't get it, though, as I think Jamie Foxx has the best male-lead performance statue wrapped up for Ray.

But credit to where it is due: with this movie Leo has finally, fully vanquished his lingering rep that's he just a boyish, heart throbbish matinee idol whose posters are pinned on wall by teenie-age girls. They may still pin them, but Leo's maturation as an actor fit for deep roles is proven. The historical Howard Hughes was bigger than life. It would have been easy to over-act the part, especially the "loony" moments. But DiCaprio shines. His best moments come in the scenes as Hughes testifies to a hostile Senate committee headed by Sen. Ralph Owen Brewster (Alan Alda, carrying the water for the best male supporting actor).

The intensity DiCaprio shows in those scenes as Hughes, who knows he's being railroaded and fights back vigorously, is magnified by the fact that the audience knows Hughes's internal war against his OCD could be lost at any moment. Throughout, DiCaprio plays the scenes so that we know Hughes is barely containing his mental disability, channeling his fear and anguish over it into devastating attacks on Brewster, whom he subdues into a whimpering, ineffective clown by the end of the sequences. All this is simply superbly done.

Cate Blanchett plays Katherine Hepburn, who spent a few years living with Howard (without benefit of clergy, I might add) and finally leaves him for Spencer Tracy. Suffice to say that Blanchett takes Hepburn's scalp in her portrayal of the not-yet-famous actress, and Blanchett's Oscar nom is also deserved. That woman becomes Katherine Hepburn and utterly outshines Kate Beckinsale, playing Ava Gardner. Kate's considerable beauty simply can't compete with Cate's self-transformation into Hepburn.

Last, the airplanes and flying sequences. The science and art of CGI has arrived in full power. Hughes Aircraft Corp.'s planes are faithfully rendered in both CGI and mockups. There are many in-air sequences when the CGI is so well done you wonder for a moment just how much money it cost to build the planes just for the movie. The flight sequence of the radical XF-11 prototype is simply spectacular. Its terrible crash in a Beverly Hills neighborhood is faithful to the real event, though perhaps a bit overdone. An earlier sequence of Hughes setting a world speed record in his plane, the H-1, seamlessly integrates CGI with live-action better than any movie I've seen so far. (The Spruce Goose sequence was not nearly as well done, for some reason.) But as I indicated, actual flying is not a large part of the movie.

The only real criticism I have, apart from the too-frequent profanity, is that Scorcese unfortunately assumed that his viewers already know who Howard Hughes was and why he was an important figure in American business and aviation. As the movie does relate, rather parabolically, Hughes was a fantastically accomplished flyer - he actually once held every important airplane speed record and was named the world's best aviator of the year in 1937. He was also a crucial figure in aviation business, owning both an aircraft company at TWA.

But his story, as told by Scorcese and crew, is not very compelling on the screen to people too young to remember his dramatic 1972 telephone press conference denying the authenticity of Clifford Irving's biography of him. The movie ends well short of Hughes's move into total seclusion atop a Las Vegas hotel. My seventeen-year-old pronounced the movie a long shaggy-dog story, principally because the movie really just stops rather than ends. The stop make sense to those who know Hughes's life story, but probably frustrates those who don't.

Overall, I give The Aviator eight propeller blades out of 10.

by Donald Sensing, 1/25/2005 10:18:00 PM. Permalink |

Will the insurgents win if they don't lose?
In today's Washington Post, former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz have a jointly-written article, "Results, Not Timetables, Matter in Iraq." The main thrust of the piece is that those calling for an "exit strategy" of the US military from Iraq are dangerously misguided.

The essential prerequisite for an acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim populations, radical elements would be emboldened. As the rest of the world related to this reality, its sense of direction would be impaired by the demonstration of American confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American withdrawal would be almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as neighbors escalated their current involvement into full-scale intervention.

One thing that caught my eye were these two declarations in the same paragraph:

It is axiomatic that guerrillas win if they do not lose. ...complete security in 70 percent of the country is better than 70 percent security in 100 percent of the country -- because fully secure areas can be models and magnets for those who are suffering in insecure places.

Wretchard disagrees with the first axiom, pointing out,

There are hundreds of guerilla groups throughout the world that will never 'lose' yet we never hear of them, ...

I also do not quite agree with Messrs. Kissinger and Schultz in that one regard (though I tremble before their credentials and authority, to be sure). Consider again their second proposition - that 100 percent security in 70 percent of the country is better than 70 percent security in 100 percent of the country. Iraqi and American forces are close now to that 100/70 level. The insurgency may not be crushed for some time to come, but its continuation in roughly a third of the country does not really qualify as success for them.

The reason is that what is happening in Iraq almost qualifies as a civil war. A civil war is one in which contending combatants fight over which of them will control the central government. One side or the other will achieve that objective, and that side is the winner. The other side may well continue fighting, but as long as it does not control the central government, it loses.

The American unpleasantness of 1861-1865 was not literally a civil war. It was a war not for control of a central government, but over whether there would be two governments where there had been only one. The South was not interested in taking over the federal government, nor was the North oriented toward taking over the South's national-political apparatus. The North's objective was to destroy the South's government, the South's objective was nothing more than preventing it.

Hence, for the War of Southern Succession it was true that the South would win if it didn't lose. But the North would lose if it didn't win.

Such is not the case for the Iraqi insurgency. The near-future, democratically-elected government of Iraq can win even if the insurgents don't lose. Yet the insurgents cannot win merely by continuing to blow things up and assassinations, as harmful as those things are. The reason is that their own concepts of victory do not allow for even a minimally functioning democracy in Iraq. And a 100/70 Iraqi democracy spells defeat for Islamist terrorists and unregenerate Baathists alike.

None of this is to claim that the insurgency is no very serious matter. It must be contained and then crushed. But its continuation, by itself, does not constitute victory by the insurgents nor loss for democratic Iraq. The question yet to be answered is how energetically the next Iraqi government will move against it.

by Donald Sensing, 1/25/2005 08:33:00 PM. Permalink |

A couple of recommendations

Michael Totten writes about why the Left says, "We can't get bogged down in analysis."

Joe Gandelman has a thoughtful and personalized essay, "Anti-Semitism Rears Its Ugly Head In Russia.

by Donald Sensing, 1/25/2005 07:18:00 PM. Permalink |

Iraqi elections a rope-a-dope?
Islamists are in a corner with no exit

Citizen Smash observes of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq,

If the history of the past two centuries has taught us anything, it is this: when given a choice between Freedom and Tyranny, people will choose Freedom almost every time.

I'm not sure I'd say "almost" every time. Smash's point, btw, is that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is doomed:

It doesn't matter how many car bombs he sets off, or how many innocents he slaughters. He has publicly declared himself to be an Enemy of Democracy. He may be able to achieve some temporary victories, but ultimately he can't win.

Relatedly, syndicated columnist Austin Bay blogs that Zarqawi has been suckered.

Z-Man [as US troops call Zarqawi] has declared a "fierce war" on democracy. Z’s taken Bush’s bait– except the President's "bait" of promoting democracy and declaring war on tyranny and 0ppression isn’t mere bait, it’s essential American values. ...

[A] week before the Iraqi election Zarqawi has come out in public for imperialism, in his case Islamo-fascist imperialism.

That is actually Z-man's dilemma: if he wages "fierce war" against Iraqis who support the elections. He and his ideological allies have declared that democracy is heresy, and that therefore any Muslim who participates in democracy is actually an infidel. Therefore they both may and must be killed.

But this is a losing strategy for one simple reason. This war is a war of ideas and wills that cannot be finally decided by force of arms, either our arms or the terrorists'. America's central idea is simple and was re-emphasized by President Bush on Jan. 20.

We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.

It is this idea that will send Iraqis streaming to the polls, that and the fact that the Islamists have no competitive ideas. As I quoted two Iraqis here and here:

If we agree to live in fear for one day then we're going to live in fear forever. Today, the terrorists are using the elections as an excuse to murder the "infidels" and they will never run short of other insane excuses in the future, they will find something else... .

... they will have to kill me to keep me from voting. And many of my tribesmen feel the same. We have suffered too much and been denied too long to not go this last step. [I]t may be just a trickle at first, but when Iraqis see the results of their votes it will be like a flood over all Iraq. Iraqi people, Mr. Ron, want to be free more than anything else.

The Islamists have nothing to fight the idea of democracy with except guns and bombs. Yet if guns and bombs were sufficient to fight this idea, America itself could never have won its freedom from George III.

So Z-man is only marginalizing Islamism when he bombs and assassinates Iraqis who support democracy. Increasingly, his claim that such Muslims are really infidels deserving to die is seen as untenable. Mass heresy among millions of Iraqis? Who could possibly have the right credibly to claim that? Not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi nor anyone else. And who will believe it? Not the Iraqis themselves nor millions of their Arab neighbors.

And that's why Zarqawi wrote last year that "democracy is suffocation and why he said this week,

We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.

Violence there tragically will be in days and weeks ahead. But the Iraqi elections will succeed and they will be the first words written on the death warrant of Islamic terrorism. The elections are fundamentally an idea that the Iraqis will defend with arms where necessary. But the Islamists have no ideas, only arms. Although there much fighting remains, Jan. 30 will prove that the Islamists are outmatched. The more violently they resist, the more outmatched they become for the more idea-bankrupt they prove themselves to be.

Update: Wretchard explains some people's concerns that even if democratization takes root across the Middle East, the democratized countries may be anti-America and anti-Israel. Quoting Reuel Marc Gerecht's online PDF book, The Islamic Paradox,

Nationalism and fundamentalism, two complementary forces throughout most of the Middle East, will likely pump up popular patriotism. Such feelings always have a sharp anti-Western edge to them. That is what Professor Lewis called “the clash of civilizations.”64 Fourteen hundred years of tense, competitive history is not easily overcome, but this antagonism can diminish.

There's a lot more; read the whole thing.

Update again: Bill Roggio explains the strategic power and reach of the insurgency's most powerful ally. And Arthur Chrenkoff says that Zarqawi is really playing to his base, but that sadly there's a lot of base to play to.

by Donald Sensing, 1/24/2005 06:17:00 PM. Permalink |

Americanism as religion
I wrote in my essay, "Bush draws the battle lines even more sharply,"

I have been saying for a long time the war against radical Islamism is a religious war, even though we of the West think we fought our last religious war centuries ago.

Comes now Yale University Professor David Gelernter's article, Americanism—and Its Enemies:

That Americanism is a religion is widely agreed. G.K. Chesterton called America “the nation with the soul of a church.” But Americanism is not (contrary to the views of many people who use these terms loosely) a “secular” or a “civil” religion. No mere secular ideology, no mere philosophical belief, could possibly have inspired the intensities of hatred and devotion that Americanism has. Americanism is in fact a Judeo-Christian religion; a millenarian religion; a biblical religion. Unlike England’s “official” religion, embodied in the Anglican church, America’s has been incorporated into all the Judeo-Christian religions in the nation.

Does that make it impossible to believe in a secular Americanism? Can you be an agnostic or atheist or Buddhist or Muslim and a believing American too? In each case the answer is yes. But to accomplish that feat is harder than most people realize. The Bible is not merely the fertile soil that brought Americanism forth. It is the energy source that makes it live and thrive; that makes believing Americans willing to prescribe freedom, equality, and democracy even for a place like Afghanistan, once regarded as perhaps the remotest region on the face of the globe. If you undertake to remove Americanism from its native biblical soil, you had better connect it to some other energy source potent enough to keep its principles alive and blooming.

I haven't read the whole essay yet, so cannot yet say I agree or not with his points. But this caught my eye.

BTW, a lot of people (not by the good professor) like to use this quote, attributed to John Adams:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Problem is, no one seems to be able to cite the speech or letter or diary entry of anything which actually contains the quote. Can anyone cite such a specific, verified?

by Donald Sensing, 1/24/2005 05:12:00 PM. Permalink |

You still need print photos
I echo what Glenn Reynolds wrote a few days ago: paper is actually an advanced technology that lasts a long time, which is untrue for electronic media.

There is almost nothing so perishable as electronically stored images. Don't tell me about "backing up." The only proper way to back up digital images is by printing them onto photo paper.

I say this because when my hard drive melted last month, I lost hundreds of digital images forever. I did save a large number, but far fewer than I lost. It's true that most of the lost images were redundant of others and other images were really just delete material anyway. Even so, there were many dozens, at least, I wish I still had.

So read Glenn's post and take my advice: print the photos you want to keep.

by Donald Sensing, 1/24/2005 04:56:00 PM. Permalink |

Another Iraqi speaks on voting
In addition to Omar's voice at Iraq the Model I posted about earlier today, comes now a conversation American civilian Ronald Wassom in Iraq had with Iraqi Mustafa Ahmed. The topic was the Jan. 30 elections there. Ahmed said,

"Mr. Ron, I have lived many years in Iraq. I can remember before there was a Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I have never been free to vote here, Mr. Ron. Iraqis don't know about voting. If I don't get killed going to vote or at the voting place, my vote may not even count anyway. So what have we gained? But I will tell you something, Mr. Ron; they will have to kill me to keep me from voting. And many of my tribesmen feel the same. We have suffered too much and been denied too long to not go this last step. Mr. Ron, it may be just a trickle at first, but when Iraqis see the results of their votes it will be like a flood over all Iraq. Iraqi people, Mr. Ron, want to be free more than anything else."

The vast, vast majority of Iraqis understand that democracy is the only way they have to break the grip their past has on them.

Meanwhile comes a commentary of Lt. Col. Mark Smith, commanding 2/24 Marines, on American media coverage of events leading up to the Iraqi elections (boldface in original):

I have stopped watching the news from the US totally. I no longer can take the maniacal rages it places me in as I swear ungentleman-like profanities at the TV in my dust covered cubby-hole of an office, directed at "pundits" and "experts" who do not, in my very humble opinion, have a single clue and who report every single incident that occurs here as if they are color commentating on a football game.

Well, I can barely fog a mirror intellectually, but I think I know a thing or two about this war thing, and the vast amount that I don't know, I have certified geniuses like Maj Dan Whisnant and CWO5 Roussell to teach me. And what I know...war is a slog. And a counter-insurgency fourth generation war is definitely a slog. The only weapon the enemy has IS the MEDIA, and the target is YOU! They are attempting to win this War by breaking your will.

Lots and lots of other great stuff from the theater at Marine Corps Moms, where I got both these entries.

by Donald Sensing, 1/23/2005 07:48:00 PM. Permalink |

The kid who sang the anthem
If you want to know the story behind 10-year-old Timmy Kelly, who sang the National Anthem at the Eagles-Falcons game today, James Joyner has all the details.

by Donald Sensing, 1/23/2005 07:34:00 PM. Permalink |

The Sunday sermon, Jan 23
Today's sermon is online.

by Donald Sensing, 1/23/2005 03:49:00 PM. Permalink |

Why Iraqis will vote
Over at Iraq the Model, Omar explains succinctly why Iraqis will head for the polls Jan. 30:

If we agree to live in fear for one day then we're going to live in fear forever.
Today, the terrorists are using the elections as an excuse to murder the "infidels" and they will never run short of other insane excuses in the future, they will find something else; maybe soccer will justify Jihad against the "infidels"!

Well, soccer sufficed in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. There, Kabul's main soccer field was turned into the country's main execution grounds.

But Omar is onto something that has escaped us here in the genteel, safe-to-vote United States. The terrorists will kill them if they vote. And they will kill them if they don't vote. It's a perspective we don't have.

by Donald Sensing, 1/23/2005 01:59:00 PM. Permalink |

Johnny Carson dies



Johnny Carson dominated late-night television from 1962-1992. He died this morning, reportedly of emphysema. He was born in 1925.

Visit johnnycarson.com for information about his web site and The Tonight Show. Here's his bio. More info at Wikipedia.

by Donald Sensing, 1/23/2005 01:50:00 PM. Permalink |

An al Qaeda review
A couple of folks have emailed about James Dunnigan's latest entry, "TERRORISM: At Least Make it Look Good... ." It is an excellent summary of the status quo of al Qaeda et. al. Some main points (all blockquotes are from James's essay):

Al Qaeda is all about symbolism, not reality.

See also Lee Harris's essay, "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology." James continues:

The basic idea that propels Islamic terrorists is the belief that Islam is under attack by infidels (non-Moslems). This attack comes in the form of ideas, including democracy, that are, or should be, abhorrent, to a true believer in Islam. The United States is considered the principal enemy, because America produces most of the video, audio and intellectual "attacks" that the Islamic radicals find so distasteful. At first, Islamic terrorists sought to overthrow the “corrupt” governments in existing Islamic nations, and create Islamic republics.

See also, "Al Qaeda’s primary war is against other Muslims."

But many Islamic terrorist leaders, like Osama bin Laden, concluded in the 1990s that it would be better to go after the United States, and the infidel West in general, first. The basic idea is to somehow force the West to get out of Islamic nations. Exactly how this would work is left vague. Many of the plans of Islamic terrorists get pretty murky if you try and look too far ahead.

See also, "Osama bin Laden’s strategic plan - well, folks, he ain't got one." James continues:

What the Islamic terrorists are really fighting for is a solution to the problems most Islamic nations face. Even with all the oil wealth, the Arab world has made little economic progress versus the infidels in the last half century. Most Moslems feel the problem is inefficient governments, and a society that does not place enough emphasis on the two elements that have fueled economic growth in the rest of the world; education and honest government. Those two items allow people to start new businesses, run them efficiently, and grow economically. Islamic terrorists believe the solution is honest government and scrupulous adherence to Sharia (Islamic law.) Unfortunately, there are no working examples of this, either currently or historically. But when you’re on a Mission From God, you don’t need a working example. God’s Word is enough.

See also, "A Short History of Arab Terrorism" (PDF document). James continues:

How does one defeat this Islamic terrorism? The simplest way is to bring good government and education to Moslem nations, and let them prosper. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein, easily the worst of a bad bunch of Moslem despots, and getting a democracy going in Iraq, is the Islamic radicals worst nightmare.

See also, "The Big Picture." James continues:

... And just to show you how bizarre this whole business is, a year ago, the Saddam diehards and Islamic radicals joined forces in Iraq to try and prevent a democracy from being established. Both groups are natural enemies, and even if they forced coalition troops to leave, it would eventually have to come to a battle between Saddam’s secular thugs, and the Islamic radicals, to determine who would rule Iraq.

See also, 'Why does al Qaeda fight Americans in Iraq?"

by Donald Sensing, 1/22/2005 05:51:00 PM. Permalink |

Christians v. lions: lions still ahead

A man was attacked and injured after jumping into a lion's den at the Taipei Zoo and trying to convert the lions to Christianity. The 46-year-old man leaped into the den of African lions and shouted "Jesus will save you," according to the report. He also said, "Come bite me" before one of the male lions attacked and bit the man.

Link.

by Donald Sensing, 1/21/2005 08:32:00 AM. Permalink |

Lawsuiteritis
Who is suing whom, and why.

CONCORD, N.H. -- Where other students might pose for their senior yearbook photo with a tennis racket or favorite car, Blake Douglass wants to be seen with his shotgun. The 17-year-old filed a federal lawsuit Monday to force Londonderry High School to allow the photo and give up the policy school officials used to reject it. "What they're doing is basically discriminating based on content or message," said Penny Dean, Douglass' lawyer and a specialist in gun cases. "You can't do that. You might want to but you can't -- and especially you can't with a broad policy like this." An avid hunter and trap and skeet shooter, Douglass said he decided long ago on his senior photo -- an outdoor shot in a sportsman's pose, with him wearing a shooting vest and holding his broke-open shotgun over his shoulder.

A Wisconsin man is suing his son's school district, claiming that his son's high school has no legal authority to assign summer math assignments. He says that his kids completed the state's requirment of 180 days of education and that's that.

It seems the teacher was requiring that complex math assignments be done over the summer and mailed in by certain dates.

The father ought to do what I do when my kids' school assign summer reading lists - tell my kids to forget about it. The guy is right: the districts need to keep their meddling hands off our kids' summertime.

In York, Pa., some parents are suing the school district for including intelligent design in the science curriculum. Some other parents have joined the suit on the district's side. But the whole issue is so confusing to the students that they are basically tuning out.

by Donald Sensing, 1/21/2005 08:01:00 AM. Permalink |

This is why the TSA searches Granny
News item:

An 80-year-old woman was arrested after security agents at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport found a gun and bullets hidden inside a hollow book she was attempting to carry on a plane. Officials said Margaret Anderson was attempting to go through a security checkpoint when agents with the Transportation Security Administration found the gun inside one of the woman's carry-on bags, according to a report. There were also seven rounds of ammunition, according to TSA. Anderson was attempting to board a Bahamas-bound flight with another person. She said that she forgot the hidden gun was in her carry-on bag.

Here's a photo of the gun-in-a-box.

On the other hand, searching this toddler seems pretty silly.

by Donald Sensing, 1/21/2005 07:56:00 AM. Permalink |

Evolution now proved!
If this isn't proof of evolution, then what is? "Fish Discovered With Human Face Pattern." See photo for yourself. I guess that cuts our a few hundred million years of intelligently designed evolutionary toil!

by Donald Sensing, 1/21/2005 07:48:00 AM. Permalink |

Bush draws the battle lines even more sharply
I have been saying for a long time the war against radical Islamism is a religious war, even though we of the West think we fought our last religious war centuries ago. Two proclamations from authorities on both sides this week illustrate it to the point of proof.

First, President George W. Bush today:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

No other quote is needed, really. If the president had approached the podium, uttered this one paragraph and sat down, his speech would have been no less complete.

Turn we now to The Islamic Army in Iraq 's statement of Jan. 13:

Our view of the [Iraqi] elections: ...

As the praised one [Allah] has said, 'And kill them until there is no more dissent and the religion of Allah is supreme.' ... When the infidel Americans and their allies became weak and the burden [of Iraq] became unbearable, they decided to rescue their remaining dignity by using so-called democracy to rule over us using our own people. ...

... In this statement we reveal some evidence of why democracy should be prohibited and why it stands in opposition to the religion of Allah [italics mine]

Here is a sample of the reasons the Islamists say that democracy is forbidden and its Muslim practitioners killed.

1.) Ruling is for Allah alone - not for the people - and the people should merely obey Allah's commands and his Islamic law..." ...

3.) The religion of Allah is complete, as are his Islamic laws comprehensive and complete. Therefore, casting ballots over his already known and established laws is considered to be the worst of the forbidden acts. ...

6.) The basic concept in democracy is 'rule of the majority', yet Allah in his power and majesty has demonstrated to us before that the majority of the people have strayed from the path [of the religion]... so how are we to let that majority lead us when most people are ignorant?

There are 12 points in all. Some of the other points are redundant; a summary is thus:

Leaders in Islamic societies are to be chosen based on their religious credentials alone. But elections "eliminate these prerequisites."

The role of leaders in Islamic societies is to implement the laws of Allah, not laws made by human beings, which is what Jews and Christians do.

Legitimacy comes not from elections but from the laws of Allah. To think otherwise is idolatry, "the idolatry of democracy."

In democracy everyone is equal, however the laws of Allah do not.

Rules for enfranchisement in a democracy include no assessment of piety, but are instead arbitrary.

Any Muslim participating in an election or democracy becomes an infidel. Anyone establishing a constitution based on "garbage from infidel ideologies becomes even more of an infidel."

Democracy is a trick used by Jews and Christians to deceive the people.

And finally, the key words:

No one should be fooled by the infidel religion of democracy and by the concept of freedom... [italics added.

Back to the president today:

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. ... History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.

The battle lines are well drawn and should be well understood by all Americans and Europeans. If religion can be defined as that which forms one's ultimate concerns, then the war against Islamic terrorists should be defined as a religious war - even more so because, as the president explicitly realized today, America was founded on the notion that human liberty is a condition of our creation by God. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his 1774 essay, "A Summary View of the Rights of British America,"

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

The Islamists, of course, don't see it that way. They concluded:

Let everyone be aware ... that the establishment of the religion of democracy in Iraq will be a stab in the backs of the mujahideen and a victory for the crusaders - even if America leaves [Iraq] ... .

Liberty as we conceive it is at the heart of the conflict. For Islamists, the most desirable state of human society is not one that is free, in the Western sense, but one that is submissive to Allah, according to the dictates of Quran. This state of society is dar al Islam , the world of peace. Anything else is the dar al harb, the "world of war." Societies, peoples or nations are either at war with Allah or at peace (through submission) to Allah.

This concept of submission is the matter of ultimate concern to Islam generally and is enormously amplified by radicalized Islamists. In their view, no sacrifice is too great to achieve their ends, and no violence is unjustified. I don't think we have reached the point yet of widespread American