This is the home of the 'serious' a4g. To visit my dark side, go to Point Five. (The dark side seems to post every day... Why do you think that is?)

Monday, October 25, 2004

Calling all Republican Spokespeople

After the long weekend of waiting for redstate to release the campaign-ending story on Kerry, we were greeted with the typical Republican idea of an October surprise: a damning, devastating indictment on Kerry’s bizarre, fabulist nature that again proves his absolute craven and amoral nature. And, like most Republican ideas of attack:


Because Democrats have absolutely no compunction about lying, there will be forty nine different explanations, rebuttals, and counter-strikes which will all end with “and Bush refuses to admit a mistake.” Eventually, even within the scant media outlets that will bother to report this, everyone will get to confused about who said what to whom and when, and the whole story will die as just another ‘he said, she said’. (Between Republicans and Democrats, that means ‘he said’ with accompanying signed affidavits, corroborating witnesses, and a mountain of documentary evidence, while ‘she said’ is that everyone knows the accusations were found to be completely false and can’t we talk some more about Bush never admitting a mistake.)

But the real cautionary note in this story, is that like all great damning stories about Kerry, our evil opposition simply plays their other card: a bigger story.

We will not hear about Kerry’s—the only way to describe it is frightening—psychosis, because instead we will hear a steady drumbeat of the lost munitions. I just saw on Fox a Republican spokesman asked a direct question about the president’s responsibility for the missing explosives, and instead of answering, he dissembled. UGH! What are we, Democrats?

For what its worth, here is a proper response:

How do you respond to the charges that instead of keeping America safer, we have let 390 tons of high explosives get into the hands of our enemies, and they are killing American soldiers? Why won’t President Bush admit he made a mistake?

Well first of all, I’m not going to respond to the question based on what amounts to a very narrow set-up created by the New York Times slanted view of the world. It’s been clear where the New York Times’ sympathies lie for some time, and it’s clearly not with an American victory in Iraq, or Afghanistan, for that matter.

That said, losing track of these munitions is absolutely a setback. We are extremely troubled by anything that puts our soldiers and the American people at risk. But after 9/11, we have only two choices: are we going to act, seek out and fight the terror cult that seeks the destruction of our way of life, or shrink and hide and wait for them to seek us. In the end, every nuanced suggestion boils down to one of the two choices.

Unfortunately, this administration did not have the luxury of designing the world to its liking before taking office. As much as the Democrats believe that every aspect of every problem can be controlled if only we shove more money, more troops, more allies at it, but I think most Americans understand from their own lives, that ultimately, there is only so much we can do. We take what we’re given, and we do the best we can. We’ve been fighting poverty for forty years, and there are still just as many poor people as ever. Are we to recriminate ourselves because we tried?

In Senator Kerry’s world of hindsight, its easy to be perfect. On the floor of the Senate, you can go on and on for as long as you like, and no one will every stop you from talking. In fact, you don’t even need to show up and you still get paid. When you live in a world of rhetoric and debate, you don’t have to make the tough decisions of a leader. He has said that he would have captured Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora by using roughly the same techniques that got the Soviets bogged down in Afghanistan for ten years, he would have deposed Saddam using the same diplomacy and sanctions that had failed to do so for twelve years, his administration would even make Christopher Reeve rise from his wheelchair and walk.

President Bush sets the goals, and believes in giving his commanders on the ground the freedom to act in the way they see fit. He won’t micromanage the war, nor should he. And he’ll defend their decisions because he knows that every decision is made in the real world, without the 20/20 reflection that benefits Senator Kerry’s every pronouncement. Unlike the Senator, our commanders on the ground have to live with their decisions, they can’t just change their minds and make every past pronouncement go away.

Should we have protected the Iraqi Museum after the fall of Baghdad? Perhaps, but perhaps shifting the soldiers from other tasks would have caused some other unintended consequence we can’t imagine. And I’m sure the Kerry campaign would be complaining about those right now.

Listen, the effort is Iraq is not an administration effort—it is an American effort. A free Iraq is an antidote spread in a Middle East that is bubbling with poisonous hatred. We can not control every aspect of this war because our enemy is ruthless and devious and clever, and will use any and everything against us. That is why we must not falter, must not waver. Yes, there will be some setbacks, but America did not become great by shrinking from adversity. The war against terror is far from over, and this will not be the only setback, but this is the challenge that our generation must rise up and face. We must marshal our courage and stand shoulder to shoulder, or this great American dream will be lost. Those are the stakes. There is no bill or law or Senate resolution that will change them.

It is fight, or cower.

Win, or surrender.

Unite, or perish.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Why I am voting for Bush

One of my earliest memories is waking from a night terror, my heart racing, and being totally, mortally afraid of Death. In the all consuming way that only a child--helpless, dependant, ignorant-- can be afraid, I remember calling out from that terror to the accepting arms of God, and like a cold bucket of water I realized suddenly that there was no god, and that I had never once believed. The realization was so intense, it shocked me out of the terror, and I lay dumbfounded, exploring not the implications but merely the sensation of my revelation.

I never lost the gnawing fear of death, the urgent sense that somehow I must do something to carve my name into the bark of history or ... or what? That was the existential question I never seem to get around to answering. Like John Galt, I became an end to myself, not for aristippian pleasures, but for devotion to a stoic creed, one that evolved in particulars throughout life, but retained as its lodestar the flag of existence planted atop some Mt. Suribachi that would proclaim MEANING out of nothingness.

In other words, I was a coward.

There was no fight from which I wouldn’t squirm away. No principle high enough to override my desires. The justification was always the same, whether stated or mute, comprehended or ignored: I must continue. I must be satisfied. I cannot deny myself or I may never have the chance at the experience again.

There is a cost for such an existence, and it is a gnawing twisting something that never goes away. It sits in the gut and occasionally rises to the chest, and averts your eyes when they look in a place the something doesn’t want you to see. Was it the devil, or my conscience, or are those just ways of talking about something that is merely humanness?

Regardless, I gave the dull discomfort a name: sophistication.

My tactic evolved quickly. I was right, always, and anyone that disagreed with me was not only wrong, but defective in some way, stupid, incapable of reason because they could not, would not, persist over the burn in their belly. They had yielded to the instinct and become simple animals—religious animals. I held the incompatible positions of my beliefs as a badge of honor. To support the killing of a baby inside the womb up to the moment of birth, I constructed elaborate intellectual defenses, and named the resulting revulsion I felt STRENGTH. I gave a name to the disdain I felt for my uninformed countryman: SUPERIORITY. And to all the questions I could not answer, and the logical fallacies that made everything nothing and nothing everything, my pride in juggling complexity and irresolution and nuance, I gave the name GENIUS.

Genius is an interesting word to a liberal. To those who believe in God, I can only suggest the possible translation as saint. Intellect is a god to those who have none. It is why debates are so important. Nuance. Refinement. Sophistication. Yet it is a strange thing that liberals don’t seem to notice what qualifies one as a true genius, and it was a discovery that helped bring me back to reason.

Galileo took a world where everything everywhere fell in its own way based on its own nature, swept it away and left one law in its place.

Kepler took gears and spheres and retrograde disks and smashed them with the power of an equation.

Newton took the immutable heavens and sullied earth and through force of will bound the two together as one.

Einstein is not remembered because he remarked on how complicated the universe was, but how simple.

Genius is the understanding that nothing true is complicated.

Understanding is simple. Ignorance is complex.
Truth is simple. Lies are complex.
Honor is simple. Cowardice is complex.

I have been to the outskirts of the place where the Kerrys of the world reside, and it is an empty wasteland. On a barren plain, they sit under tattered silk umbrellas and drink sickly sweet cocktails that turn stale in their mouths once imbibed. They do not know life because they fear death. They are misers with each moment.

I you want to know why I’m going to vote for George Bush, it is because I am no longer a coward. I am no longer afraid to die—I am ready for it. As a husband and a father, I know where my duty lies. I am to provide, to protect, and when my time comes, I am here to die that my family may live. Everything else in life is sweet unearned but well received pleasure; but I am still here only for my grim honorable purpose.

Its all very simple. I have learned to trust the simple man. Inside myself. And in my President.

Monday, October 18, 2004

In defense of War for Oil

In his continuingly irratating way, Jimmy Carter launches into yet another dull whining drone about American greed and our willingness to kill for profit ( Scotsman via Powerline).
America believes military power should be exerted whenever it becomes interesting for our economic or political gains.
One of the most reprehensible things about the left, and what perhaps offers a glimpse into the core of their rotting fruit, is the disdain for economic gains. To Jimmy, it is impossible for moral good to be achieved when economic good is also at stake.

The leftists (who disdain "labels" such as liberal) are, of course, the great phylists, generating from the near inscrutible high-level interactions of human beings myriad classes with which to catagorize and subdivide behavior, race, economic level, etc. They are dualists with a difference-- myriadists, polyists, infinitists. But at the core of separating one's nature from itself is a disease which infects them, they cannot reassemble, cannot identify that a higher-level whole exists that is greater than its sum. Though claiming no allegiance to right or wrong, they are still tethered by that unfortunate ligament that ties them to all humanity-- they JUDGE. So in examining their own multicotomy, when economic gain is realized (or really, any benefit at all), they cannot help but suspect that the scale has tilted away from justice.

It is infortunate that it has gotten this far. In fact, the bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil, not the money itself. For what is money, but a distilled brandy of sweat and achievement, bottled and shelved, to be sipped at some later date? The bible calls not for us to eschew the drink, but instead refrain from objectifying it, because money is in a way sacred. It is Time, Effort -- Life -- that can be held in a billfold. It is to love the thing, the money as an end to itself, and not the man and the act of creation of wealth, that is the sin.

It can be a sin to love one's wife if she is the object of base desire, if coitus is not a unitive act but a parasitic one. Money transactions should be similarly unitive. Two free agents mutually agreeing to trade one chunk of lifetime for another, to mutual benefit.

Economic morality, when acknowledged and celebrated, frees one to explore more straightforward "moral good" without the spectre of some gnawing shame of benefit.

That leftists routinely deride greedy, immoral capitalists reveals more about them than their accused.

Friday, October 15, 2004

First Post

Water looks cold. Just a toe in first.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?