4GW Part 2: The End of History

Last time, we talked about the general meaning of Fourth Generation Warfare and how the line between war and peace has been essentially removed. Probably because if, say, North Korea was to openly attack us we'd use all our power, and, if we had to, we'd nuke them. The Atomic Age kind of has the same effect firearms had on duels or samurai warfare. Arguably, Vietnam was the first 4GW war--a proxy battle between the two-superpowers, only this time there was no "front line" and the Media was the real battleground. A lot of people now suffer from VMS: Vietnam Movie Syndrome. They endure under the idea of what Vietnam was--not what it actually was, which is debatable, but the image of that war in the Media. So the talk in the language of Vietnam, they think about not repeating those mistakes, and they compare current images to those images. This is fundamentally flawed since Vietnam was at least an unconventional war, if not 4GW, that people fought and examined and analyzed with conventional war tools. If we can't win in Vietnam, we can't win the Cold War the Media screamed. But you need new metrics for new conflicts, and Francis Fukuyama was the guy with the ruler. He argued famously that America would win the Cold War and Democracy would flourish because democracy satisfied the human soul and the spread of technology would slowly usher in the End of History (think Star Trek's future Earth). He was just as right as he was shouted down. So, I was a little sad to see his attack on the Iraq War in the Grey Lady today. His general point seems to be that redneck nationalist and ideological zealots have banded together to push a war that wasn't inevitable. He doesn't really say what we should have done instead, but does make some assertions which I'm not sure if I can agree with. (If you say the troops have morale problems--are you reporting a morale problem or creating one?) But Fukuyama is a smart, smart, smart man; so I assume he's got his facts. Thing is Fukuyama is a Reaganite; heck, he signed onto the overly-feared PNAC. What's the divide? Well, if you ask me its that Fukuyama argued that freedom would just slowly take over on its own, and Bush says, no, people have to stand up for it. It's kind of the whole point of these 4GW posts. You see you can't "win" a 4th Generation War; in fact, in a world of WMD there is no build up or "imminent attack" just a mushroom cloud one day. Well, maybe that's a little dramatic, but how can you stop an international organization of spies and killers and such that don't care if you have nukes? Its like trying to fist fight a virus. The answer is democracy. As Fukuyama himself has pointed out, democracies rarely fight each other, and free people don't blow themselves up. If we want to win a war on terror we have to win a war on tyranny. Fukuyama, perhaps suffering from VMS, believes stability is the watch word. We just have to keep everything quiet and human nature will take us there. Stability got us 9/11, in my opinion (I'm not going even address the full-retreat Liberal view that we should have been rolling over even more). I think its weird to say its a bad move to fight the bad guys (yes, Saddam was a bad guy). Maybe how you fight them is up for debate, but I think after you lose 3,000 people--you need to think about getting aggressive.

[Ed. Note- Read genie junkie's other Fourth-Generation Warfare posts:

4GW Part 1: What is Peace?
4GW Part 2: The End of History
4GW Part 3: Losing Iraq, "non-war" war in home-front politics
4GW Part 4: Is There a There?
4GW Part 5: Pros and Neo-cons of Fighting 4GW]

Hurricane, What Hurricane?

Garm and I have been watching the coverage from our respective command bunkers. But Garm missed a wierd moment where, FOX News reporter and all-around blow hard, Shep Smith asked--after a intro question--a simple question. "What are you doing? Do you know about the hurricane?" To which the man, standing on Burbon St. walking his dog like there wasn't a killer storm bearing down on his below sea-level burg, replied, "What am I doing? None of your [f-bomb]-ing business!" .... Yeah. Let that sink in. A man with a mic and camera asks you a question and you act like he's retarded--it's like he's trying to interview you or something! But wait this national TV; no delay, no bleep. He's got a hurricane that looks to be close to the size of Texas coming at him like a cruise missle and he's got the grapes to act like its just another day in the Big Easy. Shep probably had a "last sane man on Earth" moment when he looked around and saw few people were fleeing like Tom Cruise in War of the Worlds. Garm and I talked about blogging on the idiocy of some of these people, but we thought it a tad insensitive. Well, this guy didn't. Somehow this is a going to turn into a blame game: Gobal Warming, dirverted resources in Iraq, upperclass lives while leaving the poor to die--something. But I don't think I'd have blamed Shep Smith if he'd put that smart ass in a headlock planted his mug in the camera and said, "This, America, is the face of a moron."

Catch the Red Eye

Hello, kiddies! Just watched Wes Craven's Red Eye. Implausible? Yes. Stylized? Sure. Predictable? Well, maybe, but I'm seen a thousand thrillers. This here's a good solid B movie. Tense, funny, violent, but not obscene. The two stars, Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy, do a great job of selling the Hobbesian choice premise. Basically, it's the "gun to your head/choose who dies" thing. Not exactly, the most reasonable way to go about criminal activity, but who can complain? I mean, at least global warming isn't the bad guy. The villain is smart and so is the hero, and the minor characters aren't useless bed-wetters. McAdams was in the Hot Chick, which, believe it or not, was not horrible. Murphy is fresh off of being a kind of effeminate bad guy in the utterly cool Batman Begins, and here he gets to be a bit more of a tough guy. If you can sallow the plot Red Eye will keep you in your seat and in the upright position.

The Real Reefer Madness

I hate the so-called "medical marijuana" debate. Mostly because I don't think there is anything "medical" about the debate at all. Oh, sure maybe the could be applications for THC, but I remain completely unconvinced that the whole medical marijuana movement is merely a covert legalization push. So first off, just come out and admit it, and, second, the legalization push is fueled by a point of view which I cannot stand. Namely, the idea that getting "high" is recreation--that it is okay to use chemicals purely for fun. "But genie!" You cry, "what about drinking and smoking?" Well, drinking has some food qualities, and you don't drink purely to get buzzed, but, yes, maybe most people do use alcohol to get high. That being said why would you want to unleash another blight on our society? Smoking does not impair you but is does give many, many citizen's cancer. So, let's combine the cancer and the substance abuse of both! I could sit here and go round and round with the "its okay to smoke" crowd. But the fact is 1) it is illegal (as in against the law--you know the laws you're suppose at least try to follow) and 2) you want marijuana to get high, which is juvenile, and I'm just busy with the whole Iraq, the WoT, Abortion debate, and etc. So, we have to listen over and over and over to the Medical Marijuana debate, because you going to want to dress up a little what amounts to a minor front in the Culture wars. Last time, in front of SCOTUS, it was federalism. And I'm sorry to say that the NRO and others dropped the ball. I read the case. The court was correct IHMO, but moreover: I read the case. I actually listened to what nine of the smartest legal people in America had to say. It boils down to this: If the federal government can't regulate drugs and/or contraband under the commerce clause, then words have ceased to have meaning in this universe. You can't say that medical marijuana--why am I still calling it that--wouldn't effect the policing of illegal marijuana and/or have an effect of the drug industry. Congress can regulate that...sorry. Of course, that is just opinion, an I'm kind of a jerk about this because I've had to listen to hippies and frat boys attempt to match wits with me or put me down for not being part of the cool crowd. Now, this guy is pushing the AIDS angle. I know a lot of conservative think this is no big deal, and, heck, I'm just provoking debate, but as a conservative I can't get behind this. Sure, marijuana probably makes some people hungry, or makes some people feel less pain--you might say the same thing about alcohol--but is marijuana going to really save anybody's life (other than Montel Williams?). I know, I know, I'm misinformed and uncaring and all that doesn't change the fact that the real deal is that people just don't think marijuana is a big deal.

Great. Call your senator.

Act of Allah

I wonder how long it will take for a Muslim Cleric to claim that the hurricane is punishment from God for American's "great satan" ways. If it's less than a month you owe me a Coke. Not that this isn't Biblical. One FOX fan wrote in to tell Angle that after the flood the high-ground will be swarmed with thousands of snakes trying to escape the salt-water. (Snakes, why'd it have to be snakes?) First reader (if such a thing exists) to post a link wins... umm... a garden weasel or something.

Words, Words, Words

I just got done perusing the Iraqi draft constitution. Man, they really spelled it out, but that doesn't matter. Basically, unlike the American Constitution, they went into some real detail over what the government can and cannot do. Of course, that doesn't matter at all. Most of us here in the Land o' Freedom don't have a clue what the law really says, and that makes sense because no law "abridging the freedom of speech" isn't the most in depth discussion of speech rights. No, we got two hundred years of case law, and even more centuries of tradition coming from across the pond--that's where you find the real freedom of speech. The Iraqi Constitution says Iraqis have the "freedom" of speech unless it violates "public order or morality." Of course, alarm bells probably go off for some of you! What's a violation of public order or morality? Seems like that could be twisted, huh? Well, that's pretty much what the case law says in America, too. You think we rolled out of the Revolutionary War with people reading Playboy on the street?

It's going to be rough going in Iraq. Their constitution is just words, it going to be the meaning that people will have to fight for--and in their case literally fight for. The weird part is that the draft has all these leftist rights: right to health care, right to social insurance, right to a clean environment, right to work, but, then again it does have spelled-out something our constitution only implies: the right to property. All in all, its a boring but enlightening read, and when you finish you realize that almost no wording would rule out failure--just as no words can insure freedom. Commitment, ya know?

WORD.

The Red-State Filter

Hello, kiddies! You know, it's hard to be a red stater--you work hard, you come home, you want to watch something and veg out. So, you start watching your shows, and WHAM! Some commie sticks a sickening liberal public-service message right in the middle of your program. I recently mentioned this in reference to Buffy. Its when your mind filters out the crap and only excepts the good stuff. For example, I was watching the commentaries on Return of the Jedi with Garm the other day. Lucas, who thinks he's smarter than he really is (but what can I really take after from a man that has made that much money?) compared the Ewoks to the Viet Cong! He said that it was like Vietnam, where a primitive culture defeated a imperial superpower. I just let it go. It didn't happen for me. I just ignored the political commentary in Episode III. Heck, when I watch Stargate, all the anti-religious science stuff just flies right by me. I just ignore the fact that the premise that all supernatural powers are really just higher forms of technology. They go to new cultures every week and try to free them from their false gods. Its like an atheist's fantasy! But you have to pace yourself. You can't ignore some things! Like the unbelievably-forced lesbian storyline in the Buffy series. How brave of them to make the mousy, Thelma-eqse, bookworm wicca into a homosexual. It's a side story, so, I let it go. But for a while there it was dangerously close to screwing up like Ellen. Ellen (who is darn funny) didn't fail because us evil conservatives can't stand a homosexual character that doesn't have our viewpoints. It failed because it broke the red-state filter! It spiked its propaganda right in our faces (here's a gay blogger's criticism of the Ellen Show's unfunniness). Now, she's back on TV--just it's not lesbian this and lesbian that all the time. Now, before you tell me that there's no such thing as radicalism in TV because its just TV I have a message for you--shut it. Even if you don't realize that everything is used to push the left's agenda, they do. Like this jackass that wants to push leftist ideas with sports. I caught him on Book TV complaining that servicemen were being sworn in at a Nationals game along with a recruiting message with the kind of fake shock that protesters give you when you tell them you're just not so sure they really "support the troops." I still love "They Live" but when one of your alien master-race is giving Reagan's “Morning in America” speech, yeah, you've pushed the filter to its limit. Your filter is your friend, keep it clean and it will keep you clean.

Gates of Fire

Michael Yon's latest piece, "Gates of Fire" is up. As usual, it should be required reading for everyone. No qualifications. Everyone. Yet again, Yon describes the human drama, the individual, heroic, professional personalities of our soldiers in Iraq. Every paragraph is more than worthy to be a teaser quote (although if you're familiar with Yon's work, you won't need a teaser), but here's an excerpt anyway:

When a soldier is killed or wounded, the Department of Army calls the loved ones, and despite their attempts to be sympathetic, the nature of the calls has a way of shocking the families. There is just no easy way to say, "Your son got shot today." And so, according to men here, the calls sound something like this: "We are sorry to inform you that your son has been shot in Mosul. He's stable, but that's all we know at this time."

LTC Kurilla likes to call before the Army gets a chance, to tell parents and loved ones the true circumstances.
---
Kurilla was running when he was shot, but he didn't seem to miss a stride; he did a crazy judo roll and came up shooting.

BamBamBamBam! Bullets were hitting all around Kurilla. The young 2nd lieutenant and specialist were the only two soldiers near. Neither had real combat experience. AH had no weapon. I had a camera.

Seconds count.

I agree with Michelle Malkin often, about many things, but I've never agreed with her more than when she writes:

If there were Pulitzers for Blog Reporting, Michael Yon would win hands down for Gates of Fire.

Not only are the writing and the story amazing, but Yon's pictures of the actual action described elevate the drama and humanity of the soldiers to new heights. Read the whole thing. And then read it again.

(btw, the book that the article's title refers to, "Gates of Fire," by Steven Pressfield, is a GREAT book, and is well worth reading)

Update: I was *this* close to writing about how much I can't stand the 5.56mm NATO as a combat round (it's great for, you know, ummmmm....woodchucks or something, I guess), and how part of Yon's article gives an example of WHY I'm not fond of it, but Kim du Toit beat me to it, and with fouler, though entirely appropriate, language.

A+ B Movies

Hello, kiddies! Well, I want to tell you about another odd, little known B-movie. Innocent Blood is a movie that, like the Prophecy, has a little bit of everything: vampires, mafia, undercover cops, an extremely explicit sex scene, 'polsions, "mood eyes," slapstick, a human torch, and one petite french-chick with an weird accent. Basically, there's this hot vampire that feeds on criminals, but she screws up and vampifies a mob boss--a mob boss that the undercover cop is after. So, they team-up and hilarity ensues. The tagline, believe it or not, slaps the "comedy" label on this story, which, put aside that I think all horror films are inherently funny, is a big stretch. Here's what's really funny, the show has tons of famous people in little roles: Angela Bassett, Don Rickles, Chazz Palminteri, and even a cameo from Frank Oz--and SAM RAIMI. You gotta love any guy that take a short 8mm film and turn it into a career that gives us Spider-Man. Landis, of American Werewolf in London fame, directed this movie, which means that it is probably a good thing there aren't any commentaries.

Sui Juris

"The justifications advanced for their public policies and actions show little appreciation for values I (and many other Democrats) hold dear: that the merit of a government should be judged, not by how effectively it adds to the abundance of those who already enjoy abundance, but by how effectively it relieves the misery and suffering of those less fortunate; and that it is one of government's most important responsibilities to ensure that future generations will have clean air and water, habitable land, and a sustainable, viable ecosystem."

Auntie Pinko is an interesting read, but the point I want to make is about "helping out the little guy." See, many on the left (and beyond) think that government is about protecting the weak, leveling the field, and other oblique phrases. You see this thread in a lot of their policies: Affirmative Action, Drop the Debt, Tax the Rich, the Welfare State, and I'm fairly sure they would argue that this philosophy has a rational connection to scores of what the left insists on calling "ideas" (like environmentalism). Most commonly, and most clearly, I hear this about the SCOTUS. The Court, according to the blue-staters, is there to protect the democratic minority's rights. Not, as I tend to think, to protect everyone's rights equally under the law. Usually this degrades into a vague conspiracy theory about the "power elite" buffering the "status quo" to keep in power. I'm not saying that all that fair deal stuff doesn't have a place, but let's talk about the extreme logical end. If one believes in "defending the weak" one has to know whom the weak are. And liberals know. They know that all African-Americans need a hand up, all big businesses need a beat down, and no one is capable of any act of freewill. History dictates your place, your class, your power--genetics and politics and the WTO control your every move. Now, I'm not saying that these aren't factors, but people are not that weak. They don't need to government to make everybody equal, they just need an opportunity, a shot at greatness--they don't even need an equal opportunity, just a chance. America is the land of opportunity. But that means something, that means a chance to fail, an unsure outcome, the possibility of being swatted down by forces just and unjust.

This why the left is radical.

They want to fundamentally alter human nature and/or reality itself to make everyone equal. Oh, not completely equal, but just pretty much the same with an Animal Farm exception for the erudite guardians of this utopia. It all starts with them wanting to protect people they see as victims. In fact, victimization is a common mind set for your leftist--and justification for horrible behavior! I'm not going to the list the crazy generational guilt that the left unloads on America, but I will say that its all based on the idea that people can't change--that blacks are victims, and whites are racists, and men are sexists, and women are weak, and your religious-types are blood-lusting prudes. This is why black-republicans are considered uncle toms. When you see the world in classes, you see race; you see gender; you see the classification, not the person. You likely see the world in classes if you want to be a "defender of the weak." Classes mean a general dismissal of freewill, and when you eliminate freewill you eliminate good and evil and right or wrong. You replace them with cultural norms and counter-productive behavior. Death is the ultimate evil, and being judgmental is the worst sin. Because to perfect equality one must make humans less than human. We're all "equal" if we all are bi-pedal primates full of sound and fury. We're all the same if we're all nothing.

And if we're all nothing--If it all means nothing--Then shouldn't equality be brought to the masses by any means necessary?

Later, I'm going to talk little bit about how one goes about changing human nature to make people except this crap. Above is a blueprint of the Nanny State.

Wow, that's funny

Funniest movie line ever. (even if I've never seen the movie)

(h/t- Brutally Honest via Betsy Newmark, who's guest-blogging for Michelle Malkin.

Geeking Out...pleasant taste. Some spoilerism.

Hello, kiddies! Last time it was Wonder Woman and the Superfriends drinking game. This time I wanted you know I took a bullet for you. Yes, I watched Blade: Trinity. A movie some thought wasn't very good. I saw it in the theater and I got the DVD--here's why: 1) I strongly believe in supporting all comic movies. 2) Also, David Goyer, writer/director of Blade 3, is all over the comic movie scene. (Batman Begins, the Flash, the Crow, Ghost Rider, etc.) 3) Finally, I wanted to know if they would do a Blade 4 or even a Nightstalkers movie. Well, Goyer, Biel, and Renyolds said some stuff about maybe doing it, and the alternate-ending definitely suggests Goyer was hoping for more Nightstalkers. Hell, the whole movie is a passing of the torch--Goyer even flat out says that Blade has become a mythic character now, meaning... No more Blade? Goyer wrote all the great lines for Hannibal King. If you watch the animatics from Blade 1 you'll see that Goyer just reversed the original ending for Blade 3. Particles intermingle--blood and a bio or chemical-weapon. Then all the vampires are wiped out (instead of all the humans like Goyer really wanted to do). Plus, Goyers might be doing the Flash with Reynolds, so, hey, they might get the band back together. Blade was good, if only for the line right before Deacon Frost is dispatched; now Blade 3 ain't great, but Parker Posey is great (whose apparently is going to be Superman Returns), and the back story on Biel's gun belt will change the way you look at that character. It would be nice to listen to one of Goyer's commentaries without him describing the bad guys as "fascist" or the good guys as "grass roots." But with all the six degrees of separation going on in the comic book land maybe we can get them to finally do what I've always been saying (mostly saying to Garm while he pretends to care). They need to start seeing each movie as part of a larger franchise. A Blade universe, or dare I dream a Marvel movie universe. Ultimate Marvel is basically spearheading this with its genetically persons of mass destruction general theme and... no, no, must stop self. Just breathe...where's my Spider-Man plush doll?

I Liked It Better When He Hit Cameras

Hello, kiddies! Sean Penn is "reporting" from Iraq (h/t: drudgereport). Let's just take a guided tour of crazy shall we?

It is a nation of nuclear power, where the lobbies of the religious right effectively blur the lines between church and state. But it is also a country of good and hospitable people. And when the local team wins a big match, there is dancing, kissing, drinking and drugs in the streets. Women are graduating the campuses in higher and higher numbers, occupying government in higher and higher numbers. Sound familiar? But wait. The women. Look at the women. All is not well. I'm thinking about the women. This is Iran.

Holy Mother of GOD!! This is one of those things were I hope that I'm too stupid to understand. First off, "It is a nation of nuclear power, where the lobbies of the religious right effectively blur the lines..." on what planet does those two clauses have anything to do with each other? Furthermore, I want to thank Sean Penn for bringing to my attention that the lobbyists of the "religious right" (not be confused with the Iranian atheist lobby) are blurring lines between church and state in a ... wait for it... in a flippin' THEOCRACY!!! Cause I thought it was the whole rule by the Ayatollah? Thank you, Mr. Penn, thank you for opening mine eyes! I love how kissing and hugging and a sports win are right in there drugs in the street. Drugs in the street? Well, that's fantastic! Mom, baseball, and apple pie--and drugs in the street; the Iranians are obviously on the verge of American style democracy! Now I can't figure out if the "Sound familiar?" refers to the Iranian women or the whole article, but assuming its the women, yeah, I kind of think that the situation of Iranian women and that of Western women is only similar in the mind of Mr. Penn. "But wait. The women. Look at the women. All is not well. I'm thinking about the women. This is Iran. " But wait, this is what San Francisco Chronicle thinks is writing? That's how he wraps up the first part of his reporting from Iran? I think... I think I'm going to have to go with [censored]. I think [censored] is the word for this [censored]. To the bottom right is a picture of Mr. Penn and crowd of people behind him which absolutely none of which are government minders. Top right is a X-ray of Garm after reading the tripe while in an unsafe proximity to a nail gun that promised to end the searing pain in his logic centers.

Every Slayer Has A Death Wish

Hello, Kiddies! Yes, I'm a big Buffy/Angel fan (although Garm had to clue me in that Loren was atleast symbolically gay--red state filter I guess) any way there's this episode where Spike tells Buffy that "every Slayer has a death wish," that they secretly long for it. That could apply to lot of things, here's one.

I've been considering this post for a while now. I talk to Dems and Libs all the time and they're always amazed when I tell them that the Democrats ruled America for like 60 years of the 2oth-century. Why? Well, they thought that all evil flowed from the right, that Vietnam and segeration were Republican ideas. Being in power meant that dems actually had to be part of the middle and the left, but then the whole New Left in the 60s ripped everything apart. Thus cometh Bill Clinton and the gang. Political whores that, while leftist, were really about winning elections. Now, the Democrats have been handed some huge losses, and they sputter about, raving about how core American values are under attack. No, core leftist values are under attack--your the ones that took your party to Hollywood and Cuba and Europe. But then come the Republicans asking, "why are they going with Howard Dean! Did they not learn their lesson? Don't they want to win an election?" The answer is yes and no, but mostly no. Let's listen to one of their bigger hacks:

Here's a dirty little secret. The Republicans know this. Nothing scares them more than us returning to our simple answers. Here's Bill Kristol, in a famous 1993 memo I'm sure you're all familiar with: "Health care is not, in fact, just another Democratic initiative . . . the plan should not be amended; it should be erased. . . . It will revive the reputation of the . . . Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests." I'd say this memo is the skeleton key to understanding modern American politics, if it didn't make me yawn. There's nothing here that's unfamiliar to historians who've read Republican secrets going back 25, 35, even 70 years. You can sum them up in 10 words: "If the Democrats succeed in redistributing economic power, we're screwed."
They have reason to fear.

You see. He's happy. There is no more fighting to straddle the middle. Now the left can be what it wants to be: radicals. Grassroot, from the street, revolutionaries. I don't want this because it is true that an ideologically consistent oppontent is much more dangerous, and, jeez, communistic democrats as a major American party--yuck! But that is the thing, they want to be radicals because they want to be the little guy! Maybe they'll come back later and win, but right now they want to be angry geniuses of social reform that shake their fists at the plastic, corporate world and talk about how dreamy "Che" was (before he was executed like a commie dog). Now they're counter-culture, now they are the cool kids. They were the ruling party, but just as Whedon teaches us, everyone that's on top wonders what it would be like to fall, to lose. Losing an election was very liberating, they wanted to let go; to go back to when conservatives were evil and liberals were good. To say out loud: Socialism! And we shall overcome! And its the gulag for you, comrade!

Saddam's found the Lord?

According to this Reuters.com article, he sure has, saying "Life is meaningless without the considerations of faith, love and inherited history in our nation." The article itself says, "[Hussein] spends much of his time reading the Koran and has become a devout Muslim in captivity." Of course, having learned at least one iota, and hopefully more, of the history of Iraq with Hussein as it's dictator, I tend not to believe that Hussein has become anything close to being a person strong in his faith in Islam. In fact, I feel that Saddam attempting to do one or both of two things:

1) Attempting to display piousness in the face of overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity and his own people, in an attempt to gain some sort of leniency.

2) Become a martyr for jihadists/Arabs/Iraqi insurgents/et. al.

Now, both options are perfectly understandable from his point of view, but the second one is the only one that really matters. After all, he is also quoted as saying, "My brother, love your people, love Palestine, love your nation, long live Palestine." I'm not an Islamic scholar, but his hatred of Israel, in my mind, does not automatically make him a devout Muslim, especially considering his own behavior in regard to his barbarous rule of Iraq. What I'm afraid of though is that by putting on a show in front of the world that he IS a devout Muslim who hates everything American, Israeli, etc. will endear him to Islamic terrorists across the world. The extended, and probably unavoidable, nature of his impending trial are NOT helping his possible attempt at becoming a martyr to the groups mentioned above. Hopefully the trial will emphasize his crimes, rather than give him a platform for one last fist-shake against the Great Satan.

But I'm not going to hold my breath; we'll see in six weeks or so.

The Fatalistic Four

Check out Brainster's Blog to see what would happen to the Fantastic Four if they were peaceniks. mmmm...Politics, the War on Terror, and Comics. Good stuff. Add this to the list of Things-I-wish-I'd-thought-of-myself-but-didn't.

Michael Yon

Michael Yon's latest post, Proximity Delays, is up. Consistantly, IMO, the best reporting coming out of Iraq. A true must-read.

Steven Seagal Watch #8

Hello, kiddies! Seagal's not done. In fact, he's just getting his second wind. Black Dawn is a new movie, apparently a sequel to the 2003 film, The Foreigner, in which, I kid you not, the lead character is named "Jonathan Cold." In other Seagal "movie" news, there are rumors of an Under Siege 3, because...you know, he's got to the third one, and then go back and do the prequels! If you're looking to see the Mumbling Master in the flesh, you could go to the Burton Festival and catch him playing the guitar, with, like, rock 'n' roll hall of farmers ... Until the next direct to DVD action title, you can swing on over to Atom Films and watch these three "Seagal Shows," which are pretty fantastic and something mmanndmii:.:.:...;.... ... (What did you say?) Apparently, the juveniles over at the Toliet are responsible (some anti-Bush content, not recommended for the faint of politics). In a tie in with the question of profaning icons/trademark from the Boy Wonder post, just remember this is nowhere near the Newgrounds hosted "Snarly Brown" which was basically Charlie Brown as the Bad Lieutenant, something that was so sued off the web I could only find this cached mention of it. These cartoons are might anger Seagal, but I'd say they fall within satire.

Until next time: WWSSD

Swear To YOUR God

Muslims are complaining they can't swear on the Koran in court in North Carolina. Only they can; that is, they can hold the Koran and promise to tell the truth, they just can't force the court to provide the Koran and endorse the whole idea that the Koran is worth swearing on. Will this get swatted down? Maybe, but in reality it makes sense that people can't force the state, via lawsuit, to change the what kind of oaths it will recognize. Does a satanist swear on the Satanic Bible? If I was NC, I'd change the law, so that the libs couldn't take the issue to federal court. Besides, is it really so great to tell a jury you're a devout Muslim these days? Think they'll assume you're peaceful and rational? I can see the terror defendant's cross-examination now: “Soooo, you swore on this book, didn't you? And this is the Koran, isn't it? And you believe in the Koran, don't you? You strive to do as it commands? Well, that's interesting, the Koran has these passages in it doesn't it?”

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-) "It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-) "Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73) "Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)

Hey, I wouldn't be so low as to do it, but we are talking about lawyers here.

Even Watergate Wasn't Watergate

Recently, Vanity Fair writer Michael Wolff said "I think [the Plame/Rove leak story] certainly is one of the biggest stories of our age..." Age. Not year, not decade, not generation, but Age; as in the Space Age. Wolff went on: "If the guy closest to the President has potentially committed a felony ... If Karl Rove were out of business, that's a f-ing big story." His comments did not go unchallenged. "You guess, and then you write!" Richard Cohen of the Washington Post blasted Wolff. "This is a crappy little crime, and it may not be a crime at all." Well, there's a harsh retort, but I'm still caught up on the whole "biggest stories of our AGE" thing! I'm not going to suggest the Media is bias, but blind. The Media is not just a watchdog the government; the Media should be about telling truth. Finding, arguing about it, explaining it, but some people just can't wait to have Robert Redford render them on the silver-screen. Yes, Rove getting sacked would be a big story, but the story of our age? Here's a headline: Media's Myopic View Obscures the Historic Event of Our Age!