Musings, with apologies for recent absence

I'm busy on a very intense course. Not much time or energy left at the end of the day for this.

Recently, a few things have come to my attention. Firstly, the inestimable Monique Stuart points out that even Democrats are uncomfortable with the degree of haste the Obama administration is demanding on legislation. Apparently, the Health care bill is being rushed, with every attempt being made to close down debate. As I am currently reading Liberal Fascism, a disturbing thought comes to mind. The Obama administration seems to be anti-thought. Every effort is being made to stop people from taking the time to consider the repercussions of actions. The health issue needs action- now! The economy needs a bailout- now! Action is being fetishized, which is a classic symptom of overly aggressive personality cults. Furthermore, the MSM's focus on President Obama's supposed paragon of virility status is eerily reminiscent of the treatment Mussolini received in his day (for all his flaws, Mussolini was no genocidal racist, and he was popular with the ladies). The other disturbing element of this whole theatre is the intimidation of the average voter with doomsday scenarios. For a party that accuses the Republicans of banking on the politics of fear, the Democrats seem spend a lot of time darkly implying an "or else..." Both of these tactics serve to eliminate any reasonable period of deliberation. At this point, neither the House nor the Senate are really doing their jobs. Big Surprise.

The other issue I want to address is a little closer to home. The current leadership race for Ontario's Progressive Conservatives (hate the name, incidentally) is an excellent microcosm for the state of the conservative movement in the Western world. One candidate, Randy Hillier, is massively popular with the grassroots and the blogging community. He has the Ezra Levant seal of approval, because his central plank is the elimination of Ontario's Human Rights Commission. No negotiation, no attempt at reform, no half-measures. Smaller government, and a crisp smack to the gob of overreaching bureaucrats. However, the chattering classes don't like him because they fear he isn't "electable" due to his lack of polish and his unwillingness to compromise. Event the National Post chose to endorse a more moderate candidate for fear of repeating the John Tory Religious Schools incident. Therein lies the problem; conservatives are afraid. Even though we know full well that the cries of agony and laments of victimhood are patently false, we still fear being labelled as mean by liberals.

$&*@ That! Since when did electability rest on anything other than strength of policy and character? Conservatives have the Sisyphean task of repairing damage and then moving forward, every single election. Stop crying about it, and do it. People like David Frum make me crazy. Conservatism doesn't win by being less conservative to get more votes. Compromises should leave both sides bloody and exhausted. Every time a conservative makes a compromise with a liberal that doesn't leave the liberal wailing to the nearest NGO about the heartlessness of conservatism, it is a failure. John McCain was supposed to be a brilliant compromise candidate. A moderate Republican, a "maverick" who could get along with Democrats. The Dems laughed all the way to the White House. Our side picked a grumpy 72 year old because he could play nice with others. Their side picked a charismatic candidate who hangs out with unrepentant terrorists, race baits his own family, and thrives on Chicago style politics. The Republicans brought tea and crumpets to a tank battle.

Liberals do everything they can to circumscribe direct conflict, because they know they don't have the guts. They try to take your guns, because guns symbolize standing up for yourself and that takes guts. They try to take your free speech, because telling the truth means telling others that some ideas are objectively better than others and that takes guts. They try to eliminate debate in Congress, because debate means withstanding scrutiny and defending your ideals and that takes guts.

Stop playing Calvinball. Harden the &%$! up, and get the job done. Voters will respect you if you put your convictions on display. Have the courage to resist the infantilization of politics. If you don't, liberals will keep winning.

Take Time Today to Remember, and Draw Strength from the Courage of the Past

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.


June 6th, 1944. Approximately 130,000 Canadian soldiers of 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and 2nd Armoured Brigade land at Juno Beach. Catching the German Army completely by surprise with the scale of the landing, Canadian troops rapidly silence shore defences and push inland. By the end of the day, 574 Canadians lay dead, with 340 wounded. Compared to the other Allied Forces, casualties were light. The Canadians would pay dearly the next day, impossibly holding their lines against a massive counter-attack. For that day, however, a stunning victory had been won.

As an interesting aside, almost all footage of D-Day landings are of Juno Beach.

Why I Hate New Brunswick, part 3 of Infinity

I hate New Brunswick.

What has set me off this time? Further proof that this province embodies all that is wrong with contemporary Canadian society, of course. I went out last night with a good friend, and while we were engaged in our usual scandalous follies, we encountered something shocking. The attractive young woman working the door at the club had a Military History degree, but had never read Clausewitz.

You read that correctly. She had never read excerpts from Vom Krieg. She didn't even know why she should have. Oh, she read Jomini all right, but no Clausewitz. For those of you who aren't into the whole military theory thing, Jomini was a contemporary of Napoleon who wrote a manual essentially stating that war could be won using the strict application of principles and battlefield geometry. Clausewitz was his polar opposite, claiming that war had no set rules, and that victory was the result of a commander influencing his enemy through manoeuvre on both the moral (mental) and physical planes. Jominian thought is responsible for the bloody mess that was World War I. Studying Clausewitz is what allowed the German army to make fullest use of the tank and blitzkrieg (neither of which they invented). At this point, the only impact Jomini still has on military thought is that NATO armies have general principles of war, but they are so broad and encompassing that there is nothing mathematical or precise about them.

So why does a young woman with a BA in Military History not knowing this upset me so much? Because it tells you how modern universities, at least civilian ones, work. This young woman wasn't taught how to think; she was taught what to think. Her professor didn't even discuss the possibility that there was an opposing view. There was no open marketplace of ideas, there was only what the prof allowed the students to see. This prof, to steal an allegory from Plato, deliberately shackled students in the cave and told them the shadows on the wall were the extent of reality.

I took courses at two different military academies. At no point was I ever limited in this way. At any point in my studies, when there were two opposing views I was forced to examine both and then make up my own mind. My english courses were taught by feminists. I had history courses from both Dr. Sean Malloney (sorry if I spelled that wrong, sir) and Dr. Jane Errington. Look them up- you can't get much more variety than that. My politics courses? I got them from Dr. Alan Whitehorn (probably the only Leftist I truly respect) and Dr. Joel Sokolsky. When I went south of the border for a semester, I took courses from US Army officers who had participated in the Iraq war, and then received courses on Arab and Jihadi political thought from Dr. Assaf Moghadam, himself an Iraqi. At every turn, I was encouraged to seek out opposing views to the popular mode of thought. I got psychology courses that warned of groupthink, and every time I wrote an essay, I was subjected to ruthless academic standards. I can proudly say that when I agree with the government position, it's because I understand it and its justification, not because they paid for my education.

Is it any wonder university students voted so overwhelmingly for Obama? I'm willing to bet that if a Military History student was shielded from the most influential Western military thinker of all time, economics students are being shielded from evidence that government intervention is bad. Politics students are being shielded from analysis of Democratic Party tendencies. Law students are probably being shielded from the Constitution, though thanks to Justice Antonin Scalia that's probably an uphill battle.

Universities are becoming echo-chambers. No wonder an undergrad degree is losing its value.

In other news, I'm on Monique Stuart's Blogroll! Awesome! Go check her out, she's very intellectually stimulating, and unabashed smokers are worthy of respect.

This Week in Abject Cowardice

You heard it here first. A Canadian, one of many living under the thumb of the ultimate nanny-state, thinks the current batch of Republican senators are coward. You heard me right.

Senators, you are cowards. Your fear sickens me. Your weakness disgusts me. Step aside, you have failed.

Why such hatred? Because they aren't going to fight the Sotomayor nomination. That's right. The woman who discriminated against Connecticut firefighters because while they were talented, a bunch of ethnic minorities weren't, so the test was unfair. Oh. Well then. My mistake. I suppose army and police courses had better stop running Close Quarters Battle testing, because the vast majority of people who join SWAT teams and the Infantry are white men. The Royal Canadian Armour Corps (unofficial motto- Speed and Violence) had better start recruiting from women's studies programs, because there just aren't enough female officers. Also, any judge who doesn't have a "diverse" enough life story had better stop issuing rulings. Especially if he is a white man.

How far has their intellectual integrity fallen? If this were Roman times, and the Republican senators real Senators, then the outer Legion pickets would be dead, the watchtowers burnings, the walls breached, and the Prime Century would be rallied around the standard, shields locked and grimly waiting for death. The centurions would furiously be trying to rally the men, and the damned aristocrats standing in the square would be bickering over how flowery the language of surrender is to be.

The Democrats are just as bent on plunder as the Visigoths. A peacetime President is nationalizing banks and industry! Meanwhile, men who are supposed to represent the wisest of their party complain that Nero's fiddle is out of tune. I know I'm mixing my historical metaphors, but I am furious! This is what we can expect? Timidity, and paper tiger speeches?

Yes. Because the Republican National Senate Committee is terrified of losing the latino vote. After all, latinos are so ignorant they'll support anyone who appoints people with spanish names to high office, right? It's the soft bigotry of low expectations at work. Here's a thought. Why don't we try to win people over with dedication to policy? Reduce government. Stimulate the economy through the proven methods of lower taxes and more individual freedom. Start calling a spade a spade, rather than a human operated digging apparatus.

Triumphant Return, Courtesy of Grave Concerns

I apologize for my absence. I have recently started a new course at work, and last week I was working from 5 AM to 9PM, leaving me with little or no energy to devote to political commentary. That, and I was a bit out of the loop. Feel free to give me specific political issues of concern from the last week if you think they deserve my attention.

My focus this week is the President's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS. This, as I warned all of my left-leaning friends during the election, is the inevitable result of playing identity politics. As has been stated in pretty much every newspaper of note (with varying degrees of admiration by the usual rags), Sotomayor makes her decisions through the lens of her own personal experiences as an immigrant. To this, I can only respond that I am thankful that she is only on the 2nd Circuit. She has actually explicitly stated that she thinks a Hispanic woman is better suited to being a judge than a white man, simply by virtue of her perspective. As RS McCain says, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! The last time I checked, there was the delightful little concept of "impartiality" to protect. Are we to be held hostage now by sympathies to identity groups?

Ironically, no. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that Democrats play a particularly vile brand of identity politics. They will absorb a group into their "big tent", though I'd use the term collective, and then should this group not adhere exactly to the greater plan they will be ignored. Take for instance the black community in California; they voted overwhelmingly in favour of President Obama. However, the vast majority of the President's economic policies will have no demonstrable impact on black poverty. In fact, one could argue that his economic policies will hurt black families because the areas he is targeting with "stimulus" are predominantly the reserve of bleeding heart upper middle class white people. I fail to see how protecting the snail darter is rewarding the black community. Furthermore, gays voted overwhelmingly Democrat as well, and yet they are getting no help on the marriage issue. As HillBuzz has pointed out, it's an issue of language rather than rights. However, a continued battle on gay marriage is of interest to the Democratic party, and so gays will continue to vote for them and get nothing in exchange.

President Obama is the apotheosis of this ruthless and unethical way. He used a groundswell of feeling by identity groups like blacks and disenfranchised youth to gain power, but he's not accepting any kind of reciprocal responsibility. He promised them Hope and Change. He'll bring them death, and they will love him for it.

Rule 5 Sunday! Part 2, The Democratic Process

Hungover today. Busy all week. Not much energy for this kind of thing. I'm hoping to do some catching up next week, what with the Democratic Party in Congress trying to pass communism through environmentalism. Keep on track with Monique Stuart and RS McCain on the unusual happenings.

This week, I thought I'd open Rule 5 to the floor. Post links in the comments section, and throughout the rest of the day I'll update the main body with the images. Have fun!


UPDATE

What the hell. I love Alizée.It isn't every day you see a Corsican hottie.

Rule 5 Sunday!

The title has nothing to do with the content of the post. Go to The Other McCain to get the meaning. Also, just to keep my brother happy, this post is totally free of Ann Coulter references.

Today I'm going to muse on the political culture of my current city, and why it is moronic. Here in Fredericton, a riding that historically has gone blue (that means the same thing as going red for my American readers), I am surrounded by people who have no idea how politics actually works. It's amazing what 8 years of voting liberal can do to the cultural psyche.

First of all, people seem to assume that President GW Bush was the worst president in history. They can cite no evidence, they can offer no sane argumentation. When questioned, they look at you as if you claimed the sky is neon yellow. Forget the fact that previous Presidents have committed perjury and probably felonies (President Clinton), completely fumbled Mideast policy and allowed Americans to be held hostage for over a year (President Carter), bungled the PR campaign on what was militarily the cleanest jungle war ever (President Johnson). I could go on, but I think you get my point. Make no mistake, I do not credit President Bush with being in the top 5, but you have to give the man a reasonable analysis. He dealt admirably with the greatest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour. He concluded a successful ground campaign in a country that had repelled all previous attempts at doing so (seriously, even the Brits never had garrisons in every Afghan province). He removed on of the most intractable and wily dictators around from power, and he managed to hold his ground against two innovative insurgent campaigns at the same time, while simultaneously preventing a follow-up attack on the US. Allow me to be completely clear: Al Qaeda had plans and attempted to execute several attacks on the US post 9/11. That's how terrorist campaigns work. You open with a bang to get people's attention, and then you bleed their will to fight by demonstrating that you can hit them anywhere you want. That hasn't happened, so if you want to blame President Bush for Iraq, you had best be willing to give him credit for the lack of further attacks on US soil. Or you are a hypocrite.

Which brings me to my next point. Hypocrisy is rampant in this part of the country. It really irritates me, especially as a libertarian. People in this city just love to tell me how the Canadian military should be deployed to Darfur, but that the current Afghan mission is a war for oil. They love to tell me that the government should intervene and force Evangelicals to be nicer to gays, but that their "right" to smoke weed shouldn't be infringed. Well? Which is it? Do you want an interventionist nanny-state that regulates everything right down to how you feel about the asshole next door who plays country music at 4 AM? Or do you want the government to treat you like an individual citizen and stakeholder, with the rights and responsibilities that entails?

Nevermind, you're probably too baked to understand half of those words. Go back to parroting Jon Stewart and thinking you're brilliant.

And now for something completely different! Rule 5 WOOO! (Click for full size, I'm still learning how this stuff works)