Army brigade commander says Army not ready for Iraq war
The writer says he is an Army brigade commander, and he says the bulk of the Army is not ready for prime time. I invite current military readers to comment!

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a conference and the issue of deploying was discussed. The colonel in charge recommended that we get some hand cleaning lotion to take with us so that we could be sure to sanitize ourselves before we eat and after we relieve ourselves. I have learned to be quiet, and did not remark on this Suggestion as I looked at everyone else in the room nodding their heads to his advice. Hell, they were even talking about the need to ship portable toilets to the front. That's a sniper's dream come true. Talk about catching us with our pants down!

Our service members need to be put through some tough training now. The kindlier, gentler, in-touch-with-their-emotions leaders need to go through the same training or leave the ranks now.

Deploying soldiers need to be put on the desert in the American southwest for a month before they ship out. Let them feel the heat and the dust storms. Put them in their MOPP gear for days at a time. Make them keep their weapons and protective gear clean. Let them go extended periods without showers. Get rid of the snack food and make them live solely off military rations.

Our leaders can do the same, but we have got to start getting tough now. The harder we go in, the faster victory will be achieved and fewer casualties will be taken on all sides.

I have spent a lot of time with combat support and combat service support troops of active, reserve and National Guard over the past several years, and see the same problems. Their leaders don't have that same inner resolve and grit determination that I still can see in you, Wooldridge, Gates, or Tibbets. As a result, the troops have not been broken away from a soft life and developed into a "let's get tough or die" force. Tough leaders in the 1990s were on the defensive.

Meanwhile, too much time was spent on consideration of others and encouraging soldiers to be in touch with their emotions. They are going to be in touch with their emotions real soon.

Is this morning's Montgomery County shooting a message to Chief Moose?
If the commuter bus shooting this morning this morning was the latest work of the sniper team, I wonder whether the snipers' return to Montgomery County is a signal to Montgomery County chief of Police Charles Moose.

Moose had announced that investigators had been in contact with either the snipers or someone who had information about them. Yesterday, police staked out a drive-up phone booth in Virginia that they believe their unknown contact had used to call them. When a white van drove up to the phone, the police swarmed it and took two men inside into custody, whom they later discerned were unconnected to the case.

In retrospect, the seizure of that van and the arrest of the men was a huge blunder. It served to sever the line of communication that had been tenuously established and let the unknown caller know that his conversation (such as it was) with the police was not received in the way he probably intended it. I am reluctant to second-guess the decisions of the police here, since this kind of case has never happened before. However, the brashness and power of the police seizure of the innocent white van, IMO, served to anger the caller and/or shooter because it proved the police were not going to play his game. Yes, I know - duh, they won't! But the killer isn't exactly stable in the first place. Might it have been a better idea to let the van depart the phone booth and swarm it some distance away?

Moose has been the centerpiece of the investigation from the beginning. Perhaps the shooter now sees himself in a personalized contest with Moose. Because Moose didn't play the game the way the caller/sniper wanted, he returned to Moose's own county to shoot again.

Update: An expert commentator (didn't catch his name) on Fox News this morning said he thinks it is not the shooter who is contacting the police, but an unconnected opportunist. Hence, he said, the Montgomery County shooting is indeed a signal from the shooter to Moose and the police that he is still controlling events.

The two-vehicle hypothesis for sniper shootings is buttressed
According to news coverage of this morning's shooting in Maryland, the police are examing vehicles of all kinds, reinforcing the theory that the shootings are the work of a two-vehicle team, with the second vehicle's description not known.

Extremely early archeological Jesus artifact found
According to the Washington Post, a limestone ossuary (burial box for bones) dating to about AD 60 has an inscription that is the earliest non-biblical reference to Jesus Christ ever found - if the Jesus referred to is the one known as the Christ.

That it carries the name of Jesus is not in dispute. Jesus was a fairly common first-century name of Jewish men. What makes the inscription so compelling, though, is its references to the names of Jesus' father, Joseph, and Jesus' brother, James:

Ya 'a kov bar Yosef a khui Yeshua -- "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

Andre Lemaire, a French philogist and epigrapher who is the first scholar known to have studied the box, believes the inscription refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

"Christ" is, of course, a Greek-derived term meaning, "anointed," the meaning of the Hebrew word, "messiah." Christ is really an honorific, a title, rather than part of Jesus' name. How Jesus referred to himself during his lifetime is not known.

Until the ossuary's appearance, the earliest known artifact mentioning Jesus was a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, dated about 125 A.D. Scholars date the Gospel of Mark, the earliest chronicle of Jesus's life, around 70 A.D.

This is an imprecise use of the word, "artifact." An artifact is an object, not a record of an object. An actual papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John counts as an artifact, but as far as I know, there is no text of Mark that dates near the time of its calculated writing. However, there is a text fragment in Britain that has part of the Gospel of Matthew; it more likely than not dates from AD 60, but this dating is still disputed. Josephus, a Jewish historian, refers to Jesus in his chronicle of the Jewish rebellion against Rome in the sixth decade AD, written probably in the 80s.

AD 70 for dating Mark is also disputed, there being excellent reasons to date it closer to 60. In fact, most scholars date Mark to about 64. The gospels, though, were not the first books of the New Testament to be written. Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, Greece, takes that honor, dating to 47 with confidence. However, there is no extant text of the epistle that old.

James was stoned to death in the early years of the 60s. The ossuary has withstood technical scrutiny so far, including that of Jewish archaeologists expert in ossuaries of the period. The inscription has been shown through technical means not to have been etched into the stone later than the stone was made into the artifact.

Update: Here is the article in Biblical Archeology Review website. It's reasonable overall, but starts and finishes on a stumble:

After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone.

Does this mean that until now, there was no evidence for the existence of Jesus? Really? On the contrary, there has been conclusive evidence for the existence of Jesus for the last two millennia: the Church. There was no Church before the time of Jesus, the first third of the first century AD. There was provably a church almost immediately after that. Every record, within and without the Church, from those days ascribes the existence of the Church to the person of Jesus Christ; for example Roman records refer to the Church. Liberal critics had a brief flirtation a few decades ago with the notion that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth, certainly no one who came to proclaimed as the Christ. But even the most radical, far-left scholars have abandoned that position now. The ultra-left Jesus Seminar, for example, questions the reliability of the Gospels as the record of Christ himself, and denies Christ's resurrection, but the seminar explicitly accepts the fundamental other assertions of Jesus - the time of his life, his Jewishness, his socio-religious-political world, the time and manner of his death.

"The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology," says Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. "It has implications not just for scholarship, but for the world?s understanding of the Bible."

I'll not argue that this find may well be the most significant in New Testament archaeology, but it's a real stretch to claim it has implications for the world's understanding of the Bible. We will not somehow understand the Bible better because of this ossuary. The relationships is asserts are exactly those the Church has asserted from the days of the apostles.

Succeeding militarily, failing politically
Fareed Zakaria says that in regard to international politics, America's war on terrorism is failing.

"Mostly countries that hate America. . ."
So says Mark Steyn in yesterday's Chicago Sun Times:

There are 192 countries in the world. One is America. The remaining 191 are mostly countries that hate America. I say "mostly" because I don't want to get into a lot of quibbling about whether it's 183 or 185. Some hate America actively--that's to say, they're in favor of flying planes into American skyscrapers. Some (like France) despise America because they can't quite figure out how a great historic culture like theirs wound up a bit-player in a world dominated by ghastly vulgar cowboys. Others express their feelings more or less harmlessly by going out of their way to laud the most incompetent and ludicrous Americans, as the Swedes did the other day by giving Jimmy Carter the Nobel Peace Prize. "For what?" you may be asking. Oh, come on. It was Jimmy who handed the Islamofascists their first great victory, in Iran a quarter-century ago. If that ain't worth a Swedish meatball, what is?

He savages the American networks' (including cable news) non-coverage of the Bali terrorism:

"ABC World News Tonight With Peter Jennings" is all Peter Jennings and no World News; ABC World News Headquarters in New York is a headquarters with no branch offices. CBS News covers the British Isles, Europe, Africa and the Indian subcontinent from a three-man bureau in London. Dan Rather's hairdresser sucks up the rest of the budget.

Remember, proportionately, Australia lost as many people in the Bali bomb as America lost of 9/11.

How Americans became radicalized
William Rees-Mogg, a Briton writing in The Times Online, attempts to put a finger on the pulse of American opinion regarding the war on terrorism.

In all politics, and in particular in American politics, events change attitudes. The South should not have fired on Fort Sumter in 1861; the Germans should not have sunk the Lusitania in 1915; the Japanese should not have attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. By the same logic, Al-Qaeda should not have destroyed the Twin Towers in 2001. Before these acts of aggression, negotiation was still open; the American determination had not crystallised.

After they had occurred, the destruction of the aggressor became inevitable. In each of these wars, the initial challenge came from the other side. But once Americans are convinced that they face an implacable enemy, that has a revolutionary effect. The aim of terrorists is to radicalise their own potential followers; 9-11 radicalised the American people, despite their anxieties. . . .

So far as most Americans are concerned, Islamic terrorists, whether they belong to the al-Qaeda network or are Palestinian suicide bombers, or plant bombs in Indonesia or Kashmir, or lead terrorist governments, all form part of the same global threat.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

George Will rips Jimmy Carter a new one
And for such excellent reasons!

Two men arrested in sniper investigation not suspects
Fox news just announced that the two men arrested this morning in Virginia as possible sniper suspects have been cleared of involvement, but are still in a world of hurt. They are being turned over to the INS for deportation, as they are illegally in the country. One was said to be Mexican, I didn't hear the nationality of the other. I suppose that means their white van is not connected to the case, either.

Slant, slant, slant - why many think the mainline media are biased
Drudge links to this article in the Des Moines Register online that purports to be coverage of Bush the elder's speech to a Des Moines audience Sunday.

Bush said nothing in his 15-minute address about his son's effort to oust President Saddam Hussein in Iraq - a nation whose army U.S. and allied forces drove from Kuwait in 1991, when the elder Bush was president.

Bush also said nothing about the nation's wobbly economy, the very issue blamed for his re-election defeat in 1992.

Why did the writer include anything at all about what Bush did not say? This is just bad journalism - the reporter is sent to cover a speech, but the speaker doesn't talk about what the reporter want to hear, so he writes about it anyway.

This guys isn't even at the Jimmy Olsen level.

Crime and the surrender of sovereignty
In my essay on the Second Amendment, I delineated three ways in which we, the people of the United States, can lose our sovereignty:

invasion and conquest by a foreign power

the swallowing of sovereign authority and power by the federal, state or local governments

by failing to resist those who act destructively toward the common welfare . . . We call them criminals.

In reference to the last item, I referred to the experiences of Britain and Australia since their governments outlawed private ownership of firearms except in severely limited circumstances.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. (citation)

Australia's experience is not much better.

Comes now Gun Control?s Twisted Outcome in Reason Online, found thanks to Glenn Reynolds. Britain, by British sources' own admission, had overtaken the US for all major crimes except murder and rape rates, both of which are rising. So are all violent crimes.

Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year?s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

Before Englad clamped down the strictest gun control measures in the industrialized world, its personal crime rates were extremely low. Overall, the rate began to rise in 1964, but the violent-crime rate really exploded after harsh restrictions on private gun ownership were instituted in 1997. Now the police in almost every large British city make their patrols armed, a practice unknown there until just a few years ago.

In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. . . .

Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England?s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America?s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world?s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

The article outlines in detail the decreasing legal authority British citizens have to protect themselves against assault - even if the assault is clearly potentially lethal - to the point where a leading British law textbook observes that it is doubtful that the people actually have any legal right to defend themselves at all.

This fact highlights the essential difference between English and American sovereignty. In Britan the people are not sovereign, the government is. One does not properly speak of British citizens, but of British "subjects." They people there are subject to the authority of the government in a way that is literally alien to American citizens.

America's Founders clearly understood that a people armed are much less likely to surrender their sovereignty than otherwise. If necessary, an armed people can defend their rights by wielding the ultimate power of sovereignty, violence. It may be defense against a foreign invader (which in the Founders' day was a quite real threat) or it may be against a sovereignty-grabbing domestic government, which the Federalist Papers show was of even greater fear to the Founders than foreign invasion. Or it may be the last resort for enforcing peaceable lawfulness among society at large and suppressing those who would do others harm. In any case, the ability of the people themselves to exercise the ultimate state power was crucial. That is why the Second Amendment insists that the people are he militia: an armed people are the sovereign state.

French say their deserter could be Md.-Va. sniper
Or more precisely, have alerted American authorities that a junior Frech army officer with a reputation as a crack shot is "missing in North America."

France has alerted Interpol about a French army deserter who is known as a marksman and is missing in North America. A Defense Ministry spokesman said there was speculation of a link to the investigation into the Washington-area sniper.

The 25-year-old second lieutenant, who was not identified, did not return to class in September at the elite military school, Saint-Cyr Coetquidan in Brittany, in western France, after going on vacation in August, officials said.

Stephen Green demands a recount
And explains why.

Why hasn't $500,000 bought somebody off in sniper case?
Last I heard, the reward for information leading to the arrest and indictment of the Md.-Va. shooter was up to half a million dollars. It may be more now. Which makes me think that the fact he is still loose argues against there being a team, or ther shooter having an accomplice. "There is no honor among thieves," as the saying goes. If there is a non-shooting accomplice, I would think that half-a-mil would get his attention in exchange for some kind of lea bargain.

As for the white van seized and the arrest made in Virginia this morning, we don't yet know where that will wind up.

If Saddam disarms, he can stay in power
So said Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice on Sunday. The secretary also said that is President Bush's position.

"What I [Powell] said was that if Saddam disarmed entirely and satisfied the international community, that would be a change in attitude, a change in the way the regime is looking at its situation in the world. And it is consistent with what the president has said previously and subsequently," he said.

"So [Saddam] can save himself, in effect, and remain in power?" host Tim Russert asked Mr. Powell [on NBC's "Meet the Press"].

"All we're interested in is getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction. We think the Iraqi people would be a lot better off with a different leader, a different regime. But the principal offense here are weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Powell said.

This really is not a waffle or change of position. President Bush said a long time ago that the US objective was Iraqi disarmament.

In any event, the statements by the SecState and Ms. Rice are not intended for Saddam anyway. They are intended for America's wobbly "allies" in Europe and the Middle East. Because Saddam will not disarm. The statements by the administration may reinforce the pressure on the UNSC to act resolutely since the statements indicate, however minimally, that there is a way to avoid war.

But the way to avoid was has not changed since Sept. 12, when Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly: full compliance with the existing UN resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament and unfettered access by weapons inspectors. So nothing changed in Bush's policy over the weekend.

See Rand Simberg's compilation of "semantically equivalent statements."

More about the Religious Left
Reader Emily Puskar writes:

I was delighted to find your website. I am so glad to find clergy types speaking out (deconstructing, as my daughter would say) the liberal theology re: the pending war.

I work for the Episcopal Diocese of CT, I am chair of the Diocesan Stewardship Committee. In fact am off to Hartford today to meeting at Diocesan House. Their politics drives me crazy. They are always against something but never for anything. And they never tell us how to be good Christians they just say call our congress person and be against stuff. Oh that's real leadership.

I read an article in the NYT once by Steven Carter where he said that the separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church, not the other way around. I totally agree with him.

Anyway look forward to reading your other stuff, as I just found your link from Glenn Reynolds. Our Army connection. Peggy Pace, widow of Frank lives at the end of our block. She is a life long friend. [note: Frank Pace was the youngest-ever secretary of the Army.]

Thanks be to God for bloggers.

Emily, thank you for reading and for writing!

Men's rules for women

Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

Birthdays, Valentines, and Anniversaries are not quests to see if we can find the perfect present yet again!

Sometimes we are not thinking about you. Live with it.

Sunday = sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.

Don't cut your hair. Ever. Long hair is always more attractive than short hair. One of the big reasons guys fear getting married is that married women always cut their hair, and by then you're stuck with her.

Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way.

Crying is blackmail.

Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!

We don't remember dates. Mark birthdays and anniversaries on the calendar. Remind us frequently beforehand.

Most guys own three pairs of shoes - tops. What makes you think we'd be any good at choosing which pair, out of thirty, would look good with your dress?

Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

A headache that last for 17 months is a problem. See a doctor.

Check your oil! Please.

Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.

If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys.

If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. We refuse to answer.

If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

Christopher Columbus did not need directions, and neither do we.

The relationship is never going to be like it was the first two months we were going out. Get over it. And quit whining to your girlfriends.

ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.

If it itches, it will be scratched. ...We do that.

We are not mind readers and we never will be. Our lack of mind-reading ability is not proof of how little we care about you.

If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.

When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine. ....Really.

Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as navel lint, the shotgun formation, or monster trucks.

You have enough clothes.

You have too many shoes.

It is neither in your best interest or ours to take the quiz together......No, it doesn't matter which quiz.

BEER is as exciting for us as handbags are for you.

Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know we really don't mind that, it's like camping.

A contemporary doctrine of sin
Reader Robert Weidner writes:

After reading "An Idea Is Not a Plan!" I went scurrying for my Catechism of the Catholic Church to find what I thought the Church had always taught about man's fallen nature and its effects and, voila!, here it is:

"401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288"

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

So, if you are willing to consider the Catechism "current theology", there is a lonely answer to your question of " Where, in our contemporary theology, do we find any doctrine of sin at all? "

The trouble is, as you have correctly pointed out, that no one wants to actually say this out loud in the same discussion of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, Iraq, etc.

I am nevertheless glad to have rediscovered what I thought the Catechism said so I can recite it in my next letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Robert, thank you for reading and for writing! Yes, Catholic theology has a well-developed doctrine of sin, but as you are probably aware, Catholicism is considered by the would-be cognoscenti to be pretty reactionary these days.

Fisking Woody harrelson
It's really just too easy, and the Norwegian Blogger, V. Valberg, does it very well.

Hey! That ship might blow up! Let's fly directly overhead and take pictures!
Cable news has been showing live shots of a cargo ship being escorted by US authorities in US littoral waters because there are indications it has explosives on board. I think that means that the ship might explode, yes?

So the reasonable thing is to get a helicopter and fly over it to take pictures. Oh-kay . . . .

Drive telemarketers foaming mad in the privacy of your own home!
Use this and do the world a service of putting a telemarketer in a rubber room for a nice long rest! (Linked by Transterrestial Musings.)

Major national newspaper tells me to press on!
What a great thing, to have an opinion piece directed to me in the Washington Times! It's called, Press on, Don, press on, and I do appreciate the encouragement!

Oh, wait, it's Don Rumsfeld they mean . . . . Well, it coulda . . . . no, guess not.

DC-area shooter is a "whacked out video gamer"
Just now on Fox News retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, now a psychologist who founded the Killology Research Institute, said that the DC area shooter has all the earmarks of an intensive video gamer. He is the author of the Pulitzer-nominated book, On Killing, which I read when it was published in 1999. According to his web site, killology is . . .

The scholarly study of the destructive act, just as sexology is the scholarly study of the procreative act. In particular, killology focuses on the reactions of healthy people in killing circumstances (such as police and military in combat) and the factors that enable and restrain killing in these situations. This field of study was pioneered by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, in his Pulitzer-nominated book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.

Grossman makes a compelling case that first-person shooter games (i.e., Doom and its successors) on the computer or Nintendo are "murder simulators" that teach kids to kill and to shoot. I think his work should be seriously considered. I have never permitted my children to play such games. I do not play them myself.

Grossman said this morning that he believes there are two accomplices in the DC-area murders. They are living out destructive fantasies that were formed by intensive, repetitive playing of first-person shooter games. In fact, there is a sniper game called, "One Shot, One Kill." Grossman thinks the shooters are teenagers and they have an end-game fantasy. When they think they are near capture, they will go out in a blaze of glory, possibly instigating a mass murder rather than serial murders.

I am familiar with Grossman's work and I think this hypothesis needs to be considered. But I am not buying it whole. The shooters (I use the plural because I believe there are two, also) have displayed a craftiness that I don't think game-playing teenagers would have. they seem more patient than I think such older boys would be. The fact that they have never fired more than one shot per incident shows (sorry for this:) a maturity that I am far from sure homicidal teens would have.

But it is possible.

Did the shooters stop (so far) because the last victim was FBI?
The shooters haven't struck since last Monday, when they killed the FBI agent who was shopping at Home Depot. Obviously, they could not have known the dead woman was an agent. I am wondering whether their discovery of her FBI identity made them stop shooting. If the trigger man is a former (or, gasp, present!) police officer, then to shoot another cop, even by accident, could have jarred him into inactivity.

Update:Many thoughtful comments have been made discounting Grossman's hypothesis, mostly that countless kids play these games who never kill anyone. True. But Grossman never claims that the games turn everyone who plays them into homicidal maniacs. He does claim that they work as operant trainers for some kids who play them, desensitizing them to the natural inhibition to take another human life.

Grossman says it is difficult for a person to kill and learn to kill. (SLA Marhsall, sent by the Army Chief of Staff in World War II to observe infantry in combat, reported the same thing to the chief. The lethal efficiency of US infantry in the war was very, very low.) But, says Grossman, operant conditioning is the best way to overcome the inhibitions. Western armies do not use operant conditioning (they use behavioral) because operant conditioning of soldiers makes them brutal; it was used by the Japanese army in China, for example, and I think some Nazi SS units.

For the overwhelming majority of kids, the games won't "take." But Grossman made a good point this morning about that. He said that lots of kids play Microsoft Flight Simulator, and most of them don't become pilots. However, some do, and of those who do, some do because Flight Simulator "hooked" them on aviation. They decided to live out what they had simulated.

Flying is benign, but murder is not. If 100,000 kids play shooter games and only 0.1% of them decide to live out their fantasies (I here pause while you do the arithmetic) .. . . .

That's 100 DC area snipers or Columbine killers or some other atrocity.

Grossman predicted that these kinds of killings will become more numerous as the video game generation comes into late teen years in force. We'll see.

Jesus idolatry and the Second Amendment
Yesterday William Quick at Daily Pundit posted a link to some quotes by famous people concerning the right to bear arms. Two of the quotes were from the New Testament:

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." - Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." - Jesus Christ, Luke 11:21

In response, I wrote the following in the comments section of William's posting:

Jesus' quotes are taken out of context, as pro-gun-rights people usually do. BTW, I am an NRA member, I shoot target 12-gauge as often as I can, and I firmly believe that the 2d Amendment is the bedrock of American liberty.

I am also a United Methodist minister and can do a little Bible study. I explained the "buy a sword" quote on my own blog back in July. No, I don't think it supports 2d Amendment rights, sorry. Neither does anything else Christ said.

Shortly I was verbally assailed by a pseudonymous reader named NC3, who accused me (gasp!) of being one of the liberal clergy. Well, that's pretty funny, making it obvious that NC3 didn't bother to peruse my blog site before s/he assailed me.

It doesn't bother me that s/he made the accusation, nor am I particularly bothered by the fact that his/her attack was sufficiently harsh that Mr. Quick posted a warning to "tone it down" (adding, "I would hardly classify Donald Sensing as 'one of the liberal clergy'. . .").

The real issue here is Jesus idolatry, or "Jesusolatry." For some people, perhaps including NC3, Jesus becomes more a totem to reinforce pre-existing world views rather than the one who kicks them over. Jesus serves more as a padlock to safeguard one's cultural certainty than a pioneer to a new and transformed life and understanding.

My views of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms are explained in detail in this essay, which is pretty much my last word on that subject. But no, Jesus Christ never endorsed the right to bear arms.

As I indicated above, I have already posted an explanation of the first quote from Luke (sell your garment and buy a sword). It's not a call to arms.

As for the second quote, a strong man armed, considering the entire quote leads to a very different conclusion of where Jesus stood on personal arms. Just prior to this statement, Jesus was accused of using the power of Beelzebub (Satan) to drive away demons, an accusation that was idiotic since it would mean that Satan used Jesus to work against - Satan.

Jesus announced that he overcame demons "by the finger of God" (thus insulting his critics that they are more ignorant than the Egyptian magicians who accosted Moses - see Exodus 8:19. Jesus says that his works show the presence of the Kingdom of God. Then he says:

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.

But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. (Luke 11:21-22 NIV)

Actually, Jesus is pointing out the futility of relying on arms for defense, since someone stronger can always come along and overpower you. An honest reading of the passage would include this verse, but "Jesusolaters," ever eager to enlist Jesus in their secular cause, don't argue honestly. (Jesusolaters are found on both the left and the right.)

Bible readers need to remember that there is text, but there is also context. Coming on the heels of the accusation that Jesus works for Satan, Jesus' image of a "strong man armed" is clearly related to that accusation, not to the American Second Amendment. Jesus' exorcisms of Satan's demons show that God and Satan are in conflict. The struggle is spiritual. Satan is the "strong man armed," but God, through the person and work of Christ, is more powerful and is overpowering Satan. Satan is too powerful for humans to defeat, but because the Kingdom of God has come with power in Christ, God is defeating Satan, seizing his armor, and plundering his possessions.

But a more honest reading would continue, because Jesus continues:

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.
"When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.'
25 When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order.
26 Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first." (Luke 11:23-26 NIV)

This proves, IMO, that what Jesus is talking about is spiritual struggle, not personal arms. The work and presence of Christ requires a decisive change: when evil is driven out, its former place must not be made into a museum; instead it must be replaced with living righteousness. Otherwise, evil will return even more strongly.

This passage has nothing at all to do with personal arms, but it does strike me as applicable to the potential condition of post-Saddam Iraq. If we merely get rid of Saddam without filling his void with something better - like democracy - then the danger will return later, all the stronger.

Bottom line: there is not a word in the Gospels that can honestly be taken to indicate divine approval of Second Amendment rights. The right to keep and bear arms springs from political philosophy, not the words of Christ.

NC3 also informed me that I am not saved and that when Jesus returns he's going to kick my posterior. Well, probably, but not for the reason NC3 thinks. As for being saved, I do not make that claim. I do claim that I try to follow the teachings, examples and person of Jesus Christ as best as I can - that is, mostly poorly - and that I do have "a conviction, wrought in my heart," that in Christ God accomplishes everything necessary for my salvation, as John Wesley put it. Between now and my death and resurrection, all I can do is "work out my salvation with fear and trembling," as Paul advised the Philippian Christians. At that, I leave my salvation is God's good hands, in whom I have placed my trust.

No one to lead an antiwar movement
Mother Jones online says that the state of the antiwar movement in America is pathetic. Todd Gitlin, author of "The Sixties: Years of Hope and Days of Rage" and former president of the '60s antiwar group Students for a Democratic Society, wrote,

The leadership of the current antiwar movement is building a firebreak around itself, turning the movement toward the bitter-end orthodoxy of the Old Left and away from the millions of Americans whose honest concerns and ambivalence might fuel it. If antiwar sentiment turns out to have any impact on the course of events, it will probably be despite the organized protests, and not because of them.

Yes, as many bloggers have noted, the Left is frozen in 1968. Every war is Vietnam, every brutal dictator is a fatherly Ho Chi Minh (who actually was a brutal dictator himself).

Gitlin says he attended an antiwar rally in New York on Sept. 12, while President Bush spoke to the UN.

Most of the printed placards held by the protesters said 'NO SANCTIONS, NO BOMBING.' The international sanctions against Iraq have been a humanitarian disaster for the country's civilians. But doesn't Saddam Hussein bear some responsibility for that disaster? Must that not be noted? The bombing -- US and UK attacks in the no-fly zones of northern and southern Iraq -- are taking place under the auspices of a mission to protect Iraqi Kurds in the north and Iraqi Shiites in the south. Again, the Iraqi leader bears responsibility; Washington and London have made a credible case for the no-fly-zone sorties because and only because Saddam Hussein has trampled these long-suffering people in more ways than there is room to describe in this space.

Those picket signs are emblematic of a refusal to face a grotesque world. They express a near-total unwillingness to rebuke Saddam Hussein, and a rejection of any conceivable rationale for using force. The left-wing sectarians who promote 'NO SANCTIONS, NO BOMBING' don't want the US, or anyone, to lift a finger on behalf of the Kurds -- to whom you might think we have a special responsibility, since our government invited them to rise up in 1991.

Now, those same cynics of the hard left have moved to the front of the current anti-war movement. The sponsors of what's being billed as a national anti-war demonstration in Washington on October 26, and their eminence grise, Ramsey Clark, express no displeasure with Saddam Hussein. Their world is two-toned and, as with the Old Left at its worst, it's always clear who's wearing the black hats. (Ramsey Clark belongs to the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, after all.)

This will not play in Peoria. It does not deserve to play in Washington. . . .

Liberal-left antiwarriors need to be out-front patriots if they expect to draw the attention and the support of Americans at large.

I think it was Tom Hayden (former husband of Hanoi Jane Fonda) who said that the failure of the American Left was its inability to wave the American flag. American leftists are unable to discern the moral distinctions between those who use violence to oppress or attack (i.e., almost all the Arab world, especially the Palestinian Authority, and al Qaeda) and those who use violence to defend or liberate (i.e., us). When significant members of the traditional left wing such as Gitlin become disgusted with the Left itself, it speaks volumes of the Left's moral bankruptcy.

What was it John Lennon wrote? "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/ You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow." (Revolution)

Maybe Trieste is a better model for governing Iraq than Japan
Lately the administration has floated the idea if appointing a military supreme commander over postwar Iraq in the same way that General Douglas MacArthur ruled over Japan after World War II. The democratization of Japan has been broached as a model for the postwar rule of Iraq. I even referred to it a whole year ago as a potential model.

Austin Bay notes, though, that the allies postwar rule over Trieste after WW II may offer a better example than Japan. In his latest essay exploring the post-Saddam Iraq he says,

Emplacing a U.S. military government in charge of liberated Iraqi territory, one backed by overwhelming military force as well as overwhelming humanitarian aid. This limits anarchy and squelches would-be warlords. The oilfields must be occupied and brought on line. Oil sales are essential to economic stability. The post-WWII allied administration of Trieste may be a better model than Japan, since Trieste required accommodating cultural and religious differences.

There's more to the essay than that, so surf on by.

Another reason Islam needs a Reformation
Best of the Web Today links to a news story that says that some Iranian women are demanding that "blood money" for women be equal to that of a man. Blood money is the fee a murderer can pay to the family of the murdered man to avoid execution. An Iranian murderer can pay $18,750 to avoid execution if the victim was a man, but only half that amount if the victim was a woman.

The wire service quotes one "high-ranking cleric": "Some preparations have been made to get it approved, but it is clearly stipulated in the Koran that women get half blood money."

Odds of war Iraq within next year are only one in three
So says Anatole Kaletsky in the Times of London. After the next 12 months, all bets are off, though. And he has done the math on it, too. Hmm. . . .

"Ballistic fingerprinting" is no panacea
California experts' study showed it may be futile as crime solving tool

Feeling good about doing bad - the death knell of the self-esteem movement
Some time ago I read a report that compared how well different students around the country did on a standardized test. This test measured not merely how well students in different cities could solve math problems. At the end of the test it asked them to describe how they felt about their efforts. Curiously, there was an inverse relationship. The students who said they felt very good about their work actually scored the lowest. Students who said they didn't feel very good about their work scored the highest.

Comes now a report in the American Psychological Association's journal that confirms how common this misperception is., Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.

We argue that when people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it. Instead, like Mr. Wheeler, they are left with the mistaken impression that they are doing just fine. As . . . Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (p. 3).

With any luck, the awareness among psychologists that feeling good about one's skills and abilities frequently indicates poor performance will transfer to educators and we'll see the death knell rung for the self-esteem movement. Actually, according to this page, the knell is being rung now. And good riddance.

The authors tell this dumb crook story:

In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night, less than an hour after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. When police later showed him the surveillance tapes, Mr. Wheeler stared in incredulity. "But I wore the juice," he mumbled. Apparently, Mr. Wheeler was under the impression that rubbing one's face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to videotape cameras ( Fuocco, 1996 ).

A blogger has joined the Army
Somehow I missed the post by James Durbin, author of Seeking Truth, that tells of his enlistment in the US Army National Guard. James is a guy who has put his body where his mouth is, and I salute him. I think you should email him and thank him for helping to preserve our freedom.

I am no longer a civilian. I have now voluntarily signed away portions of my rights as an American citizen, and live under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. My conduct is now under scrutiny as a member of the Armed Forces, and it is my duty to act in a manner that brings no dishonor or shame to the country, the Constitution, or the military I serve.

It still doesn't feel noble. I'm honestly a little gunshy about making a big deal of it, and my response to "why" has turned simply into "There's a war on." The typical response is "Thank you. I think as a citizen that what you're doing is great for our country. But what will you do if you're called up?"

That's why I don't answer. Everything I've done in the last month built to that oath. How do you explain to someone why you give up control over your life? So that they don't have to. So they can live their lives and make mistakes and have successes and do all the wonderful things that make our country free. When it comes down to it - for me - the fruits of our labors are not as important as the labors themselves. The benefits of liberty are not abstract - they're concrete and written in the blood and sinew of the soldiers of this country.

I'm now one of them.

James, I am proud to know you!

Saddam's atom bomb could be low tech
The MIT Technology Forecast has an excellent, highly readable article about why Saddam;s atomic weapons program is genuinely a serious threat. The author is Richard A. Muller, a professor in the Physics Department at UC-Berkeley. He is also a faculty senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The key is Highly Enriched Uranium, HEU, which can be made into a gun-assembled weapon pretty easily. As Prof, Muller points out, the hard part about a uranium bomb is getting the HEU; after that, it's a technical cakewalk. Muller explains why U-235, which is what HEU is made of, is easy to smuggle and he gives a short history of smuggling it and its sources. (Kazakhstan is practically a farmers' market for the stuff.)

Unlike weapons-grade plutonium, (which is typically contaminated with Pu-240, a spontaneous neutron emitter), U-235 is difficult to detect without active probing, as with a thermal neutron source). It emits alpha particles and some energetic gamma rays, but these can be shielded with lead. This makes HEU relatively easy to smuggle. The easiest way to get a bomb into the US is probably in a shipping container. We wouldn't detect it unless we were tipped off about where to look.

Let's imagine a bad case. Saddam sets off a bomb in Washington D.C. Unlike the designers of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, he derives great pleasure from mass death. Unlike bin Laden, he takes credit immediately for his terrorism. He announces that he has additional weapons, and that if the U.S. retaliates, he will start setting them off in major U.S. cities.

Last month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that Saddam has been seeking to buy uranium from African countries (which produce 20 percent of the world supply). This is, of course, illegal, since he has no reactors, and no legitimate use for large amounts of uranium. But why would he do this, if he already had HEU? Doesn't his interest prove that he is, at worst, rebuilding calutrons?

No. If I were Saddam, I would import uranium in order to give that impression, to lull the U.S. into a false sense of security, into believing that there is plenty of time. Let's not make that same mistake twice of assuming that Saddam is doing it in the obvious way.

That means that if Saddam cannot be deterred he must be removed. I discussed why I think Saddam can't be deterred here and here.

Thanks to Charles Johnson for the link to MIT's article.

Did Clinton make the North Koreans a "pinky promise?"
That's what Drew at The Sky Blog wonders.

Some people think it's ridiculous to imply that Clinton deserves some blame for North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Once again, the Clinton supporters want to ignore the fact that Clinton's policies were an utter failure in acheiving their desired goals, and just want to say, "Well, he tried! You can't blame him!" Clinton appeased an evil government when it became evident that they had a nuclear weapons program, and allowed the U.S. to essentially be blackmailed into allowing them to continue working on their weapons in secret. "But... but... but... he tried! And we didn't go to war!"

Well, now what, Clintonistas? Now we've got to deal with a hostile government that has nuclear capabilities, and, in their words, "much worse."

Is this where they'd prefer to see Iraq in a few years?

What did Bush say? (paraphrasing) "We cannot allow the world's worst leaders to acquire the world's worst weapons"? Clinton did. And what do all the lefty doves suggest we do now?

I hope Drew does a similarly throrough job on Jimmy Carter's role in making North Korea a nuclear power ( or "nukelar", as Jimmy would put it). The entire deal Clinton struck with NK was brokered by Carter.

Evil and those terrible neo-conservatives
Geitner Simmons has a wonderful essay on the Left and its discomfort with the word, "evil," and its greater discomfort with those terrible, terrible neoconservatives (quoth Michael Kinsley) who use the word. It's not a long post and rather than excerpt it, I'll just urge you to read it. Well, one excerpt:

. . . U.S. leaders are wide-awake to the fact that certain regimes, let alone terrorists, sneer at notions of civilized behavior (including written agreements they sign) and refuse to be constricted by them. These leaders understand the dangers such actors pose to regional stability abroad or even to U.S. security at home. They appreciate the importance of maintaining a robust American military and the necessity, in extreme situations, to contemplate the use of that force.

They also understand that in defending this country?s interests, it is not always possible to maintain a pose of serene moral high-mindedness -- when one's country is dropping bombs, for example, on Bosnia or Afghanistan.

Such a sensibility is unlikely to win peace prizes from dreamy Norwegian intellectuals, but it is essential to safeguarding the interests and well-being of the United States. That will remain the truth no matter how many snide witticisms Michael Kinsley dreams up to ridicule it.

Gephardt tax cuts? Don't count on it!
Yesterday I had a little fun with the Devil's response to an announcement by Rep. Dick Gephardt of tax rebates being needed to get the economy moving. Today we learn that the devil is really in the details. He did propose a $75 billion tax rebate program, "but he did imply that the bulk of the tax reductions for individuals would be given to workers who already pay no income taxes."

That's not a real tax break, it's a money transfer. His plan takes tax money from those who paid it and gives it to people who didn't. 'The business portion of the proposed $75 billion tax cut would apparently be designed to encourage companies to make planned investments sooner rather than later, thus providing the economy a boost when it most needs it," which does seem a good idea. But . . .

The rest of Mr. Gephardt's short-term stimulus program offers much less promise. The spending portion would total $125 billion, representing a massive increase in federal spending, most of which would be difficult to eliminate in the future, even after the economy has fully recovered. Much of it would subsidize state and local government programs, such as $25 billion for school construction and $25 billion for infrastructure. Mr. Gephardt's stimulus program would also add $75 billion for health programs, including a major federal infusion into state coffers to finance Medicaid.

So overall this is not really a tax cut at all. It's a pretty standard Democratic ploy to take money from the people less likely to vote for them and give it to the people most likely to vote for them, along with hefty increases in federal subsidies.

If it sounds to good to be true, it almost always is too good to be true. And that's true in this case.

The "30 Pieces of Silver plan" for getting rid of Saddam
Steven den Beste was kind enough to read my essay on the potential of a coup against Saddam. Today he points out that I overlooked another possibility that he calls the "30 pieces of silver" scenario:

It occurred to me as I was reading that someone in his inner circle might proffer us a deal: he would tell us when Saddam had gone to ground, and tell us where Saddam was, and we'd hit the place with bunker busters and kill Saddam ourselves. In exchange, the traitor's own location would not be bombed, and after we'd won the traitor would be given amnesty, permitted to keep his Swiss bank account, and allowed to retire to wealthy and obscure exile.

If, when the time comes, we seem to miraculously bag Saddam and his sons early in the war, don't be too surprised if it comes out later that someone in the top ranks ends up getting treated with kid gloves.

This is a very interesting possibility. However, one of the things I pointed out in my essay was that a simple assassination won't do. If there is no cabal of anti-Saddam plotters ready to seize the reins of power in Iraq, chaos will result there as contending parties rush to fill the power vacuum. That doesn't mean that somebody wouldn't go for it, it just means that Saddam's death does not solve all the problems of either Iraq or the US.

Coup by JDAM can still work, though, provided that such a cabal comes together. The means of bumping Saddam off won't matter to the plotters, and if Saddam dies by bunker-buster, the coup plotters can more easily escape being fingered by their internal enemies. They can also announce to all Iraqis that Saddam died a hero in battle, and that they will continue to lead the nation - just as Saddam wanted. Then they strike a deal with the US, and that's that.

Could the white van be just a decoy?
Several bloggers and news commentators have speculated that the sniping killings in the DC area are being done by a pair of men, not a loner. I have said before that this idea makes a lot of sense, although I was not the first to broach it by any means. But a two-man team explains a lot of things, I think.

Let's start with the infamous white or cream colored van/truck. Reports of such a vehicle have been made at multiple shooting sites, enough that the police issued a composited photo of such a van/truck. by now the police have become pretty expert at cordoning off egress routes from the sites of shootings. Their dragnet stops a large number of white vans, but they've been playing PETA fisherman - catch and release. No arrests, no detentions.

Consider, though, that the shooter does use such a van - as a decoy. I admit that I don't know any more about the case than any other news viewer and reader does, but consider the following speculation:

The driver prepositions the van at a chosen site a few hours before the chosen time. By now it arouses wariness in everyone who sees it, but its appearance is entirely innocuous. It stays in a parking lot or public area, unattended and unthreatening. After awhile no one pays it any attention any more. It is parked so that egress is easy. The parking space is next to a curb or some other place where someone standing to one side of it would be significantly concealed from view from a distance.

Only a few minutes before the chosen time, the van's driver returns to the van and the shooter arrives in his car or another van (say a dark blue one). The van pulls out and the shooter takes the space. The van pulls to another part of the parking area, some dozens of feet away. Its driver waits with motor on, watching in his mirror for the killing to occur. The two men communicate by cell phone or FRS radio.

The killer scans the pre-selected target area, noting how many people are coming and going there. The van driver scans their immediate area for police or unduly curious people. If either are present or something does not feel right, they abandon the shoot and leave quietly. (How many people are alive today because something made the murderers break off a shooting?)

When the driver tells the shooter all is clear, the shooter acts quickly. He may have a vehicle that allows him to shoot from inside it. News reports say that a witness told police that for his killing this week the shooter was outside his vehicle. In either case, he quickly sights his rifle and takes the shot - one shot, that's all. Hit or miss (he apparently did miss some time ago) he quickly throws the rifle back into his vehicle and covers it up. Or it goes into the trunk. By the time bystanders remember to look for him rather than at the victim, the rifle is concealed and he is back inside his car or van.

A heartbeat after the shot, the white van's driver peels out of the parking area in a way that draws attention. People call police, who establish a cordon. Even if they stop the van, there is nothing in it to connect it to the shooting. It's just one of hundreds of white vans on the road. The driver may have an expired, phony or stolen license plate that is on the van until he drives away from the immediate area. Then he makes a quick turn into a back lot and puts the real plate on.

The shooter, meanwhile, goes into a nearby store or pretends to be a shocked bystander. Within minutes the victim's area swarms with police. People flock to that scene to gawk. That's when the shooter goes to his car, gets in, and drives calmly away.

By then the white van has been stopped by the police and released.

The college voice
I mentioned below that I attended my 25-year class reunion at my undergrad alma mater, Wake Forest University, last weekend. While there, I picked up a copy of the campus rag newspaper, Old Gold & Black. Actually, it was more of a rag when I attended there than now. (I wrote op-ed pieces for it then, mostly in the Art Buchwald tradition.) Now it seems a pretty solid college paper.

The Upcoming War With Iraq has been a matter of debate on campuses, of course. The paper's issue last weekend there addressed it. Sophomore Doug Hutton wrote:

Sept. 11, 2001, proved that the United States is not secure and that the threat of terror is omnipresent in the modern world. There are many who wish to destroy the very ideals our forefathers fought so desperately to gain. Our prior inaction has only brought our nation more hurt and sorrow, more attacks and rising hatred for our way of life. Waiting longer does nothing to stop the bleeding, nothing to mend the wounds. It only gives the enemy more time to restock their arsenals, to infect the wounds and spread its message of hate. . . .

Our history shows that isolationism and ignorance only increase our vulnerability ¯ Pearl Harbor seemed impossible to those wishing the oceans would separate us from the impending conflict. President Bush has learned from our mistakes and is willing to take the risks involved in crushing the destructive forces within our world. . . .

We as Americans must accept the reality that danger exists without the firing of a shot. It is our obligation to the world to stop this terror before more innocent lives are lost.

On the other side, sophomore Erik Jacobsen wrote against warring on Iraq:

Yes, Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past, so has most of Europe. Sure it has sponsored terrorism, but so has America. The only difference is that when we gave money and weapons to Osama bin Laden in the early '80s he was a freedom fighter; if others do, he is a terrorist.

It is true Iraq has sought out nuclear weapons, and yes it has also violated U.N. resolutions, but it is by no means alone in any of these areas. According to these criteria for attacking a sovereign nation, half the world should be on our hit list, including top U.S. allies like Israel. With this in mind, Iraq's offenses are really no different than a multitude of other nations, what reasons are we going to give for only destroying them?

Or should this be seen as the first round of "America versus the World"? If left unhindered, this "war on terror" will lead us to promote exactly what it is we are trying to stop, unchecked aggression.

Listen, for the last time, get this right: the USA did not give money or weapons to Osama bin Laden! Did not! Did not! Did not! We gave money and weapons to the Afghan mujahidin, who were Afghans fighting the Soviet invaders. The Taliban did not exist then, neither did al Qaeda. The mujahidin accepted the services of some foreign volunteers. Despite the "great warrior" mythos that bin Laden has inculcated over the last 12 years, he held mostly non-combat positions in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He and other non-Afghan fighters were called "internationalists" by the mujahidin, who held them mainly in contempt, considering them mostly adventurists (with much justification). Bin Laden, having been professionally trained as a civil engineer, helped the mujahidin in the construction of roads and fortifications. From all accounts, he did a competent job, but at the end of the Soviet war the mujahidin ejected him from the country.

But the US never funded, trained or equipped OBL or al Qaeda, a treasured liberal myth that they refuse to let go.

Then there was this piece, Liberals nationwide ignore laws to win seats, by Albert Rattacasa, another sophomore:

Another crucial component to the continuation of Bill Clinton's corrupt liberalism is to spread a generally un-American spirit. Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California recently went to Iraq to placate Saddam Hussein. Instead of staying on American soil serving the people whom they represent and working with the Senate and the president, these Democrats decided to act in a treasonous manner and attempted to appease mass murderers and terrorists. Their traitorous actions cannot be tolerated. . . .

Americans need to get to the polls on Nov. 5 and take a stand. New Jerseyans need to make it abundantly clear that they will not allow criminals and morally corrupt politicians to decide who will win their Senate seat in some backroom wheeling and dealing. North Carolinians need to look beyond the sleazy campaign ads of Erskine Bowles and look toward a woman whose resume encompasses Duke University undergraduate, Harvard Law, service to five different American presidents and dedication to the American Red Cross as its president. Americans need to let these corrupt liberals know that they will be held accountable for their actions.

All in all, the paper presented a lot more balance than I expected.

The intellectual starvation of the Western Left
Glenn Reynolds linked to an opinion piece in the UK Guardian that says that one casualty of the Bali bombing is the flogging of the West by Australian and other Anglosphere Leftists. I refer to a different part of the Guardian essay, though. The author says that the Left has long insisted that the main "root cause" of Muslim terrorism is the war between Israel and the Palestinians.

But surely the reverse is true: they are students of the opposite of history, which is theocratic fanaticism. Especially, they are dedicated to knowing as little as possible about the history of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A typical terrorist expert on the subject believes that Hitler had the right idea, that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a true story, and that the obliteration of the state of Israel is a religious requirement. In furthering that end, the sufferings of the Palestinians are instrumental, and thus better exacerbated than diminished. To the extent that they are concerned with the matter at all, the terrorists epitomise the extremist pressure that had been so sadly effective in ensuring the continued efforts of the Arab states to persuade the Palestinians against accepting any settlement, no matter how good, that recognises Israel's right to exist. But one is free to doubt by now - forced to doubt by now - that Palestine is the main concern.

Precisely. As I wrote here and here:

The Palestinian people are surrounded on all sides by enemies. Only one of those nations would be their friend - Israel. The sooner the Palestinian people realize this, the better off they will be. No one, and I mean no one, among the Arab states wants to truck with the Palestinian people. Syria, Jordan, Saudia - they all mostly despise the the Palestinians, considering them something like the gypsies of the Middle East.

The Palestinians are simply a political prop for Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Without the conflict with Israel, how many Arab regimes could justify their continued existence? They have staked their whole raison d'etre on opposing Israel. I think the Arab dictators fear that peace with Israel means the end of their regime, perhaps the end of their very lives. After all, they know what happened to Egypt's Anwar Sadat.

So that mean that no one will screw over the Palestinian people more than the Arab governments. The Beirut declaration of the adoption of the Saudi peace plan was empty, and they know it. Without Egypt's or Jordan's part, it has no teeth. Its terms, especially the "right of return" of Palestinians to Haifa and other places inside Israel, would really mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. (But that's what they want.)

The "root cause" of murder, folks, is murderousness. The plight of the Palestinians will never be relieved until the oppressive regimes of the Arab countries are removed or reformed.

Jimmy Carter's human rights record is lousy
Andrew Bernstein points out that former President Jimmy Carter has been in bed, politically speaking, with dictators and warmongers for years and years. The Nobel committee does not understand the causes of war, he says, and so does not understand the cause of peace.

It is the less-free nations - those in which power is concentrated in the hands of the state at the expense of the individual - that attack their freer neighbors. Such statist regimes are the cause of history's most savage wars. Statist regimes launched the wars that ravaged much of the world in the 20th century. The reason why these regimes did so is not difficult to find.

Dictators are in chronic war against their own people. Hitler murdered the Jews. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot each murdered millions of businessmen, landowners and bourgeoisie. Slobodan Milosevic slaughtered the Muslims. Saddam butchered the Kurds. In her seminal essay, "The Roots of War," Ayn Rand observed: "A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individuals' rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals."

Statism is the cause of war.

Speaking of Jimmy Carter, I wrote about his dismal human rights performance back on Sept. 5, just after Carter criticized President Bush's own human rights record.

Update: Jason Rubenstein points out that Christopher Hitchens, late of the Western Left, has reminded him that Jimmy Carter helped instigate Saddam's war against Iran that "resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of humans by means best left unspoken."

Ballot counting in Iraq!
Here's how they do it!

Maryland-Virginia shooter terror connection
Worldnet Daily has an excellent summary of why the DC-area shooters may be al Qaeda terrorists, or very much like them, rather than a homegrown type of serial killer. The article also claims that the police are taking the possible terrorism angle much more seriously than they are letting on. It says that, incredibly, the police have downplayed the terrorism angle to prevent panic among the public.

Several witnesses to the Beltway sniper shootings over the past two weeks have described suspects resembling Middle-Eastern men, but authorities have played down the Islamic terrorism angle to avoid mass "panic" in the area, an ATF official told WorldNetDaily.

Apparently, the people of the DC area are cool with a deadly shooter or shooter team crusing around blowing their brains out at random, but thank heavens the killers aren't Muslim terrorists! That really would make people scared, wouldn't it? But since they think it's your run-of-the-mill domestic madman, commuters and moms and dads are only mildly nervous.

The report also says that many of the members of the joint task force are unhappy with the way that Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose is leading the investigation. On Tuesday, Moose said "the task force has at least a "partial" description of suspects who he suggested are minorities. But he elected not to release the information, explaining it might 'paint some group.' "

Yes, chief, the people of DC are just dying to be politically correct.

Oh, the article says, "Authorities now suspect the so-called tarot card left near a Maryland school-shooting scene is more a 'red herring' than a break in the case."

Update: This article in the Washington Post says that federal officials discount a link to al Qaeda, and then goes on to explain why the connection can't be discounted:

. . . officials believe they are probably looking at an unaffiliated killer or killers, most likely white, with military training that would include setting up, shooting and escaping without detection. . . .

Law enforcement officials say that they have no evidence linking the case to terrorists and that the tactics do not parallel al Qaeda's history of trying for many deaths in one strike.

Of course, last night the authorities issued a description of tthe shooter that said he was "olive skinned" of hispanic or Middle Eastern appearance.

"Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any sins, and we don't hear condemnation or a fatwa [religious decree] from the rulers," said [a] statement released [by Osama bin Laden on] Oct. 7, 2001. " . . . May God show them His wrath and give them what they deserve."

The sniper shooting of a 13-year-old boy in Bowie occurred Oct. 7, exactly one year after bin Laden's statement. "It's the eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth teaching that may explain why [a sniper] shoots a 13-year-old walking into school," [former CIA terrorism analyst Larry] Johnson said. . . .

But cops deal with evidence first, inferences second:

"There is not a scintilla of real evidence that this is related to terrorism," said one senior FBI official. "This appears to be one guy stalking the area with a rifle for reasons of his own."

We'll see.

Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
. . . or at least, doing nothing wrong.

New blogger Drew at The Sky Blog relates a true story that happened to him in another day in the life, and death, of suburban America:

I witness a blue dump truck turning into the gas station, while a woman on a bicycle was crossing the sidewalk at the entry. The truck clipped the bike with it's back, passenger side, tire, and the woman got caught under the tire. The truck continued to pull in, going about another 10 or 15 feet, dragging the woman and the bike along with it. I jumped out of the car and started to run over there, but at that point the woman was absolutely crushed - split into 3 or 4 pieces. Horrific.

Yes, it is. As I read this posting it suddenly struck me that I have chosen two careers that deal intimately with death - a combat-arms soldier then a minister serving a congregation. I also serve as one of two volunteer chaplains for the Williamson County, Tennessee, Sheriff's Department.

My congregation has been fortunate not to have been touched by violent death during my five and one-half years serving them. The only exception was a man whose 22-year-old daughter died late one night when her car hit a telephone pole (no alcohol involved). This man was not a member of my church but was a friend to several members.

But when the sheriff's dispatch calls, the news is never good. The department began the volunteer chaplain program a few years ago specifically to assist in death cases. One of the early calls I got was on a Friday evening. A tractor-trailer jackknifed on a two-lane road and smashed head on into an oncoming Silverado pickup truck. The pickup wasn't recognizable when I got there. A state trooper told me that in his 26 years in the highway patrol, this accident scene was the worst ever. The pickup's driver was still inside; it took the rescue workers almost a half-hour just to figure out how to begin extracting him. The remains of the pickup's cab were wrapped around him. He was in pieces. We found some of his teeth 20 feet away, lying on the ground.

Violent death is not always gruesome. I went to an accident scene where the driver, an 18-year-old woman, sat dead in the driver's seat of her car after a head-on collision. She was turned sideways in the seat and looked like she was sleeping. No blood, she died from "blunt force trauma," pathologists' lingo for wrenching, violent dislocation of her brain and other internal organs - the same thing that killed Dale Earnhardt when he hit the wall going 150 mph during last year's Daytona 500.

When I went to the young lady's home, I discovered that her dad had gone to the hospital, where his other daughter, a passenger in the car, was barely alive. The dead girl's mother was lying in a hospice bed in the living room, near death from cancer. God, what a tragedy. . . .

I have barely escaped death more than once. One time I remember vividly was when an artillery shell exploded almost right over my head, maybe 60 feet high. Shell fragments smashed the ground all around me, but none touched me. Another time, I was a student pilot flying a solo flight, not my first, as Fort Sill, Okla. About 80 feet above the runway, the engine power on "idle," my Cessna 150 was hit by a shift in the crosswind. (All you ever get at Sill is crosswinds, about 15-20 knots, and they can shift 180 degrees three times on short final. If you can learn to land in southern Oklahoma you can land anywhere.) Anyway, I had my plane oriented for wind direction from one way and the direction was suddenly the opposite. It went nose down like an anvil. The windscreen's entire view was filled with concrete.

I jammed the throttle forward to the hilt and eased back on the yoke, turning it to level the wings. Somehow I didn't crash. I don't know how close I came to the concrete, but it must have been only a few feet because that's how high I was when I flew level down the runway for a couple thousand feet to gain airspeed - lots of airspeed. Then I pulled up, went around, landed, parked, tied it down and went into the flight office where I was met by my very irate flight instructor, Brian Shody. He colorfully asked me what did I think I was doing. He had been in the tower watching my touch-and-goes when my little incident occurred. The tower officer had ripped him up one aide and down the other for letting me fly solo.

I was convinced that Brian would pull my solo certificate. After a moment, he composed himself and said, "Well, I guess you know something about flying, because anybody else would have died out there." I kept my certificate.

A true story, told me by a witness: an F-105 pilot returned to Tahkli Air Base in Thailand one day at the end of a mission over Thud Ridge in North Vietnam. The plane was shot all to pieces. The pilot was fine, but the plane had lost most of its avionics. Fuel and hydraulic fluid was streaming away, the engine would not develop full power. Worse, it had a hung 500-pound bomb that would not release. The wing commander told the pilot to fly out over the jungle and bail out. But the pilot said no, he'd land it and the wing could use it for spare parts, many of which were critically short.

The emergency crews assembled along the runway. The pilot brought the huge airplane down several dozen knots above standard landing speed because he can't lower the flaps. He set the plane down right on the numbers. The plane rocketed down the runway. The pilot deployed the drogue parachute. But the chute was literally burned to cinders. Nothing came out but the chute's lines. And the brakes had no fluid.

The Thud crashed into the trees at the other end of the runway, blowing itself and the pilot to atoms. In his last instant of life, the pilopt keyed his mike and broadcast his last words: "Well, I guess I'm screwed now."

Sometimes that's the only explanation there is.

Chin loy.

Stunning upset! Saddam defeated at polls!
BAGHDAD, IRAQ, OCT. 15--Veteran Ba'athist party operatives expressed shock tonight after learning that their veteran incumbent president, Saddam Hussein, was defeated at the polls today even though he ran unopposed.

"Things are pretty bad when we can't even win a rigged election," said Ali Rachem-Sachem, a party spokesman.

"The election returns show that a new era of democracy has dawned in Iraq," commented Mohammed Blu-swayd-shooz, "and that is something we will have to live with from now on."

According to reports carried by the "Reuters" "news" "agency," Mr. Hussein was defeated by a massive, nationwide write-in campaign. The "news agency" printed a translated copy of the "ballot:"

Official ballot of the Iraqi National Elections!
CANDIDATE for President, murderous dictator, oppressor, gasser of Kurds, torturer of the innocent, rewarder of thugs, friend of stray cats, writer of bad checks --- VOTE FOR ONE:

1. Saddam Hussein
2. Saddam Hussein
3. Saddam Hussein
4. Saddam Hussein

The "news agency" said that 99.94 percent of the voters crossed out Mr. Hussein's name and wrote the words, "A rock," at the bottom of the ballot.

"Election officials were scrambling late today to find a suitable rock to inaugurate as president of the country," said Ibn Bibbin Rib Dibbin, an imported rock dealer in Baghdad. "They told me that succession laws ruled out using an imported rock as the president of the country. But the years of US-led sanctions have pretty much destroyed the domestic rock industry."

Many Baath party officials said they would plan for an orderly transition of power from Saddam to the yet-to-be-named rock. Asked whether the rock would permit the re-entry of UN weapons inspectors, the official said, "Yes, absolutely."

Saddam Hussein was not available for comment. His personal chief of staff, Weyrscrood Nau, said that Mr. Hussein had accepted the news of his defeat with his characteristic calmness and equanimity, shooting only his campaign manager and 200 party and family members. "But he's calmed down now," said Mr. Nau.

In Washington, President Bush was asked about the stunning news from Iraq. He replied, "Well, a rock will be a lot easier to work with than Saddam."

Devil orders overcoat and gloves!
Blizzard expected to smother fires of Hell tonight

Word from the Outer Darkness is that the Devil sent an emegency order to LL Bean today for heavy winter parkas and woolens, upon seeing this report:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt blasted the Bush administration's handling of the economy Tuesday, calling for $75 billion in tax rebates to counter "the vacuum of Republican inaction."

"Clearly," said Satan, "when the Democratic House Minority Leader calls for tax cuts, there is a certain chill in the air that cannot be ignored."

Despite sniper, gun control off political radar
Once a hot issue, now its barely a whisper

Real snipers resent the DC shooter
CNN's web site reports that some retired military snipers dislike the media calling the DC-area murderer a "sniper."

To them, the word "sniper" is a badge of honor and a hallmark of skill. And to them, whoever has been terrorizing the Washington area for the last two weeks is not worthy of the name.

"I definitely know they're not snipers, because snipers don't take innocent life," said Neil Morris, who spent nearly two decades as a Marine sniper and has trained countless military and police sharpshooters from around the world. . . .

Eric Haney, who trained as a sniper at Fort Bragg and was a founding member of the Army's ultrasecret Delta Force, believes the shootings are the work of a pair of young men, working in tandem as military snipers are trained to do -- one as the lookout, the other the shooter. But he thinks the closest they got to a real elite sharpshooter was at a Special Operations convention.

"They're utter losers, and they know they're losers," said Haney, who wrote a book, "Inside Delta Force."

Over the weekend, Haney visited nine of the 10 shooting scenes. He imagines a shooter and a spotter/driver, perhaps swapping roles after each shot. In his mind, the driver surveys the scene, tells the shooter when it is safe to fire, then pulls away calmly, unburdened by the rush of adrenaline the shooter must be experiencing.

They're clever, he said, but not pros. The longest shot to date was 100 yards, and most of the victims were standing still or walking in a straight line toward or away from the shooter.

"It's the kind of thing that if you've never shot a rifle before in your life, you and I could spend 90 minutes together and you can do this," said Haney, a 20-year combat veteran.

Not to boast (well, a little), but I pointed out 11 days ago that the longest shot was probably about 100 yards and that no unusual marksmanship skill was required. I have thought all along that there are two murderers - one to shoot, one to drive, but I don't think I ever wrote it. However, I definitely recall that one or two other bloggers said from the very first that there was a team of killers.

If the Tarot card really was left behind by the killers, it would mitigate against the killers being Muslim, especially fundamentalist Muslims. They would never claim, "I am God," even as deception, I don't think. Plus Tarot is occultic, which Islam strictly forbids.

A deal you can't pass up
Want a free, first-class university education? Keep reading

My 25th college reunion went well at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC. I was surprised at how few people showed up - only a few dozen. I expected more, seeing as how it was the 25th-year reunion, but maybe I should not have expected more. I am certainly no expert of 25th reunions.

We who were ROTC grads of the school were invited by the Professor of Military Science to attend a light breakfast at the ROTC department, meet the ROTC faculty, talk to cadets and get a presentation on the state of officer accessions today. It was at 0730 Saturday morning. My curse is that I still just naturally awaken at 0500 or so every morning, so making a 0730 meeting is pretty easy for me. (The wife unit has a different idea, but that's another story.)

A deal you can't pass up

The PMS at WFU is LTC James Page. He has saved the program there from extinction - it was on the verge (again) of being dropped by the Army and not a tear would have been shed by the WFU administration. But in Page's 3 years and a few months of tenure, the program is making its mission, even more, and is healthy. There are more than 120 cadets in the program.

Money is the key, meaning mostly ROTC scholarships. When I was a cadet, just after the Vietnam war, ROTC scholarships were tough to get and very few cadets had one. They paid 100 percent of tuition, all textbooks and fees such as lab fees. Room and board remained the student's problem.

Things have changed. Now more than half of the cadets have a scholarship (well over half, as I recall) but it does not pay all tuition costs. At Wake Forest it pays $20,000 per year, leaving about $6k in tuition the student still must cover, plus another $6,500 for room and board. (When I started WFU in 1973, the total cost of a year was $5,000, maybe a little more, including room and a three-meal-per-day meal plan. The shortage of coverage now is more than twice the entire cost of an entire year when I began.)

But here is the deal you can't pass up, if you are heading for college soon. LTC Page has been told by the Army that it has programmed to pay 100 percent of tuition starting in 2005. LTC Page is optimistic that he can persuade the Army to pony up the dough sooner. Also, Wake's administration just decided that it will grant the cost of room and board to every ROTC scholarship student.

LTC Page was able to prove that the ROTC program brings in more than $1.2 million in federal money to the school every year, and that the average ROTC scholarship student has an SAT score more than 25 points greater than the average WFU student. That means, he told the university president, that the ROTC program is a profit center for the university and attracts smarter students than the university itself does. So come off a few bucks for room and board to grow the program and the profit will rise even more, with even smarter students. They bought it, as well they should have. They're not dummies, after all.

Financially, that makes an ROTC scholarship at Wake Forest equal to receiving an appointment to West Point:

full tuition covered (soon)

the university grants room and board

the Army pays up to $900 per year for textbooks which the student may keep as personal property

the Army pays lab fees

the Army pays a $300 per month stipend to the student.

That's a deal that can't be beat. Not only do you get a financial free ride at a national top-25 university (US News rankings) but you get a commission in the US Army afterward at a time when the country needs you most. And if that doesn't appeal to you, then skip college. You're just a bum.

. . . Probably not much posting today. I have a ferocious sore throat takes the incentive away even from breathing.

I will be offline from now through Monday, 10-14.
See you again Tuesday morning! Have a great holiday weekend!