Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Let George Bush fix it! It’s his fault it’s dark anyway!

Having followed politics in America for more than 30 years, I’ve gotten used to the mud wrestling, the name calling, the delicious ironies and laughable contradictions inherent in any democratic system with free and open debate monitored by a free press and engaged in by some of the most colorful, larger than life personalities one can imagine.

On the left, there’s been Tip O’Neil, a big, blustery Irishman from the back bay of Boston whose love of America and her politics made opposing him such an intellectually challenging and joyful experience. And Paul Simon, the Illinois Senator who was “scary smart” with a marvelously ironic sense of humor and a way of making anyone who came in contact with him feel like they were an intimate friend.

On the right, there was the down home plain speaking Senator from Wyoming Malcolm Wallop. A gentleman in every sense of the word; a fair minded, common sensical sort of fellow with a biting wit and will of iron. He also had a mind like a steel trap and a lawyers command of the facts on just about any issue. Then there was my personal favorite Bob Walker from Pennsylvania. Of all the lawmakers I dealt with when working the Hill oh so many years ago, Bob was the smartest, the funniest, and the most independent cuss I ever came across. Unpredictable to a fault, he’d drive the Republican leadership batty with his principled stands on budget issues. He was also the kindest man I ever met…and one of the least pretentious.

What was truly amazing is that these diverse personalities, from different parts of the country and different backgrounds, worked fairly well together for what we euphemistically call “the common good.” Oh they had fights and battles royale over any number of issues. But when the time came to act, they papered over their differences and did what had to be done.

It was the great Henry Clay who said”

“All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these everything is based…”

Clay was part of the generation of lawmakers working in the most divisive period of American history; the period from 1820 to 1850 when America was threatened constantly with coming apart at the seams because of slavery. Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun; men from different sections of the country with differing views on slavery, came together on numerous occasions to craft compromises to save the union.

I bring all of this up because the point I’m trying to make is that opposition in wartime absolutely must be principled, with not only clear alternatives offered but at least SOME kind of realization of the consequences that one’s opposition entails.

And moonbats today don’t have a clue. Worse than being stupid, the positions they’re advocating are dangerous to the continued existence of the United States as we know it.

Take this colloquy I had yesterday with Shaun over at Upper Left. His post involved some comments on a Georgia Ann Geyer article with unnamed sources wringing their hands over Iraq. He closes his post with this gem:

“Geyer still seems to have one small blind spot, writing that…

The truth no one really wants to deal with is that this war could very easily be lost by the United States.

No, Georgie Anne. The truth no one really wants to deal with, not even, apparently, you, is that this war has been lost by the United States.”

My response, referring to Geyer’s unnamed sources, was as follows:

The problem isn’t you’re wrong…

The problem is you’re clueless.

What “Generals?”
Whose “military assessment?”
Which “officers?” Which Diplomats?”

Georgia Ann Geyer, I’m sure is a responsible journalist…NOT.

Why does her analysis fly in the face of others opinions who are 1)willing to back up their assessment with some facts; and 2) don’t have some petty ass ax to grind with the Bush administration?

If you stopped cheerleading for people who are killing our men people might take you more seriously.

First up to respond was this clueless customer who has a problem trying to figure out that in war, it’s best that the other guy gets killed, not our guy:

Our “men” are killing more people than kill our “men.” By matters of multitudes. And we started it. I’m not cheerleading anyone over there. We need to get the hell out of there, and to hell with George Fucking Bush.

The fact that not enough of our guys are dying seems to upset this fellow. Now I know it may be unfashionable, but I think I’ll go to the dictionary and find the definition of “disloyal.” To wit:

“...showing an absence of allegiance, devotion, obligation, faith, or support…”

If complaining about how many of the enemy are being killed isn’t disloyal, what is?

Then, our good friend Shaun weighs in. You’d think that he’d come up with some reasoned riposte to my critique of Geyer’s use of unnamed sources…but no. Being a moonbat, he goes for the ad hominem attack:

Well, I imagine Mr. Hawk is of the ‘chicken’ subspecies. Those are the ones that usually conflate critcism of Bushco’s military adventurism with “cheerleading for people who are killing our men.”

Yes…perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “cheerleading”...how about “defeatism?” And as for the appellation “chicken,” I assume you’re referring to my not being over in Iraq (being an old fat man going deaf I doubt I could do anybody any good over there).

Since I once was one, my support for troops detailed to combat without a clear, achievable and sustainable mission is absolute. Since I once was one, I understand well that the best way to support troops in that situation is to get them the hell out of it.

Just because you were “one” (I assume that makes you a vet, thank you for your service) doesn’t make you any more or less qualified to comment on the military. Some of the dumbest things I’ve heard said about the war have come from conservatives with military experience (Ollie North for one). Besides, I’m not calling you stupid, I’m saying you’re disloyal…or maybe you’re both?

In fact, among the “people who are killing our men” one is compelled to include the chicken hawk civilian commanders that ordered them into that situation. Those are the ones that are most directly empowered to save our men’s (and women’s – we got us an equal opportunity Army, risk-wise, these days) lives by bringing them home poste haste.

Leaving out the fallacious argument that Rumsfeld et. al. are “killing our men” because they’re not “bringing them home poste haste”—circular logic at best—I don’t see what you think the consequences would be for the US in either the short term or the long term.

I realize this involves a little bit of thought…or more likely, you could give a shit what the consequences would be. What a nice luxury you have compared to the people who’ve been elected to think about those things!

To say that the results of an American premature pullout in Iraq or Afghanistan would be a catastrophe is an understatement. I know that you and your lefty buds would go into fits of orgasmic ecstasy to see the US humiliated and prostrate before the beheaders, the torturers, and the murderers of our citizens. For the celebrations would not be confined to Tikrit and Fallujah you ninny! They’d be dancing in the streets from the West Bank to Teheran. And the fascists you’d like to see take over in Iraq would be emboldened to the point that no friend of the US in the Middle East would be safe.

Why don’t you just come out and say you want to see the US humbled, that this would be a “good thing?” If you don’t think that such an outcome would have real world consequences, look at the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saigon. Between 1975 and 1979, a dozen countries had pro-US governments overthrown and replaced by communist tyrannies that made the autocrats they replaced look like kindergarten teachers.

And that, of course, is the trouble with moonbats like you. A reflexive anti-Americanism, an intellectual disconnect between cause and effect, and a paranoid, ignorant outlook using an outmoded, outdated, discredited worldview (economic determinism) that’s been tossed on the ash heap of history because it’s been proven in country after country and society after society to be a load of crap.

It’s why you lose elections…and why you’ll never be trusted with power by the American people.

Here, according to ABC News, are the top ten news stories of the last year.

1. U.S. ELECTION: After vanquishing Howard Dean, John Edwards and other Democratic rivals, Kerry seemed to have a strong chance of ousting Bush. But the Massachusetts senator struggled to explain his stance on Iraq, underestimated the sting of negative ads and in the end narrowly lost the pivotal swing state of Ohio after a campaign in which Bush, over and over, insisted he was best qualified to be commander in chief at a time of complex challenges to national security.

2: IRAQ: Throughout 2004, Iraq was a striking mix of bloody turmoil and tantalizing promise. Anti-American insurgents wreaked havoc with car bombings and videotaped beheadings of hostages; the death toll for U.S. military forces passed 1,300, and the toll of Iraqi civilians was many times higher. Yet Iraq’s interim leaders doggedly proceeded with plans for national elections early in the new year.

3. FLORIDA HURRICANES: Four major hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne devastated Florida and other southern states in August and September, killing 117 people in Florida, destroying 2,500 homes and causing more than $22 billion in insured losses. Not since 1886 had one state been hit by four hurricanes in one season.

4. ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL: Photographs came to light showing U.S. military guards at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad forcing naked Iraqi detainees to pose in humiliating positions. Prosecutions ensued, and the scandal fueled anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

5. SEPT. 11 REPORT: After painstaking research and dramatic public hearings, the commission formed to investigate the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, issued its report. It concluded that America’s leaders failed to grasp the gravity of terrorist threats before Sept. 11 and recommended creation of a national intelligence director to oversee civilian and military intelligence agencies.

6: GAY MARRIAGE: From coast to coast, gay marriage was a volatile topic throughout the year. Massachusetts became the first state to have legal, same-sex weddings, and local officials in several places including San Francisco and Portland, Ore. also wed gay and lesbian couples before courts intervened. However, each time the issue reached the ballot in 13 states in all voters decisively approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

7: ARAFAT DIES: For three decades, Yasser Arafat was a hero to most of his fellow Palestinians but considered unreliable or worse by leaders in the West and Israel. His death in November, at age 75, triggered emotional mourning among Palestinians but also sparked hopes of a breakthrough in efforts to end their long, bloody conflict with Israel.

8: REAGAN DIES: Alzheimer’s disease had kept Ronald Reagan out of the public eye for a decade. But when the nation’s 40th president died in June, at 93, Americans responded with an outpouring of affection and respect. His stately funeral in Washington brought the country together at least briefly in a year otherwise marked by bitter partisan divisions.

9: RUSSIAN SCHOOL SEIZURE: Even in a world grown all too accustomed to terrorism, the drama in the Russian town of Belsan was shocking because children were so clearly prime targets. A band of terrorists, believed led by a Chechen warlord, took more than 1,000 people hostage at a school in September. When the seizure ended, amid explosions and gunfire, more than 330 hostages had been killed most of them children.

10: MADRID BOMBINGS: Another stunning terrorist strike occurred in March, when 190 people were killed after bombs hidden in backpacks exploded on four commuter trains during Madrid’s morning rush hour. Soon after the attack, which was blamed on Islamic militants, angry voters unseated Spain’s pro-American conservative government in favor of the Socialist Party, which promptly withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.

NOTE: This list was compiled before the horrific tragedy in Asia. But where to put such a story in a top ten list?

This tragedy rivals other natural disasters over the last 30 years. In July of 1976, an earthquake measuring 7.9 (about a hundred times LESS powerful than last week’s temblor) hit Tangshan Province in China killing 240,000 people.

In 1990 an earthquake in Mazandaran Province in Iran killed an estimated 100,000.

In 1991, not one but two huge cyclones struck Bangladesh killing more than 270,000.

What makes this story so much bigger than those horrific natural disasters is the explosion of new media on the internet and on cable TV. Nearly every web site has not only been blogging the story, they have links to videos, eye witness accounts, relief organizations, and pleas for help. It’s the first natural disaster in history where the world is actually present from the beginning.

So, because of the impact that this story has had along with the sheer magnitude of the disaster, what other story could top the list?

Yeah, yeah, I know…It’s Christmas time. A time to be respectful and exhibit love and compassion towards your fellow man, regardless of their race, creed, gender (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, or politics.

Well…four out of five ain’t bad.

This thread at the Democratic Underground on the reasons for the earthquake and tsunami in Asia is so…so…PRECIOUS!. I’d like to bottle this and take it to bed with me every night, wrap my arms around its sheer lunacy and kiss it, make love to it, ravage it, whisper sweet nothings into its ear, coddle it, cuddle it, and then bronze it…no…cast it in marble and worship at its feet for the rest of eternity.

What in the name of the Lord of the Rings is he talking about?

Courtesy of Wizbang, ladies and gentlemen, may I present the “Reality Based Community:” (WARNING: PUT DOWN THAT GLASS OF MILK OR CUP OF COFFEE BEFORE READING FURTHER)

“Since we know that the atmosphere has become contaminated by all the atomic testing, space stuff, electronic stuff, earth pollutants, etc., is it logical to wonder if: Perhaps the “bones” of our earth where this earthquake spawned have also been affected?

You know, we’ve exploded many millions of tons of ordinance upon this poor planet. All that “shock and awe” stuff we’ve just dumped onto the Asian part of this earth—could we have fractured something? Perhaps the earth was just reacting to something that man has done to injure it. The earth is organic, you know. It can be hurt.”

“Space stuff?” “Electronic stuff?” The “bones of the earth?” Read on, McDufff!

“All of the injuries done to our planet are interrelated, see this Reuters report linking pollution, tsunami’s, and global warming. Those Right-wing Republican religious nuts with three or four children in an SUV are killing people daily. All of the pollution eventually sinks into the ground, & rots away the “bones” holding our planet together, and causes earthquakes.

They are happening after Xmas, when the pollution from the fever of driving around in SUV’s to buy presents and burning extra energy in Xmas displays for crass commercial (Republican) propaganda is at its worst. See this article about the December 26, 2003 Bam earthquake. The Sumatra earthquake that happened December 26, 2004 is related to the tsunami and must be related to destroying the earth.

None of this would have happened if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, as the USA would have implemented the Kyoto Treaty.”

All of the pollution eventually sinks into the ground, & rots away the “bones” holding our planet together, and causes earthquakes.

Gentle readers, it isn’t that this poster is loonier than a lakefull of yellow-billed Gavia adamsii. It isn’t that he has the scientific acumen of a dead cat or the reasoning powers of an ironing board. And it isn’t necessarily a problem with cognitive dissonance…you gotta be cognitive to have dissonance.

This is real middle ages stuff…and that’s being insulting to people who lived in the middle ages:

The Witch: I’m not a witch I’m not a witch!

Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed like one

The Witch: They dressed me up like this!

Crowd: We didn’t! We didn’t…

The Witch: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one.

Sir Bedevere: [lifts up her false nose] Well

Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose.

Sir Bedevere: The nose?

Peasant 1: And the hat, but she is a witch!

Crowd: Yeah Burn her burn her!

Sir Bedevere: What do you do with witches?

Crowd: BURN BURN, BURN THEM

Sir Bedevere: And What do you burn apart from witches?

Crowd: MORE WITCHES???

Sir Bedevere:: Why do witches burn?

Crowd: Because they are made of .. wood?

Sir Bedevere: Good. So. What else does wood do?

Crowd: It floats!

Sir Bedevere: So…What else floats?

Crowd: A duck!

Sir Bedevere: So, can we conclude that since both a duck and wood float, if the witch, who’s made out of wood weighs as much as the duck then…

Crowd: Witch! Witch! Burn her! (Scientific inquiry from Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

Gawd…you can’t make this stuff up.

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

I was a little disappointed that my own post “In Defense of Cats” received “Honorable Mention” status. After reading most of the other posts, however, I realized it was up against some stiff competition.

The winning Council post comes to us via Dr. Sanity whose post on the panic over Celebrex makes many valid points about how the media reports medical stories.

“The ridiculous reporting on issues in medicine in general—you know, the stories that intone that there is a “three-fold increase in deaths” and such—are designed to inspire fear, not information to the public. What exactly IS a “three-fold increase in deaths” anyway? Well, to judge that you have to go to the original study and see how the study was done (something that somehow never makes it into the news story). In Celebrex’s case, the death rate went from 1 out of 100 to 3 out of 100. In other studies it might be 10 in 10,000 going to 30 in 10.000. In either case, the odds are that a person taking the drug WON’T die. But there is a slightly increased risk, which means that if millions take the drug, that increased risk will be evident.”

The debate over Celebrex hits close to home due to Significant Otherhawk’s dependence on that drug to control swelling in her arthritic neck. At first, she was panicked by the news. Later, as it was shown that higher than needed doses were the problem, she calmed down considerably.

The winning non-council post is from The Diplomad. An American posted abroad, “Ratman of the Far Abroad” is a hilarious piece on living in the third world. After discovering rats on his property…”

“The Chief Diplomad grabbed a Maglight, a heavy walking stick (you never know, those things might be a yard long) and accompanied by the ever-faithful houseboy Babu (not his real name) took a tour of the Diplomadic estate. Yes, indeed, I, Chief Diplomad and Internet Pontificator, confirmed the presence of several large rats in the yard – but maybe not a yard long—congregating around the dog’s food bowl. Using the command voice honed by many years of staff meetings, I said, “Babu, have the Embassy send the Ratman tomorrow.”

If you’d like to enter a post for this weeks council vote, go here.

There’s been much speculation amongst us righty bloggers recently (some would say wishful thinking) that the Democratic Party may be in danger of going the way of the Dodo bird; that extinction of the oldest political party in the world may be just around the corner.

It isn’t just a matter of idle dreaming or rank speculation. There have been other instances in American history of political parties outliving their usefulness and dying an ignomious death.

The Federalist Party was the first political party in American history. It was formed out of the necessity to see the Constitution ratified in spite of opposition from some leading personalities of the Revolution. Such men as Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Mason spoke out against ratification. To counter the arguments of such persuasive men, Alexander Hamilton and other supporters of ratification formed a loose network of like minded correspondents to plot strategy during the ratification debates in the various states.

Later on, Washington (who abhorred factions) realized he needed the Federalists to counter opposition to his neutrality policy as it related to Great Britain’s war against Napoleon. The conflict between the admirers of the French revolution (Jefersonian democrats) and the British opposition to the “terror” (Federalists) dominated politics for all of the 1790’s.

The Federalists dominated political life in the early Republic—until Jefferson’s victory in 1800. The “Democratic Republicans” (later changed to Democratic Party) successfully portrayed the Federalists as representing the interests of the rich (something they apparently never tire of doing to their political opposition). While remaining a force in local politics in some northern states until the 1820’s, the Federalists gradually disappeared to be replaced by the Whigs.

The Whig party arose because democracy, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Established in 1834, the Whig Party was a reaction to the authoritarian policies of Andrew Jackson. “King Andrew,” as his critics labeled him, had enraged his political opponents by his actions regarding the Bank of the United States, Native Americans, the Supreme Court and his use of presidential war powers. The term Whig was taken from English politics, the name of a faction that opposed royal tyranny.

The Whigs were a diverse group. “Conscience Whigs” in the North united with “Cotton Whigs” in the South every four years to nominate a President. Beyond that, there was very little unanimity of opinion on just what a “Whig” was. Northern Whigs were either anti-slavery or, as in the case of Abraham Lincoln, against the expansion of slavery. They were also for “national improvements” like roads and railroads as well as for homesteaders and funding higher education.

Southern Whigs were, for the most part, political opportunists who saw opposition to the Democrats as a way to achieve power. While opposing Andrew Jackson’s expansion of federal power, their real interests were keeping high tariffs for their cotton and low tariffs on manufactured goods.

Clearly, such diversity of interests (reminiscent of today’s Democrats) caused unbearable strains between the two factions. While successfully electing Presidents in 1836, 1840 and 1848—accomplished by nominating war heroes William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor for the latter two cycles—the Whig party collapsed under its own contradictions in the election of 1852 over slavery. Replaced by the Republican party in the North in 1854, the Whigs died an irrelevant death following the election of 1856.

Are there lessons for the Democratic Party in the death of the Whigs? Joe Trippi thinks so. Trippi, Howard Dean’s campaign manager, wrote on 11/30/04:

“Meanwhile, Mr. Bush, received 50 million votes in 2000, and 59 million in 2004. He added nine million votes. That’s because Karl Rove had a plan and the campaign executed it brilliantly. But the problem for Democrats is not Mr. Rove; it’s that they’re doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That’s the definition of insanity.”

This accusation was made of the Whig party in 1854 by none other than Abraham Lincoln:

“Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong…”

More and more Democrats are leaving their party. The southern Democrat is an endangered species. Western Democrats have carved out privileged enclaves for themselves in states like Washington and Oregon where transplanted Californians, escaping the high taxes and congestion found further south, now seem bent on bringing those very same “benefits” to the great northwest. And Midwestern Democrats(outside of large urban areas) are deserting their party largely as a result of a feeling that liberals don’t appreciate the simple patriotism and love of country which has long been a staple of everyday life in rural America.

Here’s how one historian described the death of the Whig Party:

“Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held “conviction” for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with what after the Compromise of 1850 became the great issue of American politics, the expansion of slavery.” (Daniel Walker Howe, “The Political Culture of the American Whigs”)

Sound familiar? The “Great Issue” of American politics today is the War on Terror. Will the Democrat’s inability to deal with this issue become their undoing? Only time will tell.

As you can imagine, the competition for making the “Top Ten Leftist in America” list would be stiff. After all, there are so MANY moonbats out there, one can hardly do a double click without having one’s mouse trip over one or two clueless Kool-aid consumers. Cao’s has taken a crack at it and come up with a colorful cast of completely clueless Clydesdale candy-cans.

Among the most memorable moonbats are HOUSE favorites Michael (“There are no terrorists”) Moore and Danny (“Reparations now…Reparations tomorrow…Reparations forever”) Glover. Other leading lefty dim bulbs include Ramsey Clark clone Brian Becker whose group International Action Center (IAC) opposed the war in Afghanistan. And a personal favorite of mine Oliver Stone, whose sophomoric movies portraying America as hell on earth and the American government as a conspiracy of “bad people” trying to stick to the average Joe are made with the intellectual gravitas of a petulant teenage girl recently dumped by a boyfriend.

One name absent from the list who perhaps should get at least an “Honorable Mention” is Ralph Nader. Nader’s halo might need a little re-arranging after his quixotic and laughable Presidential “Campaign” showed about as much life as a “Traditional Values” rally at NOW headquarters. And wasn’t it a stitch to see Republicans giving Nader a helping hand in Florida, Ohio, and other states so that the Grand Dame of the nanny state could get on the ballot? Oh, how rich!

The discussion thread in the comments section brought some amusement as well. Here’s Shannon talking about, of all things, the “populist” government of Nicaragua:

“By the way, dismissing the Sandinista government as a dictatorship is ridiculous. Their government came to power in response TO a dictatorship, was populist and democratically elected. Many outside international observers pronounced the elections valid. Only Reagan, who didn’t actually send any observers, said it was a sham.“

Huh? Wha? WTF? I got carried away a little in my own response:

I find Shannon’s comment about the Sandinista’s being “democratically elected” one of the more laughable statements I’ve read anywhere in a long time.

After seizing power with a broad coalition (including the Catholic Church and middle class small businessmen) the Sandinistas systematically killed, intimidated, arrested or jailed every other member of that coalition until they were the only ones left.

Then, with the help of American lefties and the Soviets, they ran an election in which they outlawed all opposition parties, controlled access to all media (except the courageous editor of La Prensa who paid for his independence by being thrown into jail. His wife later ran for and won the Presidency only after Reagan and the Contras had forced the Sandanistas to have real elections) and using tactics reminiscent of Hitler’s brownshirts, broke up opposition meetings using clubs and bludgeons.

Only after this sham election did Reagan help the already existing opposition to the Sandinistas and fund the Contras.

To have the unmitigated gall to describe this bunch of gangsters and thugs as “democratically elected” says much about Ms. Hubbell’s willful disregard for the facts and a blindness towards anything that would overturn her fantasy regarding anything leftist.

And Cao weighs in with some heavy rhetorical artillery:

Faithful to their Marxist ideology and obsessed with the need for the state to control the means of production, the Sandinistas took a firm grip of the Nicaraguan economy. State controls and nationalization spread, aid to the private sector vanished, and incentives for foreign investment disappeared. In other words, another 20th century experiment with socialism destroyed a nation’s economy.

Thousands of Nicaraguans who attempted to protect their private property, or who simply committed the crime of owning private property, were imprisoned, tortured, or executed by their new communist masters.

Unlike the Somoza regime, the Sandinistas did not leave the native populations on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua in peace. All Nicaraguans had to take part in the Marxist experiment. Thus, in perfect Khmer Rouge style, the Sandinistas inflicted a ruthless forcible relocation of tens of thousands of Indians from their land. Like Stalin, they used state-created famine as a weapon against these “enemies of the people.”

The Sandinista army committed myriad atrocities against the Indian population, killing and imprisoning approximately 15,000 innocent people. The crimes included not only mass murders of innocent natives themselves, but a calculated liquidation of their entire leadership – as the Soviet army had perpetrated against the Poles in Katyn in 1943.

Forced collectivization…starvation…murder…sounds pretty “populist” and “democratic” to me…

That is, if I were a moonbat lefty with the intellectual development of a 10 year old, the emotional maturity of chimpanzee, and the moral sense of my pet cat Ebony.

HAPPY BOXING DAY!

Boxing Day is a holiday celebrated in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. It falls on December 26th, which is also St. Stephen’s Day.

Boxing Day is so called because on this day it was the customary for tradesmen to collect their Christmas boxes or gifts in return for good service throughout the year. Also, it included giving money and other gifts to charitable institutions, and the needy.

The holiday may date from as early as the Middle Ages, but the exact origin is not known. It may have begun with the Lords and Ladies of England, who gave there Christmas boxes/gifts to their servants on December 26, or maybe by priests, who opened the church’s alms (charity boxes), and distributed the contents to the poor and needy.

To all of our friends in the English speaking world…have a happy, relaxing day!

HUYGENS ON ITS WAY TO TITAN

The European Space Agency’s hitchhiking Huygens spacecraft has detatched successfully from its mother ship Cassini and is on its way to a rendevous with the atmosphere of Titan on January 14.

For years, scientists have speculated about Titan, Saturn’s largest moon. Larger than the planet Mercury and almost as big as Mars, Titan is the only moon in the solar system known to have an atmosphere. What has scientists excited about the results to be gleaned from the Huygens probe is the probability that Titan’s atmosphere, which contains nitrogen, methane, and carbon, could give us a glimpse of what planet Earth looked like before life arose. What complex processes contributed to the formation of proteins that resulted in life? Could those processes be duplicated in the atmosphere of Titan? And what about the surface of Titan? Is it solid? Or is it more like a swamp, with liquid nitrogen in place of water?

It’s unknown whether the Huygens probe will survive all the way to the surface of the moon. It’s primary function is to explore the atmosphere of Titan, taking as long as two hours to float through the dense, foggy, perhaps even mushy atmosphere taking temperature readings and analyzing the chemical make-up of what is surely one of the more exotic locations in the solar system. If Huygens batteries survive, we may get as much as 2 additonal hours worth of data from the surface of that moon…assuming there is such a thing as a “surface.”

Some scientists have speculated that the surface of Titan could be made up of liquid methane and nitrogen, meaning that Huygens would land on something with the consistency of clam chowder. With a surface temperature of 290 degrees, Titan ranks as one of the more inhospitable places in the solar system.

CONSPIRACY MUCKMUCKS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THIS

The Yahoo headline says it all:

Mystery Martian ‘Carwash’ Helps Space Buggy

Apparently, an unknown atmospheric process is cleaning the solar panels on the Martian lander Opportunity…but leave it to the press to fan the flames of conspiracy for the “Face on Mars” believers and others who don’t know their ass from a hole in the wall.

Here’s Reuters trying to be funny:

It said something—or someone—had regularly cleaned layers of dust from the solar panels of the Mars Opportunity vehicle while it was closed down during the Martian night.

The cleaning had boosted the panels’ power output close to their maximum 900 watt-hours per day after at one stage dropping to 500 watt-hours because of the heavy Martian dirt.

Someone??? Oh fer cryin’ out loud. The press covers science stories rarely enough as it is…but to deliberately entertain the notion that Martians are doing us a favor by cleaning the rover’s solar panels has Reuters performing a huge disservice to its readers.

The historic nature of these two little rover’s accomplishments (Opportunity’s twin Spirit is exploring the other side of the red planet) have been the most underreported science story of 2004. We now know conlcusively that Mars at one time had water…lots of water. That the water flowed over large portions of the planet and that it was present long enough to at least give life a chance to arise. These discoveries have confirmed for the first time that liquid water existed on another body in the solar system. The prospects for life arising elsewhere in the Universe have gone up astronomically (from a scientific perspective).

Instead of reporting on these extraordinary findings, Reuters chooses to hint at “little green men.”

Shameful.

THE CROSSING
Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze’s famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River on the night of December 25, 1776

It is perhaps the most parodied image in American history.

In countless advertisements, cartoons, sitcoms, movies, and plays, the image of George Washington (or some comical replacement) standing heroically by the bow of a boat as it navigates the frozen ice floes of the Delaware River has etched itself permanently into the American psyche. More often than not, the image has been used to show a haughtiness on the part of the individual substituting for Washington or to poke fun in an iconic way at America itself.

What the painting and its imitators doesn’t show is how near a thing it was that American independence died that night and how the iron will and gambling nature of one man changed the course of history and virtually assured freedom for the colonies.

Just three days prior to the attack on the Hessian outpost at Trenton, Tom Paine published the first of his “Crisis” articles whose ringing words still tug at the heartstrings of patriots everywhere:

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

At the time of the crossing, things couldn’t have been worse for the patriot cause. Washington had seen his army continuously thrown back since the previous summer’s ill-advised campaign to meet the British army in New York. Every battle became a humiliating defeat. Every retreat saw his army shrink. From a high of 20,000 at the battle of Brooklyn Heights to its now paltry 4500 ill fed, ill clothed, scarecrows whose enlistment would end with the new year, the Continental Army was in danger of disintegrating.

New York was lost. New Jersey was mostly occupied with more and more former patriots giving an oath of allegiance to King George so that they could buy food for their families. The Congress in Philadelphia had fled to Baltimore where they hoped somehow to carry on a war that seemed all but lost. In effect, George Washington was not only in charge of the military for the young country, he was head of the government as well, acting as something of a military dictator but always careful to inform the Congress of exactly what he was doing.

But George Washington desperately wanted to go on the offensive. Seeing an opportunity with the way the British had spread out their isolated garrisons throughout the New York and New Jersey countryside, Washington realized that by attacking not one, but two of those outposts, he could lever the entire British army out of New Jersey and with one blow turn the fortunes of the patriot cause around.

The choice of Trenton was based on both geography and necessity. But the attack on Princeton was a strategically brilliant concept. By taking both Trenton and Princeton, Washington would cut off the British Army in New York from their main base of supply in New Brunswick and force British Commander William Howe to shorten his lines of supply. Such a move would free most of New Jersey from British occupation and rally patriots in that beleaguered state to the cause.

None of this would matter unless Washington could get across the Delaware and attack the overconfident Hessians at Trenton. Using an extraordinarily sophisticated intelligence operation, Washington was able gather enough information about the Hessian defenses at Trenton to make the enormous gamble worth taking.

Beginning the crossing at 2:00 pm on Christmas day, Washington’s plan called for three separate columns to descend on Trenton at the same time. But due to an ice storm that came up early that evening, the other two columns never made it to the battlefield. Only the tirelessness of General John Glover’s “Marblehead Regiment” who courageously battled the ice and cold by manning the oars that took Washington’s boats containing 2,500 men, horses, and two precious cannon across the river made the victory possible.

The march from the New Jersey side of the river to Trenton was a nightmare. It was said one could see the progress of the army’s march by following the bloody footprints in the snow; many of the 2,500 men did not have any shoes. Two men died of the cold on the march. And instead of reaching the Hessian encampment while it was still dark, Washington’s threadbare little army didn’t reach Trenton until well after dawn.

Nothing, however, deterred Washington from attacking. After overcoming the sleepy outposts, Washington’s troops entered the town and before the Hessians could get organized, surrounded the enemy, killed General Rall the Hessian commander, and forced the garrisons’s surrender. By noon of the 26th, Washington was back across the Delaware with almost 1000 prisoners and a huge cache of supplies.

A few days later, Washington scored perhaps his most audacious victory at Princeton. Crossing the River again, he confronted General Cornwallis whose 1500 troops had occupied a position between Washington and Trenton. With darkness falling, Washington left 400 men to tend campfires, giving Conrwallis the impression he was staying put while taking the bulk of his army clear around Cornwallis to attack a garrison headquartered at Princeton.

At first, the battle went badly for the Continentals. As the British surged forward and threatened to rout Washington’s army, he spurred his horse forward, rallied his men, and with bullets flying all around him, led the troops to a decisive victory. Then, before Cornwallis could cut off his retreat, he led his force to Morristown where he went into winter quarters.

General Howe in New York was beside himself. He realized that Washington could swoop down and attack any of his isolated garrisons at will. Accordingly, he pulled back his forces to the immediate vicinity of New York. In the space of 10 days, Washington had defeated two separate British forces, captured tons of desperately needed supplies, rallied the patriots, and levered the British out of New Jersey. No matter what defeats lay in Washington’s future, his reputation and position in American history was secured by his victories at Trenton and Princeton.

Two recent treatments of Trenton are worth mentioning. David Hackett Fisher’s “Washington’s Crossing” a finalist for the 2004 National Book Award is eminently readable and is a treasure trove of tidbits on Washington and the continental army. The book also has some excellent background on Washington’s unconventional but very effective intelligence network.

And then there’s the made-for-cable production called “The Crossing” which stars Jeff Daniels as George Washington. Daniels, who gave an excellent portrayal of Colonel Joshua Chamberlain in Ted Turner’s “Gettysburg” falls a little flat trying to play Washington. While the movie is very watchable, I don’t think there’s an actor living or dead who could do justice to the part of Washington. The iconic image of Washington as father, savior, and ultimately civic saint makes the portrayal of such a gigantic historical figure problematic.

UPDATE: I’M BEGGING FOR TRAFFIC AGAIN

It’s not enough to surf BLOGEXPLOSION on Christmas day…I’m also going down my blogroll looking for unsuspecting posters who won’t mind if I link to their Christmas posts in order to generate some much needed traffic.

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway has just such an offer and I’m going to take him up on it…

So for all you Outside the Beltway readers (an excellent blog by the by) welcome and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

10069613
Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM RIGHT WINGNUTHOUSE!

US AIR FORCE CONFIRMS EXISTENCE OF SANTA CLAUSE

Using super-secret high tech cameras and other classified sensing devices, the United States Air Force has confirmed that Santa Clause does indeed exist.

Tracking Santa’s movements with the very same equipment the Air Force uses to track space satellites, NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) has researched the Santa Clause myth for 50 years and determined that, not only does the portly gentleman in the red suit exist, but he actually does come down chimneys to deliver presents, eat a variety of snacks on his yearly one night trek, and does indeed have a list of children who’ve been naughty and nice…although the Air Force is uncertain if Santa actually checks the list twice.

As to the age old puzzle of how Santa can visit so many homes in only one night, the Air Force engaged some of the pre-eminent scientific minds in the world in such diverse scientific disciplines as astrophysics, cosmology, and Cosmic String Theory to come up with an answer:

“The fact that Santa Claus is more the 15 centuries old and does not appear to age is our biggest clue the he does not work within time, as we know it. His Christmas Eve trip may seem to take around 24 hours, but to Santa it could be that it lasts days, weeks or months in standard time. Santa would not want to rush the important job of bringing Christmas happiness to a child, so the only logical conclusion is that Santa somehow functions on a different time and space continuum.”

Indeed.

You can follow along as NORAD tracks Santa Clause from his base in the North Pole here. Santa tracking usually begins around 4:00pm EST (to make the afternoon news shows).

The Air Force has recently declassified some photos taken of Santa in action. Through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuits (including one joined by yours truly) we’ve been able to force the Air Force to release these pictures

The truth is out there…

One of the most fascinating aspects of American history is best summed up by British writer and compiler of the first English language dictionary Dr. Samuel Johnson. In “TAXATION NO TYRANNY: AN ANSWER TO THE RESOLUTIONS AND ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN CONGRESS,” Johnson responds to a petition from the Stamp Act Congress of 1765:

“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

This schizophrenic strain runs through American history from the Declaration of Independence—written by a slave owner—through today’s anti-religious left that seeks to secure freedom of religion by curtailing it for some.

American’s split personality was on full display this week with the release of the Washington Post poll showing that 70% of Americans now think the war in Iraq has had an “unacceptable” level of casualties while 56% believe the war wasn’t worth fighting in the first place. But this very same poll reveals that a strong 58% believe that American soldiers should stay in Iraq, even if casualties keep mounting, until “civil order” is restored. And a plurality (48%-44%) believe that our efforts to transplant democracy in Iraq is making “significant progress.”

How can one believe that the war wasn’t worth fighting in the first place and yet, at the same time, are desirous of our military staying there until the job is done?

If this were a simple case of opposition to the war, the voters would have tossed George Bush out on his ear on November 2. I believe what this poll reveals is an undercurrent of idyllic isolationism that’s been a part of the American psyche since our founding coupled with support for a hard-headed realism that’s become the hallmark of post war American foreign policy.

On the surface, it would seem that idealism and realism would be mutually exclusive. But when it comes to how we Americans see ourselves in relation to the rest of the world, they blend together and give life to the notion of American exceptionalism; the desire to be left alone while recognizing the need for engagement on a global scale to protect ourselves and advance our national interests.

As long as demonstrable progress can be made in Iraq, it seems pretty clear that support for the troops mission will continue. This is nothing new in American history. During the Civil War, despite massive casualties and a bleak military outlook for most of 1864 Presidential race, the American people gritted their teeth and went to the polls to re-elect Abraham Lincoln who promised them more of the same until the war was won. And if it hadn’t been for the galvanizing effect of Pearl Harbor which instilled a terrible resolve in the American people to defeat the Axis powers, who knows what would have happened in the 1944 election. At that time, there was no end in sight to the Pacific War and the cost of defeating Germany was rising precipitously through the summer and fall of 1944.

Is there a limit to the cost that the American people are willing to bear to win the peace in Iraq? No doubt. Have we reached that point yet? Not by a longshot. And to see those who oppose the war almost celebrating the WAPO poll results is despicable. The only conclusion one can reach by observing such an attitude is a desire to see the terrorists win and America lose. This can only happen if the United States accepts a humiliating defeat by abandoning Iraq to a fate that will be determined by Iranian-backed thugs. We used to call that treason. Now we call it “principled opposition.”

The attack this week in Mosul that left 15 Americans dead is part of the terrorists plan to disrupt the coming elections as well as sap the will of the American people to stay the course in Iraq. They seem to be enjoying success in the usual quarters. According to Capn’ Ed in
yesterday’s Washington Post, “Thomas Ricks gets a few people on record acting as though Mosul was some kind of Dieppe or Kasserine Pass instead of the skirmish it was:”

Not all experts were pessimistic. Retired Army Col. John Antal said he expects more spectacular attacks in the coming weeks, but mainly because “the enemy is on the ropes and desperate to stop the elections.”

But others were throwing up their hands. “This sure isn’t playing out like I thought it would,” said retired Marine Lt. Col. Jay Stout, author of a book about the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq, in which he fought. He said he is no longer confident about what the U.S. strategy in Iraq should be.”

The Capn’s riposte to Col. Stout is direct and to the point:

“If one attack by a rag-tag bunch of terrorists is all that it takes to have Col. Stout “throw up his hands” (the Post’s characterization, not Stout’s), then it’s a good thing that Stout retired instead of getting promoted.”

And according to Hindrocket over at Powerline who posts this email from a major at CENTCOM, a very different picture emerges:

“Our relationship to the enemy: We have the enemy down on his back and we are choking him to death. He can still scratch at our arms and draw blood but he can not alter his fate. Only we can relieve him of his doom by letting up. If we stay the course, he will die.”

Hindrocket also writes of the will of the Iraqi people and how strong the desire is for elections next month. This from a translation of an Iraqi editorial:

“Those who commit military operations under whatsoever titles, claims or pretexts are clear in their target. This clarity is proved by acts and not words as it is clear enough that slogans and nominations cannot withhold it.”

“The message is clear by targeting political process at its core; the elections, and then attacking people’s drive of rebuilding the state and authority on democratic bases that embody their will and interest following decades of dictatorship that oppressed peopleÂ’s rights of expressing options and decisions.”

Clearly, momentum is building for democracy. And just as clearly, the terrorists will begin to up the ante as elections draw near. While its certain that the American people will support the mission through the elections, how long will it take afterwards before the calls begin for troop withdrawals? Will this resonate with a public grown so pessimistic about the war’s purposes in the first place?

Somehow, I have to believe that the sight of Iraqi men and women standing in line for hours to vote—just as they did in Afghanistan—while risking life and limb to have an opportunity to have a say in their own future, will have a salutary effect on American attitudes towards the war.

It would be interesting to take another poll immediately after the Iraqi elections and query the American people on the exact same questions asked this past week. Somehow, I’m pretty sure those numbers would change dramatically…for the better.