Crusader War College

These two comments in the discussion are illuminating:

4. Pascal:

Inadequate. Lame sarcasm from the senator who never charged Clinton launderers of Chinese campaign money with contempt of Congress for failing to appear in front of his committee. Connect the dotted lines between his failure and Obama’s billion dollar campaign.

Here’s the question: Does Thompson believe his brand of humor will earn him the RNC chairmanship?
Dec 8, 2008 - 6:39 pm

8. E. Nigma:

RE:Pascal
He could never move forward for indictments of the Clinton campaign money launderers because Robert Torricelli (remember him?) and John Glenn knee-capped him at every turn. Out of party loyalty. And Carl Levin helped. And a slew of them fled the country to evade deposition.
I watched those hearings with disgust. I think they disgusted Fred so much that he decided he wanted out of the muck and did not run for re-election.

Fred is being just sarcastic enough to be serious. It all may blow over, but I think stagflation is probably one of the most likely outcomes, and the least of our worries.

Dec 8, 2008 - 8:29 pm

Thinking about the second comment made me realize the following: we are urged to 'work within the system' to resolve issues, with the implication that if we are not successful, we are to 'shut up and take it'.

But what if our issue is with the corruption of those who manage 'the system', whithin which we are to 'work'?

Hmm. Haven't we addressed this issue before?

From South Dakota Lawyer via Belmont Club.

An interesting proof of the Existence of "God" using Multiverse theory.

A great post by a Marine Infantry officer whose e-mail was hosted by Wretchard at Belmont Club.

Hattip Sherry via Rantburg.

Worth reading. I may add to the list later.

Hattip Gorb via Rantburg.

Via Steve at Rantburg:

The Salvation Army of Livingston County received a pleasant surprise when an anonymous donor dropped a gold bar in a Salvation Army Red Kettle Monday night. This is the third year in a row that someone has given a gold bar donation, Captain Derek Rose, administrator of the Salvation Army in Howell, said today.

The one-ounce bar, which was wrapped in a $100 bill, is valued at about $650.

Obviously returning a portion of the blessings Providence has provided them, and thus placing themselves under His kind regard. Good is the heart that does this, and wise is the mind who counts on it.

At the New Atlantis, Robert Zubrin applies some elementary chemistry to dispose of the touted benefits of the Hydrogen Economy. Recommended.

Or that's what Riley Driver, a letter writer to Amercian Spectator, notes (emphasis mine):

Ari Kaufman's What Conservative Media? while spot on missed the point on why so may liberal leftists think the media is balanced or conservative.

They know the political ‘stuff' is clearly biased in their liberal leftist direction, but they are railing against the news as a whole.

I first became aware of this when discussing how liberal campuses are with a liberal acquaintance of mine. He vehemently disagreed. His rationale? All those science, math, business, and medical courses that would not yield to opinion or feeling - they were by definition (for him) conservative.

Over time it became clear this was not a random opinion or thought process. Liberals find things that cannot be swayed by opinion or feelings to be intrinsically conservative.

Hit them with facts and more facts and eventually their response will be some form of name calling. It's all they know to do - so far.

But holding my nose and dipping into the DU from time to time and there is a sense of violence in the air when too many facts are presented and name calling no longer satisfies.

Facts - a liberal's conservative enemy.

This is an interesting observation: Conservatism is apparently being associated with the concept of "being resistant to change", but the REASON for that resistance is not even considered. After all, what you believe now is not important, provided that you change your beliefs in response to "opinion and feelings", rather than to unchanging realities such as facts. And religion. And God (who generates both).

Hattip John Ray at Dissecting Leftism.

William Hagan at Insight Magazine is worried that Obama's not taking advantage of the protection he deserves as a Presidential candidate:

At a recent appearance in Atlanta, Sen. Barack Obama drew a crowd of 20,000 supporters to hear him speak at an open air venue. As the first African-American in history to have a real chance at winning our presidency, Obama is tempting fate as a high profile assassination target for numerous individuals.

Despite his high visibility, during his speech in Atlanta most of the cardinal rules of VIP security were violated. First, he spoke to a crowd of 20,000 people who had not been screened for weapons. Next, he spoke on a field which was surrounded by buildings that were a perfect vantage point for any sniper. It is likely that Obama has private security and it is also apparent that they don’t have a clue as to what they are doing. The nation received a clear lesson in the failure of private security protecting presidential candidates when Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated after declining police protection in 1968. Like Kennedy, Obama could easily be targeted by an individual who, for whatever deranged reason, might want to see him off the ticket for good, and his current lack of security is almost courting this tragic, and historically predictable, result.

The question is: Who is to blame for this lack of security? There is no doubt who would be the first to be called to task if tragedy befell Obama. Every pundit in the nation would point their sharpened swords at the United States Secret Service. However, the Secret Service would not be to blame. Candidate Obama, despite being a clear potential target for assassination, has ignored his own personal security. Presidential front-runners like Obama can obtain Secret Service protection after meeting some minor requirements, but first they must ask for that protection; it cannot be forced upon them. As of Monday April 16th, Obama’s campaign had not requested Secret Service protection.

I personally think Obama is an artfully promoted airhead who has no business even thinking of being President of the United States. Nevertheless, he has a large enough following of my fellow American citizens to merit being voted upon. I agree with Mr. Hagan that that vote should be with ballots, not a bullet, and that he should ask for Secret Service protection.

Via Jim Ray at Dissecting Leftism is this link to an article that concludes:

It is an impossible dream because, while liberalism is, in fact, a mental illness, it is not a disease that can be treated with psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. It can only be treated biologically. As Swirsky tells us, "conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, narcissism, and Tourette's syndrome, while long thought to be psychological in nature, are now known to be "biological" - thanks to PET scans, MRIs, and other diagnostic advances." As Swirsky notes, "The scans.have revealed the specific areas of the brain that give rise to anger, revenge, anxiety, addiction, eating disorders, stuttering, pathological lying, cheating, manipulation, obsessive-compulsive behavior, depressive disorders, even craving for chocolate!"

Soon, it is hoped, we'll be able to add liberalism to that impressive list of behavioral disorders. And since medical science has developed exciting new preparations for treating many of these disorders (e.g. Ritalin for attention deficit disorder, Haldol for psychoses, lithium for bipolar disorder, Wellbutrin for chronic depression, Xanax for anxiety), it may not be long before liberalism can be treated by ingesting a small tablet or capsule each morning before breakfast.

So what are the behavioral characteristics that lead Joan Swirsky to conclude as she has? First, it is a suspicion that the core of liberal `thinking' is the same sort of pathology that characterizes other mental disorders, i.e. a "glitch in the brain that produces `feelings' and behavior over which liberals have no control. Liberals are uniformly glum, not only in their grim demeanors and persistent anger, but also in their outlooks.And when their theories are refuted by hard facts they are unable to process the true from the untrue because their `feelings' always trump their reason."

Secondly, Swirski points out that liberals, in almost every instance, react like children, for whom the most cherished value in life is to be "liked" by their peers. As children see things, "to be liked.is not to engage in conflict, not to fight, not to judge. After all, if you fight with anyone, including Islamic terrorists, they won't like you. And if you judge them as savages, murderers, enemies of democracy, they will fight you. So don't judge them and they won't fight you." Does that sound familiar? It is pure Democrat Party orthodoxy.

Swirsky provides us with a simple litmus test. She says, "the next time you're watching or listening to a liberal, observe the symptoms. Note the anger, the pessimism, the negativity, the name-calling, the bursts of rage, the gratuitous insults, the desire to present an image of `goodness,' the transparent attempt to be liked, the willingness to change an opinion if the old one isn't polling well, and the eagerness to placate our enemies."

It seems that a moonbat got very physical when he encountered two "chickenhawk" Republicans who were not fighting in Iraq.

Obviously, if every Republican volunteered to go fight in Iraq when this thing started, then there would have been complaints of there being millions of American soldiers in Iraq. So, does everyone who makes the "chickenhawk" accusation support the Troop Surge?

However, the above line of thought led to this refutation of the "chickenhawk" argument: Just as we have a representative government, we have a representative army.

Imagine the total silliness of an argument that demands that, if we are not a politician, we should not talk about politics or have an opinion about legislation that would affect us! Or that if we have ANY opinion on legislation, that we should keep silence while allowing those who advocate passing NO LAWS WHATSOEVER to dominate the debate. No, it is our RIGHT to form such opinions, inform our representatives, AND hold them accountable for following, or not following, what we want them to do. What they do affects us, so we must give voice to our opinions. Its what the First Amendment is about.

In the same way, we have a representative army, composed of volunteers, who fight for us on our behalf. Who they fight and how they fight is not only determined by us, but also reflects upon us. That's what CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY is all about. Abu Ghraib was overblown, BUT the world knew that we, as a people, could be criticized for the poor behavior that SOME of our soldiers displayed. After all, they criticize us for what they perceive as a poor President. Of course, they overlook the fact that we regularly vote out bad politicians, and the soldiers who did not follow orders and behaved poorly were disciplined. Perhaps, due to their LACK of experience with representative government, they don't realize that we, as a people, are a discerning lot by and large, keeping the good while throwing away the bad.

Representative Government, Representative Army.

Hattip for the original link via our beloved Emperor.

The link is to an interesting article Dr. Victor Davis Hanson has put up at his website.

As a commentator on our times, I like Dr. Hanson's ability to apply the lessons of history, especially that of Classical Greece, to our day and to our crisis. While most of his articles revolve around subjects close to the war on terror, and a few on the immigration crisis, a rare few attempt to give an insight into some singular aspect of the union of the two worlds in which he works. The above article is one of them: the benefits that being a farmer brings to his work as a Classicist.

An interesting post about an exciting technology. Haven't looked in detail at it, but I'm putting the link up to provoke thought.

Strokes often change a person's character, depending on where the damage hits. Some may become more impulsive, others depressed. Now researchers have shown that damage to a small but very specific brain area can wipe out an addiction to smoking.

Antoine Bechera, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, has identified 14 patients who all stopped smoking immediately after having a stroke that damaged their insular cortex. This seems to be not because they were concerned about their health, but because they had lost all interest in cigarettes, he told the Federation of Neuroscience Societies in Vienna this week. "One or two had even forgotten that they used to smoke," says Bechera.

Interesting...

Bechera's experience with these patients supports his hypothesis that addiction is caused by an imbalance between two neuronal systems — the impulsive system controlled by a brain area (the amygdala) that helps to process emotions and a reflective system controlled by the forebrain. The reflective system anticipates and assesses the consequences, good or bad, that any action will have for the future. Most addiction research focuses on the impulsive system.

Bechera has previously shown that some drug addicts behave similarly to stroke patients with forebrain damage when it comes to decision making. In tests designed to assess financial risk-taking behaviour, they impulsively chose to take as much cash as possible up front, even when that option is linked to a major loss of cash in the longer term. This implies that their impulsive system is winning out over the more logical, risk-assessing system.

Selective damage to the insula cortex seems to filter out some of the information from the impulsive system when it comes to making a decision. As a result, smokers whose reflective capacities are functional seem to be able to make the rational decision to give up, without experiencing withdrawal pain, Bechera says.

Excellent. The traitor within now has a name.