March 12, 2007

Leftist Illiterate Wordsmithing

One of the things that has long fascinated me in watching the left is their penchant for contantly re-writing their own labels. Not content with a label that would accurately portray their beliefs, they always seem to come up with a contrary word to use. It's as if they're always trying to hide their real thoughts behind a word that means the opposite of what they are.

Liberal is the first word that comes to mind. Liberal is a term that once applied to those who believed in a personal application of rights, and opposition to infringement of those rights by government. Liberals believed in minimal taxation, freedom to speak one's beliefs, freedom to associate with the groups you wished, freedom to believe in the faith of your choice, and the right to own weapons as a last resort against a government that might choose to infringe upon those, and other, rights. Today, though, liberalism is not appeased unless taxes are raised to oppressive levels. Liberalism attacks those who choose to belive non-liberal ideas, or worship in certain ways. Above all, liberalism opposes any ownership of weapons except in the hands of a government, especially to prevent anyone from opposing that government.

Later came the term "progressive." Personally, as a former liberal, I have progressed beyond such backward beliefs. My own progression involved understanding the "liberal" belief system I was expected to espouse. I progressed beyond the religious beliefs in government as the savior, and government as the provider. I progressed beyond the idea that higher taxes can, in any way, help anyone except those who get their paychecks out of those taxes. I progressed beyond a wish to become a government employee leech on our society. I progressed to a belief that God, through his son Jesus Christ, was my source of power, rather than the political whims of a majority in Congress. I progressed to a point where the lies of the left no longer gave me pride, but instead caused me to pity those who had not yet progressed.

The latest term for the left is the most humorous of them all. In the last few years, the term "reality-based" has come into popular use among the left. This "reality" proposes that the right is the source of racism, and the left is the cure. I've posted recently on how this isn't "reality" at all. The same "reality" says that Bush stole the 2000 election when many studies have shown the opposite. This "reality" claims that Bush put forth a pre-emptive effort in Ohio, to steal another election, knowing that this would be the one state that this effort was needed in. On and on, the "reality" of the left ignores truth. Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media, but the "reality-based" left still thinks Dick Cheney should be put in prison for it. Evidence of weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq was found before and after we invaded, but the "reality-based" left says no evidence exists.

As one term for the left becomes unpopular, not because the term is a bad one, but because the beliefs of the left are so horrible, they throw that term away and grab onto another one. More terms will come, just as other terms have gone that I haven't even mentioned.

Every day, though, another leftist progresses beyond the non-real religious belief system and toward a true liberalism that is better in every way. Some, but far from all, on the right come close to this perfect liberalism that we should be fighting for. If, one day, the Republican Party begins to espouse this classical liberalism that our country was founded on, I might be one. Until then, I associate freely with the Libertarian Party, an imperfect example itself of what should be.

No matter how many times I've said I'm not a Republican in the past, though, there will always be those regressive, non-reality-based hatemongers on the left who will call me one. It's not their fault. Functional illiteracy keeps the left alive.

Posted by Lockjaw at 8:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 23, 2006

Well Behaved Women and History - Bumper Sticker BS

There's a bumper sticker I've been seeing a lot more, lately. It reads, "Well behaved women rarely make history." On the surface, it seems to be a call for women to go out and achieve. That's a good idea, but the bumper sticker doesn't SAY that. The slogan, which I've also seen as web banners, taglines, buttons, and in other locations, actually states a negative against "well behaved women." What's more, the statement is an outright lie.

What does this slogan have to say about women in history? I think it degrades their image. Princeton's WordNet defines well behaved as, "someone who behaves in a manner that the speaker believes is correct." A reference is made to "a well behaved child." Is the slogan trying to say that women who act in manners that are not considered correct rarely make history? That can't be true. Let's examine a few examples.

Grace Hopper was born in 1906. She earned a Ph.D. in Mathematics. She was a pioneer in the field of computing. She was called the "Mother of Cobol," because of her contributions to what may be the widest-used programming language to date. In 1986, she retired from the US Navy in 1986 at 80 years old, the oldest member of the Navy in active duty. Her rank was Rear Admiral. This "well behaved woman" died in 1992, and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Claire Booth Luce was an aspiring actress. She was active in the Women's Suffrage movement. She was an editorial assistant for Vogue before becoming an associate editor for Vanity Fair, and then managing editor. Later, she became an acclaimed playwright. During WWII, Claire was a journalist for Life magazine, travelling through Europe, China and other areas of the world. In 1942, Claire easily won a seat in the US House of Representatives representing Connecticutt's fourth district, and was re-elected for a second term. After a conversion to catholicism, she decided not to run for re-election again, instead writing for McCalls magazine, and returning to her playwright work. In 1953, Clair became ambassador to Italy at the appointment of Dwight Eisenhower. In this role, she work to fight communism and helped to settle a dispute between Italy and Yugoslavia. In 1959, Eisenhower appointed Claire ambassador to Brazil. In 1981, Ronald Reagan awarded this "well behaved woman" the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Marie Curie was well-behaved enough to graduate from Sorbonne University in Paris with top honors. While studying for her doctorate, she researched Uranium and discovered radioactivity. Together with her husband, Pierre, Marie researched radioactivity, and discovered Radium and Polonium. While also being a wife and mother, Marie became a pioneer of radioactivity research, and was the first person to ever receive two Nobel prizes.

History is FULL of well-behaved women who made history. Florence Nightingale, Barbara McClintock, Coretta Scott King, Sally Ride, and many other women went on to make history without turning into the kind of woman we would call "ill-behaved."

Of course, the bumper sticker slogan isn't about the truth of women in history. It's about excusing the poor behavior of the woman who would place such a sticker on her car.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 10, 2006

Leadership

The power to lead lies with those who follow.

Posted by Lockjaw at 12:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 5, 2006

Open Letter to "Old Europe" from VodkaPundit

If I had to make a top-ten list of blogs, VodkaPundit would probably be running for a spot. I'm grooving on his Open Letter to Old Europe.

Posted by Lockjaw at 8:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 22, 2005

I'm Glad I Don't Live in Democrat America

The economy is horrible. Unemployment is rampant, and jobs are near non-existent. Women are oppressed. Black churches are being burned by racists. If any jobs are available, no black person can get one. Hispanics are being similarly oppressed. Poisons taint our water supplies. For that matter, the water supplies are almost gone. The government is jailing people for speaking out in opposition to it. The unfortunate underclass is being held down by the rich, and corporations. Forests are rare, and becoming rarer every minute. AIDS is killing millions each year. The war front of the past was a failure, and the next war front will require tens of thousands of body bags because of the failure it will become. The military is full of mindless, babykilling drones. Global warming is an impending disaster, and the only explanation for it is that humanity did it.

America starves the poor of other countries. America keeps the poor of other countries poor, and prevents them building an economy of manufacturing and agriculture. America's promotion of free trade is a scheme to exploit the poor of other countries in manufacturing and agriculture jobs. Genetically manipulated crops with higher yields and greater resistance to insects, disease, and drought are bad for the poor of other countries. America is the cause of terrorism. Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Christianity is the root cause of war, crime, poverty, and general evil in our world. Obesity is McDonald's fault. Government-school good, private school bad. There is no God, so any religion's god is just as valid as any other religion's god.

Welcome to America in the eyes of Democrats, and liberals in general. To liberals, America is a horrible, desolate, evil place which can only change if they are in power. Never mind that they've been in power for much of the past century, and things have only gotten worse in their eyes.

I'm glad I don't live in the same America that the Democrats live in. To me, America is a land of prosperity and good, especially compared to 99% of the rest of the world. Sure, there are some things I'd like to see changed, but I'd rather live here than anywhere else in the world, even if a Democrat is President.

I've lived my entire life thankful that I was born in this country, born in this state, live in this town, and born to the parents I was. I often wonder what country the anti-American liberals wish they were born in.

Posted by Lockjaw at 6:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 5, 2005

Live 8 – Concerts Without Purpose

This past weekend’s “Live 8” shows were apparently big news. For the most part, I didn’t even watch it. Unlike Live Aid two decades ago, I never felt that this event had much in the way of concrete goals. Instead, it just seemed to be an excuse for a bunch of rockers to put on a show and act like they were doing something. Considering the outcome of the Live Aid, it may have been just as well.

Live Aid raised millions to send food to Africa to feed the starving. With great fanfare, a huge shipment of food was sent to Ethiopia, where not nearly enough of it made it to the neediest. A corrupt government took control of far too much of the food, minimizing the impact. Being an event-driven effort, the food aid wasn’t ongoing, so what did make it to the starving poor was gone too soon. Asked about the aid 20 years later, one Ethiopian woman was quoted as saying, "Someone helped us once I think, but they did not stay…”

Ethiopia has seen a change in government, and the breakaway of a portion of the country. Food production is rising, but years of socialism have harmed the farms almost as much as the people. Many farms still haven’t recovered from socialist-style mismanagement, and may require many years longer. Ethiopia has a long way to go before it recovers from what famine and bad government have wrought.

Ethiopia isn’t the only part of Africa in trouble. Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket of lower Africa. Corruption, racism, victim-mentality and socialist farm management have destroyed this ability. Because white Europeans once colonized the area, privately-owned farms belonging to white people are being stolen by the government through complex means, and given to black cronies of the ruling class. Skilled farmers find themselves out of work, while political hacks take over the farms and then mismanage them. There is a fear that South Africa may soon go this way, as well.

What exactly is it that Live 8 is supposed to do about this? Apparently, the purpose of the concerts was to raise awareness of the issues. What little I did see of the show featured a crowd full of people wearing symbols of what is wrong about hungry Africa. An anti-free-trade flag flew during U2’s performance. T-Shirts featuring socialist slogans dotted the crowd. Anti-capitalist signs were raised high. A crowd that came to raise awareness of hunger and poverty came supporting ideals that are root causes of that same hunger.

What can be done to help end hunger in the world today? There are a few simple ways to begin.

First, all farmland should be immediately privatized. Any farmland owned by the government on the African continent should be put up for auction. A covenant should be attached to any sale that requires that at least 50% of the land be cultivated for crops within two years of the sale, and that cultivation be continued on no less than 80% of each plot for at least ten years.

An African free-trade zone should be created, eliminating the economic barriers for cross-border trade. This would allow food to flow freely across the continent. This would also allow more affluent areas to utilize lower-cost workforces in needier areas. The result is lower-cost items for people with money to spend, and an income for people in those areas where jobs are few and far between.

DDT should be un-banned, worldwide. This inexpensive, effective pesticide has been long-maligned as damaging, with almost no evidence against it. DDT would allow better control of malaria, a major killer. It would also help prevent locusts and other insects from damaging the crops that are needed to renew Africa’s food supplies.

Better crops, including Genetically Modified crops, should be researched as to their ability to increase crop yields and nutrition. If better crops can be found for the purpose, they should be immediately put to use.

Privately sponsored scholarships should be created to allow individuals to come to America and study subjects such as horticulture, medicine, engineering, manufacturing, business, electronics and other useful professions. Scholarships should not be used for education in psychology, sociology, or any liberal arts field. This would allow graduates to return home with skills necessary to build infrastructure, perform crops research, care for the health of the population, and create businesses to employ the people.

That’s only a beginning. There’s plenty more that could be done.

It’s also more than the Live 8 shows are doing, which is pretty much nothing.

Posted by Lockjaw at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 17, 2005

George Lucas / John Kerry

George Lucas is generating a lot of words in the blogosphere, including a few here, because of his statements on politics, freedom, and Star Wars. Many see Episode III as an anti-Bush movie. I have no opinion on that, per se. I'm going to go see the movie, and I expect to enjoy it greatly. I never have, however, considered Star Wars to be any sort of deep allegorical statement on anything at all, and where it has tried I've found the weakest moments in the story.

That said, let's take another look at what Lucas has had to say.

"In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship.

"The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable."

Lucas has previously stated that one of the influences on the Star Wars storyline was the Vietnam conflict. Now we see comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, with apparent references to our current governmental situation thrown in.

Look at the story so far in the new trilogy.

We have a Senator that represents the dominant, enlightened population of an idyllic coastal resort planet. The non-dominant population look like, among other things, toads. The Senator exploits a trade conflict to place himself in the prime position of power.

As it turns out, the Senator is also the primary force behind the other side in the conflict. He is playing both sides against each other in order to give himself still more power. Eventually, he is able to gain a position of absolute authority in which he has singular control over a "grand army." Those who oppose him are hunted down, and eventually the Senator becomes Emperor and abolishes the democratic form of government.

If this is allegory, then who would be the person represented by the Emperor? Is it Nixon? Is it Bush? Is Lucas trying to say that Nixon orchestrated the Viernam conflict, or that Bush planned the Iraq conflict in concert with the opposing side? If so, Lucas would seem to be nothing more than a wacko conspiracy theorist liberal like Michael Moore.

As I wrote this, a completely different image popped into my mind. I had to change the title of the post. Consider this. Massachusets is coastal resort state. The junior Senator of that state worked both sides of the conflict in Vietnam. The non-dominant population (Republicans) of Massachusets are presented by the dominant population as inhuman. All Kerry had to do was win the election, and he'd have been commander in chief of the grandest army on the planet.

Wow. I'm going to see the next movie in a whole new light.

Posted by Lockjaw at 2:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 5, 2005

Happy Birthday to Karl Marx

A classic post from Lockjaw's Xanga Page

On May 5, 1818, Karl Marx was born the son of a rabbi. Along with Engels, he authored one of the most prominent works of fiction the world has known, "The Communist Manifesto." Armed with such falsehoods as the belief that wage-labor is oppression, and that capitalism is the cause of most social ills, followers of this work have caused more damage to our world society than can be easily imagined.

Thanks to the philosophy put forth by Marx and Engels, millions have been driven to poverty, lawlessness and death. More people have died in wars and mass-murder because of communism than in all religious wars in the history of mankind. According to an investigation done by the US Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Soviet communism is responsible for 35 to 45 million deaths. Communist China has upped the ante even further, with 34 to 62.5 million deaths. Some experts such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suggest that the soviet estimates are low, and that the actual deaths from Soviet communism are near 100 million. To put that in context, to kill the same number of people as communism, we'd have to run a scythe through the entire populations of Japan and Kenya.

Hitler? Osama Bin Laden? Pansies!

That's just two countries, by the way. That's not counting any of the other countries, like Cuba, who've followed this murderous route.

On top of this, one can see the major differences in economic terms between countries which follow communist and capitalist principles. In communist countries, subsistence farming is a necessity among a large portion of the population. In capitalist countries, small subsistence farms are giving way to large corporate farms which can efficiently feed thousands of people for each person working on the farm. Those of us old enough, remember seeing video of the lines that people stood in in the Soviet Union to buy toilet paper. In America, toilet paper is so easy to buy that I often buy enough on sale that I can hold off another purchase until the next sale. Capitalism grants power to the consumer, the worker, the low-man to be able to name his price. Communism takes away all power from everyone except those at the top, who have the task of making decisions for the masses.

So, Happy Birthday Karl Marx. You've truly made the world a worse place through your actions. I have no doubt you're burning in the Hell that you deny.

Oh, and happy birthday to me, too.

Posted by Lockjaw at 5:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 22, 2005

Changing The World Through Example

I want to change the world
I want to make it well
How can I change the world
When I can’t change myself

One website I like to check in on semi-regularly is Aish.com, a Jewish community site. I often find articles about common problems, approached from the Jewish point of view. This time was no exception. In EMT No-Gossip Zone, Tova Saul tells of working as an EMT on a truck with a man who, in addition to being a nice guy, was also a gossip. Tova, being an observant jew, refused to take part in these discussions, as it is against God's teachings. Tova goes on to tell how Tony, her partner, came to appreciate this no-gossip rule, and went on to work for a similar rule on his own.

I've had to deal with malicious gossip in my time. One person I counted as a friend for years has been known to spread malicious words against me on more than one occasion. At any time I've confronted him about it, he's made sure to tell "his side" of the story to others to benefit himself at my expense. In the end, I found it best to completely rid myself of his presence, and to not commit the crime of speaking ill of him to others. Even saying this much about the situation pushes my limits, even though I won't mention his name. I even sanitized it a bit, because of one detail that could have limited the list of possibilities to a half-dozen.

Gossip is a horrible thing. I've seen it tear groups of friends apart. I've seen its effect in organizations, companies, churches and families. Unfortunately, you can't stop others from engaging in malicious talk. You can only stop yourself. Lead by example.

If I want more peace in the world
Then I must make peace with myself
If I want more trust in the world
Then I’ve got to trust in myself
If I want more love in the world
I must show more love to myself
-- Lyric excerpts - Todd Rundgren - Change Myself

Posted by Lockjaw at 2:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Steroids, Baseball, and The Law

Steroids has finally turned into a big news story. When President Bush mentioned them in his State of the Union Speech, the media tended to treat the issue as a redheaded stepchild among more weighty issues. It hasn't taken all that long, though, before it's big news. Jose Canseco has admitted to using them in his book, and implicated others. Congress has decided it's an important issue, and in a light news cycle, even the news media has begun treating it as a big-three story.

Congress getting involved is funny. Are they going to pass a law against steroid use? They're already illegal. I also haven't seen anything in the US Constitution that entitles the US government to get involved in sports, entertainment, medicine or antitrust issues (which is the excuse being used by Congress to get involved in the first place).

The biggest reason to get steroids out of baseball is that it's ruining the game. Since when was baseball about home runs and high scores? Good baseball comes with low scores and quality pitching. Exciting baseball comes when the batter CAN'T get the wood on the ball. The same has happened in basketball, in my opinion, but I'm obviously in the minority on that one. (I'm a fan of the old four corners)

Want to keep kids off steroids? I have the perfect text for a commercial. Simply repeat the following for 30 seconds.

"Steroids. Arm muscles get big. Leg muscles get big. Weenie muscle gets small."

That should do it.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Freedom

Freedom is a loaded word, these days. Some define freedom as the right to speak one's mind freely without imprisonment. Others define freedom as the right to speak one's mind freely without criticism. Depending on who you ask, freedom can have many meanings. Does freedom mean being able to work for wages in a free market, or as some believe, to work for a fixed wage, free of control from the corporate leaders? Is freedom being able to worship the faith of your choice? Is freedom complete avoidance of worship? Does freedom allow you to own a firearm, or is freedom a society in which such ownership is forbidden except to the police or the army?

I have very specific thoughts on freedom. When I was a liberal, I had very different thoughts on freedom. I would argue that my thoughts changed on the subject because I became more enlightened on the subject.

My friend Sean and I were talking about thankfulness one day. We have a mutual friend who served time in prison for kidnapping and assault. This mutual friend served 16 years and left prison a different, changed man. I asked Sean what he was thankful for.

"Doors that open."

What does freedom mean to you?

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Quick Thoughts on Social Security

Listening to NPR this morning, I heard a long discussion on Social Security, its health and possible reforms. I had a few thoughts on the matter.


They're just my thoughts on the matter.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who's the Bigger Enemy? Terrorists or Democrats?

If we were going to choose Enemy #1 for the United States, who would we choose? Would it be the terrorists? I would argue that Enemy #1 of the United States is the Democratic Party, in league with the rest of the political left.

Why? The Democrats have chosen sides against the United States for decades. They sided with the Soviet Union and accepted their agents. They sided with North Vietnam and helped them win a war with us. They sided with communist China in their attempts to control the southeast asian region. They sided with Saddam Hussein in his attempt to hold Kuwait. They sided with Saddam Hussein again in his attempt to thumb his nose at us and the UN over sanctions. They've been siding with the terrorists in opposing any effort to investigate and stop them. They sided with nearly every tinpot dictator that took money from the USSR. They sided with Castro. If you hate America, capitalism and the American way of life, they'll side with you too.

Look at the results. The Terrorists, though they killed many people, have had little lasting effect on the American way of life. The Democrats have caused a long and lasting change in America. We live in fear of showing our faith. Political Correctness is replacing truth and freedom of thought, and oppressive taxes coupled with social spending are destroying the lives of people all across the economic spectrum.

It doesn't have to be. We can stop it. Just as we've stopped the terrorists from further attacks, we can stop the Democrats from doing more damage. We just have to identify them properly as the #1 enemy of America, and oppose their attempts to harm us.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Let's Bitch Again - Like We Did Last Summer

I've been quite entertained by the way the anti-Bush/Liberal/Socialist/Media crowd has been treating the issue of Tsunami relief. Generally, it has fallen into the realm of complaints for the sake of complaining. Immediately after the disaster hit, the United States stepped up and offered support. Private groups such as WorldVision and the Red Cross went into immediate action, and the government pledged at least $35 million within hours.

In the media, the criticism began immediately. CNN's midday discussion show (which I can't recall the name of, because I no longer watch this poor excuse for a news outlet. It was on the TV at the sub shop.) focused on the lack of a response. The international community complained that the US wasn't doing enough. It was obvious, to me at least, that the complaints were baseless.

The main complaint given was that the US was only giving $35 million in relief funds. This was not true at all. The $35 million in relief funds were immediate pledges. It takes little more than a beaurocrat's signature to pledge this amount to help in a disaster situation. To pledge this much required very little action, and allowed the US to start getting some work done while the situation was assessed further.

The $35 million in relief funds is merely a line of credit. Knowing that this amount of money is being given allows the relief crews on the site to begin operations, and purchase some of their needs. Without this small amount, relief operations must work with what they have on hand, and may not be able to do the job required to the extent needed. This money allows the relief crews to begin setting up operations, and to get people on to the job of figuring out what jobs need to be done, and what it will take to do them.

That's step one. Step two is harder. Once you have an idea of what will be needed, another round of funding and manpower will be needed. This second round of funding takes more than just a simple beaurocrat's signature. It takes an act of executive power. In step two, America increased the credit line for relief to ten times the initial amount. Like round one, this is not American sending a check to the affected area. We are, in effect, saying that the relief agencies and area governments can spend that amount of money to provide relief, and we'll pay the bills. Other countries pledged funds for this purpose as well, and relief operations got underway in earnest.

In addition to funding pledges, American sent manpower. We have one aircraft carrier battlegroup, and other ships in the area to provide relief. These battlegroups are putting US Marines on the ground, aircraft in the air and hospital beds into service. On-board rations are being airlifted in, and injured victims are being airlifted out. Beds, used by the Marines in transit, are now filled with patients, multiplying the medical abilities.

The US Government is offering personnel in the form of disaster relief workers, as well. Private groups have people on the ground. Companies and private charities are raising large amounts of funding to help in the area. Amazon.com raised, within just a few days of the event, over $2 million in private donations to go to the Red Cross for disaster assistance. The American people are coming out of the woodwork to provide help.

So, why all the complaints about the US response?

It's very simple.

Some people just want to complain. No matter what's going on, there's some reason to complain as long as a Republican is in office. If George W. Bush personally visited the area and raised 100,000 people from the dead, there would be those who would complain that he only raised the rich from the dead, and left the poor in the mass graves. There's no satisfying these people.

A lot of the complaints can be counted to ignorance. There are plenty of people who just don't know how government works. They hear that we're giving $35 million for relief, and they think it should be more like $1 billion. They don't know the difference between initial funding and long-term funding. They don't understand the stages of funding. You can't count CNN among these people. CNN knows better, but pushes the criticism anyway. CNN is corrupt, while the ignorant are merely being duped by them.

In the end, the amount of funding for this disaster will be far greater than we have seen thus far. The next rounds of funding will require further assessment, and eventually an act of Congress. In the meantime, the many levels of relief provided by citizens of the United States through private efforts will go virtually unnoticed, because much of it is happening through churches and Christian organizations.

As I typed this, an announcement came over the Associated Press that former Presidents Clinton and Bush will lead a major fundraising effort to help the disaster victims. Regardless, some will still call us stingy.

If YOU want to help, I suggest you click this link to donate to Tsunami relief efforts through WorldVision. In addition, please consider sponsoring a child through Worldvision so that the child, his family and community can be given the support, food, medicine and education that are so needed. You can sponsor a child by clicking here.

Posted by Lockjaw at 1:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tsunami Thoughts

As you are no doubt aware by now, an earthquake shook the sea off Southeast Asia, resulting in a Tsunami system that devastated Sri Lanka, India, Indionesia and elsewhere in the area. The current count is over 63,000 dead. The devastation and loss are amazing.

I've read and heard a lot of news on this story since it happened. I have watched some incredible video of the wave coming in. There have been reports in the blogsphere from on-site. It would be much easier if our communications system was like it was 50 years ago, and we had to wait weeks for a two-minute edited film as a lead-in to the movie of the week at the local cinema. In today's world of communication, we have access to detailed news, updated body counts, and multiple videos hours after the event.

From the underwear model who survived by hanging onto the treetops to the older couple washed away from poolside to the child found floating on a mattress, there are many stories that will come out of this event. Each of those 63,000 people had, and was, a story. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if the death toll topped 100,000.

Scientists suggest that the continental shelf off of North Carolina could collapse, in the future. Millions of tons of rock could slide from relatively shallow water into the depths of the ocean, because of the porosity of the shelf. Such a collapse could result in a tsunami washing ashore for some distance. The wave could extend beyond the coast of North Carolina and Virginia, causing great damage and death.

Will it happen? Who knows? Tsunamis happen in the area of this last one on the average of every 700 years. Nobody could have expected it to happen when it did.

It doesn't have to be a wave. It could be a car, a chicken bone or a heart attack. It could be tomorrow, or it could be decades from now. The point is, live every day as if it could be your last, and keep in mind where you'll end up when you're gone.

Posted by Lockjaw at 12:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John Lennon Death Anniversary

24 years ago today, John Lennon was assasinated by Mark David Chapman. Lennon was an overrated musician and songwriter considered by many to be among the very best ever to walk the Earth. His "antiwar" activities played on the gullibilities of a generation and turned many of them into unwitting soviet agents against the United States. His relationship with Yoko Ono led, in great part, to the breakup of the Beatles, a band far more deserving of praise collectively than its individual members solo efforts en masse. Lennon's death marked the end of an era which was in great need of an end, and "peace activists" haven't been the same since.


He might have been overrated, wrong-headed and anti-american, but even he didn't deserve to be murdered.


Today, many will mourn his death and look back at his idiotic activism with reverence. I will look back and recognize that he and his ilk used the word "peace" to hide a true agenda aimed at reducing the influence of freedom in this world. Many of them continue to this day.

Posted by Lockjaw at 12:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

What Censorship Is

The Right Coast, talking about happenings in North Korea, prints the following aside:

"n one of his books, Arkady Vaksberg tells a story of his mother going to the Central Post Office in Moscow in the early 1950s and seeing a patch of walpaper where Lavrenti Beria's framed photograph had been: she understood immediately that Beria had fallen from power. (Khrushchev and Co. had arranged for Beria to be arrested, "tried", and -- in very short order -- shot.) Subscribers to the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia soon afterward received a package with a covering letter instructing the recipient to cut out pages such-and-such from the Encyclopaedia, and to paste in the enclosed new pages instead. It turned out that the pages to be excised were the Encyclopaedia's fawning entry on Beria; the substitute pages were photographs of the Bering Sea..."

Folks, this is what censorship really is. Too many people cry censorship because publishers refuse to spend money to publish their views. They cry censorship when others criticize what they say. The Soviet Union was masterful at censorship. They had, and used, the power to wipe the records clean of ideas, and people, that they didn't like. You can tell how free our country is by the triviality of the actions that get called censorship.

Posted by Lockjaw at 12:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I Love America

A classic post from Lockjaw's Xanga Page

Today's entry is a short piece I wrote on the opening day of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. I've pulled it out, and posted it after being reminded of it by yesterday's post.

I Love America

The bombs started falling, today. Watching the news, I had a sense of obligation about it all. We were attacked, and now we were retaliating. Nothing was, well, all that inspiring.

Flipping from news-channel to news-channel, I found MSNBC telling of the B-52s departing last night to begin their missions. Suddenly, I was inspired. Those B-52s are a metaphor for America itself.

A metaphor, you say? How could an aging, practically antique airplane possibly be a metaphor for our land? I’m glad you asked.
First, she’s big. According to www.stratofortress.org, the B-52HStratofortress is 159 feet 4 inches long, with a wingspan of 185 feet. If you use the end zones, you can park two of them on a high-school football field, but it won’t be easy. Watch out for the grass, though, because the maximum takeoff weight is officially 244 tons.

Secondly, she’s powerful. Depending on which weapons mounting pylons are used, the B-52H can carry a maximum of 51 or 45 munitions. At her most powerful, those munitions are nuclear in nature.

According to Fox News Channel, the payload of today’s mission was cluster-bombs. To the uninitiated, it’s the big version of a coffee can full of firecrackers. They’re not pretty. You don’t want to be around when one is dropped.

The most striking feature of the B-52H Stratofortress is her range. She’s the long arm of the law. Her eight Pratt & Whitney engines put out 17,000 lbs of thrust. 48,000 gallons of fuel take her 8,800 miles.

I know you have questions, so I’ll go ahead and answer them for you:


  1. More than 5 gallons per mile
  2. Anywhere

That’s right, anywhere. We can reach out with this great, powerful arm, and strike anywhere in the world that we want to, anytime we want to. 94 in inventory, multiplied by 51 nuclear weapons (or just a dozen, for that matter) can deal enough death to mollify any threat, annihilate any enemy and execute millions.

Osama bin Laden would LOVE to have access to this weapon. This weapon, even if only a single plane, could destroy Israel on the way Washington, DC. We just train with them. In Palestine, Arafat and his extremist followers plan bombing runs on the Jews. We could solve that problem quickly enough, but we don’t. This weapon is not for use, unless absolutely necessary. Like the pistol in the bedside drawer, the B-52 is only for defensive use. The message is clear. If you threaten harm to the United States or our interests, you can be destroyed.

But wait, you say, what about that metaphor? I’m glad you brought that up.

America is big. We joke about how big Texas is, but that’s just peanuts to the full 50 states. We are 285 million strong, and we have the best of everything. Our economy is enormous. Want to talk about power? All it really takes for us to turn a communist country into a freer place is to start dumping Levis and Big Macs into their black market, plus Rock and Roll into their airwaves. Want to talk about a long reach? We pulled that trick on the Soviet Union, and now we say “former.” We’re pulling it now on China, and it’s causing them some problems. It seems there are outbreaks of liberty that must be crushed.

America reaches out to the world every day, and is hated for it. We reach out and bring food to the hungry in Afghanistan, even as we bomb our targets within the same country. We reach out and there are jobs for the jobless on the other side of the world. We reach out with doctors to repair birth defects in children in what we used to call Third-World countries. When we fail, it tends to be because of enemies of freedom, home or abroad.

We’re the United States of America. We’re big. We’re powerful. We have a long reach. We’re not perfect, but we carry the greatest weapon of all. That weapon is freedom.

Posted by Lockjaw at 11:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I Think I Want to be a Liberal

A classic post from Lockjaw's Xanga Page

I've decided to be a liberal. Being a liberal is so much easier than being a conservative or libertarian. Being a conservative means actually having to believe that people have enough sense to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Being a libertarian means having to recognize that the political stances you fight for may end up with a gun being put to the head of an innocent person. Being a liberal is much easier. As a liberal, I could pretty much believe ANYTHING.

As a liberal, I'd no longer have to think about economics. I'd never have to concern myself with how regulations and taxes affect the business market and result in fewer jobs. If people ended up without jobs, I'd just suggest that we start another government program, or even better, just have the government hire them to do something. As a liberal, I'd be able to support a higher minimum wage and ignore the fact that minimum wage increases invariably result in major job losses. I could ignore the fact that the rich pay almost all the taxes, and complain about how they pay no taxes. I could talk about tax cuts for the poor, when the poor have been largely removed from the tax rolls and are actually being given money back that they didn't pay, through the Earned Income Tax Credit.

If I were a liberal, I'd never have to read the Constitution of the United States of America again, except for the first amendment. I wouldn't need to concern myself with separation of powers, freedom to disassociate from others, or those pesky 9th and 10th amendments that confuse people so. As a liberal, I'd have the freedom to twist any rule, law or constitutional provision in any way I wish, as long as it made me feel good.

One thing I'd really love about being a liberal is never having to be wrong again. I'd be able to support any position I wished by simply bringing the concept of truth itself into question. I'd never have to worry about my actions being considered wrong, or any moral codes to follow. I could completely ignore the existence of God himself, if I wanted, especially if some ancient book said I shouldn't do something I wanted to. I'd never have to back myself up with facts, or evidence. I could completely base my ethical and moral codes on my personal feelings, what my friends say, or the literary works of James Joyce.

If I didn't like someone, and I was a liberal, I could actually do something about them. I could accuse them of hatefulness, sexism, racism, or being a conservative, religious nut. I might even get them fired from their job, kicked out of their school, or run out of town on a rail. If it became too easy for them to defend themselves against my attack, I could just try to change the rules to keep them from knowing who the attack came from, or keep them from mounting a defense. It works on college campuses, so it should work elsewhere.

If I were liberal, I'd never again have to think of a reasonable defense for war. I'd never have to work hard to win a debate. I'd never have to read works on political science, contitutional law, international trade, or economics. I'd just make up my mind, and anybody who disagreed with me, I'd call an idiot (or worse).

Wait. I just thought of something. If I were a liberal, I'd have to put up with things I'd rather not put up with. People who know no truth find it easy to lie. People who dislike personal property end up as thieves. People with no moral code can't be trusted. Ever been around liberal activists? There are so many grungy, foul-mouthed, hateful people I can't stand it.

Oh, and another thing. Libertarian and conservative women tend to be better looking.

That's it. I'm staying.

Posted by Lockjaw at 11:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

What I Think of the Iraq "Torture" Photos

A classic post from Lockjaw's Xanga Page

Lots has been said about the incident involving the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US troops, lately. There are a lot of people up in arms about this, as if the incident is typical of all US actions in the region. Here's my take.

First, how did the incidents come to light? Did a reporter sneak in and take the pics? Did someone snatch the pictures from the soldiers in question and take them to the media or the authorities? No. In fact, it was OTHER soldiers who saw the mistreatment happen, and documented them as evidence. It was those other soldiers who notified the authorities that this was happening. When the mistreatment was witnessed by one of the 100,000+ soldiers who wasn't involved in it, they took actions to stop it.

Secondly, since these pictures have surfaced so recently, it begs the question, when did it happen? These incidents happened, apparently, this past fall. When the US authorities were notified, an investigation was launched the next day.

So, what are they going to do about these soldiers who mistreated the prisoners? They're already doing it. On January 19, US Military Command requested a review of practices at the prison. That review was completed March 3. In February, the Army Inspector General started a review of prison facilities in the region. On April 23, another review was started focusing on the intelligence side of things. As for the culprits themselves, the investigation was completed in March 15, resulting in 20 criminal charges for the six individuals.

What about how this will affect our image in the arab world? This won't affect our image one bit. Only one side of this story will be told by a majority of the arab media. Only one side of this story will be told by a majority of the arab leadership. Only one side of this story will be told by the muslim clerics. Face it, if we delivered ten million baked chickens, cakes and candies to the arab regions, and distributed them to the hungry and needy, the leaders would say that we're only trying to corrupt them and that we probably baked them with the blood of arab children, anyway. After all, they'll say, it's all a zionist plot. That's not fantasy. That's indicative of the messages they already spread about the US and Israel. Why? Because they lie. The truth is not their friend, so they lie. Since they're lying either to, or about, non-muslims, it's fine and dandy.

It is my sincere hope that these individuals who allegedly mistreated the iraqi prisoners get a fair trial, and the punishment that they deserve. What was apparently done was wrong, and should never happen at all, much less at the hands of a US soldier.

Now, a note about what constitutes abuse, taken from The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal Online in the Best of the Web column:

The Associated Press manages to produce an ex-prisoner, Dhia al-Shweiri, a supporter of
renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who claims the abuse he suffered at
the hands of his American captors was worse than what Saddam's henchmen meted
out in the same prison. Here are the horrors to which America subjected him:



During his stay at Abu Ghraib, he said [he] was asked to take off his clothes only once and for about 15 minutes.
"I thought they wanted me to change into the red prison uniform, so I took off my clothes, down to my underwear. Then he asked me to take off my underwear. I started arguing with him, but in the end he made me take off my underwear,"
al-Shweiri said.
He said he and six other prisoners--all hooded--had to face the wall and bend over a little as they put their hands on the wall.
"They made us stand in a way that I am ashamed to describe. They came to look at us as we stood there. They knew this would humiliate us," he said, adding that he was not sodomized.

During Saddam's regime, in contrast, "he said he was given electric shocks, beaten and hung from the ceiling with his hands tied behind his back." According to him, "that's better than the humiliation of being stripped naked."


The Washington Post, meanwhile, quotes a former prisoner who says the exercise routine was too demanding and the music was unpleasant:



The black sack the troops placed over his head was removed only briefly during the next nine days of interrogation, conducted by U.S. officials in civilian and military clothes, he said. He was forced to do knee bends until he collapsed, he recalled, and black marks still ring his wrists from the pinch of plastic handcuffs. Rest was made impossible by loudspeakers blaring, over and over, the Beastie Boys' rap anthem, "No Sleep Till Brooklyn."

That some ex-prisoners are bellyaching about trivia does not, of course, mean that all was well in Abu Ghraib. If real abuses are proved, then it's entirely appropriate, as Dan Senor, a spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, puts it, that "careers will be ended and criminal charges are going to be leveled."


Enemy propaganda notwithstanding, this underscores the fundamental difference between America and totalitarian regimes like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Evil is part of human nature, and Americans are as susceptible to it as anyone else. But in a civilized country like ours, the state uses its power to prevent and punish brutality. In a regime like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the state uses its power to inflict brutality. Those who seek to blur this distinction are acting in the defense of institutionalized evil.


Posted by Lockjaw at 11:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Letter to the Editor - Sanford Herald 12/14/12003

Another classic www.lockjawslair.com blog entry.

Letter to the Editor for the Sanford Herald

After reading your editorial, "Tragedy at CCCC makes no sense," concerning the unfortunate murder-suicide on the CCCC campus, I felt compelled to respond. The final paragraph suggested that only erecting a "huge fence around the entire facility" could have prevented this tragedy, and that the CCCC administration will surely review its policies concerning safety.

The attack could have been prevented. The administration of CCCC has no power to put in place policies, however, which could prevent such attacks in the future. NC General Statute 14-269.2 prohibits the possession or carrying on educational property of a handgun, the most effective means of self-defense or stopping an armed and violent attack. As if that weren't enough, the law also bans all other weapons that might be effective in such threatening circumstances.

Well-meaning people enacted this law to prevent exactly what happened to Rosa Speagle. It didn't work. Lawbreakers, by definition, do not care about the law. If, however, one of the six or more witnesses to this act had been carrying a legal firearm, Rosa could have been saved before she was taken from crime scene #1 to crime scene #2. Any self-defense instructor will tell you, you don't come back from crime scene #2.

One man was responsible for this horrible act. Only the legislature has the power, though, to repeal this horrible law which makes the students and faculty at CCCC helpless victims, should it happen again.

This letter was printed in the Sanford Herald on Sunday, December 14, 2003

Posted by Lockjaw at 11:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack