The Perfect Birthday

I ran across a photo on an Internet site that reminded me of my eighth birthday, my best birthday ever, and my first true love.

I learned to ride a bike when I was five, on my own. My parents had bought my oldest sister a red Schwinn on her sixth birthday, and my other sister Sue and I spent the afternoon running behind my father as he attempted to mentor Amie in the art of cycling by holding the bike with her on it, running with it for a few steps and then launching her to wobble across the drive. She never really took to it and the bike ended up in the garage, unused. Sue never expressed any interest in the bicycle and so it languished for over a year until one day, after watching some of the older boys in the neighborhood ride and pondering on the subject I decided that I was going to learn.

I spent a few days on the sidewalk besides our house, starting at the top of the block and coasting down, dragging my feet at first until I finally figured out what to do in order to keep from falling... turn in the direction that the bike starts to lean. Shortly thereafter I was up and running, or cycling. I spent the rest of the summer cycling on my own without anyone being the wiser... and as the youngest child and the only boy that is just how I wanted it.

A week or two after school began, I made an offhand comment as we passed a bicyclist on the way home in the car with my mother and sisters. "What do you know about bicycles?!" Sue challenged. "Why, I'm a year older than you and I can't ride and I know more about bicycles than you do!" "I can too ride a bike!" I responded. "No, you can't!" And so on, until my mother told us both to stop arguing.

I slumped back in my seat and challenged her, "I bet you a quarter I can ride!" Now, a quarter was a lot of money in the mid-1960s. It was two week's allowance, and would buy five Cokes in those little glass bottles, or five candy bars, or any combination of the two. We're talking serious money for a five year-old... or a six year-old, for that matter. Sue had to put up, or shut up... and, really she had no choice; I had called her bluff. She could hardly wait to get home to take my quarter.

The car had barely stopped before we all piled out. I ran across the yard to the door under the porch and pulled the bike out, and then proudly rode it across the yard and up to the car. My mother was speechless with astonishment, and both of my sisters were calling, "Teach me! Teach me!" (I tried for a few minutes, but they wouldn't listen, and I eventually realized that they would have to learn on their own the same way I did, although being outdone by their younger brother was powerful motivation. I don't remember getting the quarter.)

A couple of days later, my father pulled up while I was sitting on the back steps. He stepped out of the driver's seat and pulled a brand-new 24" boy's bike out of the back. I was totally surprised; I guess my mother must have mentioned that we would need at least one more bike. This was a typical Sear's cruiser with lots of chrome plating, the taillight behind the seatpost, a swooping gas tank on the main tube, a headlight and a big spring shock absorber on top of the front fender. I immediately tried to ride it and ran into a problem. Either Dad overlooked my height, or lack of it, at five years of age, or more likely he bought a little bigger bike figuring I would grow into it. My father showed me how to start by stepping on the left pedal with my left foot, scooting a few steps, and then swinging my foot over the main tube, and I was able to ride it, but even at its lowest I couldn't pedal while sitting. I quickly learned how to stop the bike and get off without falling; ride into our hedge and then climb off as the bike was held up by the front wheel!

As you can imagine, with very little clearance between the top tube and sensitive portions of my anatomy, not being able to sit, and having to find a hedge in order to get off, I quickly parked the new bike under the porch and returned to riding my sister's 20" candy apple red Schwinn mixte (girl's bike). It didn't help that a few weeks later some cretin opened the door under our porch while we were out and made off with the bike. I was upset, but more with the idea that it was stolen than with the fact that I couldn't ride it anymore.

A while later, my father came home with a decades-old mixte with 20" balloon tires, painted pea green with a brush. I hopped on and rode it and fell in love. Everything fit, it was comfortable, no bar to crunch myself on, and it was mine. I don't think the manufacturers even considered using anything besides the same stuff you'd find beneath your bathroom sink for frame tubing, and the bike had to weigh at least 50 lbs. It was ugly, but it never let me down. I rode that bike for three years, until my eighth birthday... the best birthday of my life.

All that fall I had been entranced, dreaming of a bike in the Sears catalog. As you may remember, Sears had a good marketing habit of having at least two items in any category and often three... "Good," "Better," and "Sear's Best." The bicycle marketer must have understood small boys, because he had two Stingray-type bikes in full color. I lusted after the "Sear's Best" model, the 'Scream' with its butterfly handlebars, its 5-speed shifter in a console on the main tube, its banana seat, and its dragster-type slick rear tire. It was too much to hope for, but I would hold the catalog and walk in circles around my room at night when I was supposed to be in bed, dreaming. I literally prayed about that bike, even offering to take the "Better" model if that's all God thought I deserved... but I really figured there was no way I'd get any bike for Christmas. After all, even the cheaper model was $50 and the "Scream" was $80. The number was beyond comprehension to a person who got a quarter for his allowance. It might as well have cost a million dollars.

I remember my birthday, that December day in 1969, very well. It was raining and cold, and my father wasn't home for dinner so we all ate and waited for him to start on the cake. I heard my father pull up around 6:30 and ran to the front door to open it for him, and as I did the bike of my dreams appeared as he wheeled it inside.

I couldn't believe it. If you've ever really wanted something, figured you'd never get it, and then, lo and behold, it's yours, you understand. Nothing would do except that we go outside and ride it, in the cold December rain at night, so we did. And then we brought it back inside and I lovingly dried it off with a towel. My father even brought it upstairs that one night so I could sleep with it in my room. To this day, it was the best birthday present I've ever had.

But, like most love stories it ended badly. Six months later I went up to stay with my stepsister and her husband for a couple of weeks. Despite my repeated demands, backed up by my parents, that my bike not be taken out while I was away, my sisters did take it out, and left it out for a couple days in the rain. By the time I returned home it was rusted, the chrome flaking off. Once the paint blisters and the steel corrodes there is nothing that an eight year-old boy can do with Naval Jelly to restore his pride and joy. I still rode it but things were never the same. I'd look at the rust and the flaked chrome and alternate between depression and anger. A year later someone stole it from our garage, and although we came across the thief on the bike and stopped him, I could not get my father to take it from him even though I positively identified every scratch and defect down to the traces of Naval Jelly still remaining on the chainguard. We went home and called the police but the thief had hidden the bike by the time they came and I never saw it again. I was heartbroken.

That was the last bike I owned until I was an adult. I had forgotten what it looked like until I ran across a picture of it while Googling random stuff. Here it is... my first love.



I know, it looks ridiculous. I wonder what I ever saw in it. And then I realize that when one is in love common sense goes out the window. I've owned several bikes as an adult, some costing in the thousands, made of titanium with top-end componentry... and yet, no bike has ever made me happier. No photo can possibly reproduce the experience, the emotion, of owning my dream bike. Laugh if you will, but how many of you would have given everything for such a bike when you were eight?

Tragedy Isn't Funny: An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh

Hello Rush,

As a listener of yours since the late '80s, and a member for the past several years, I think you're going a little overboard on the astronaut.

I joined after the press was ganging up on you over your issue with painkillers. I didn't think it was fair, and I wanted to show my support.

Similarly, I think the story of Lisa Nowak and her actions this morning is really a tragedy. Captain Nowak is an Annapolis grad with a regular commission, three young children, and is at the pinnacle of her career as a test pilot and astronaut. Now, all of that is over. Regardless of the legal outcome, her career is ended and she will have to resign her commission because she can no longer be trusted behind the controls of a fighter aircraft much less in command of an aircraft carrier or in the Space Shuttle.

If she is acquitted of all charges, she will still be unemployable; no defense contractor or airline will have her for the same reason that the Navy and NASA no longer will. She will almost surely be court-martialed; if she is found guilty she will most likely lose her pension. Her marriage is most likely over as well. And, if she is convicted in a criminal court she will spend at least a decade in jail.

I don't know why Captain Lowak did what she did. I don't know what pushed her to act this irrationally. My point is, regardless of the reason this is a tragedy that has and will harm many innocent people, from the intended victim to the male astronaut to the Nowak children to Captain Lowak herself. The woman has lost everything. There's nothing funny about that.

Give the woman a break, okay?

Jane, You're Playing a Game You Never Can Win, Girl...*

It's amazing how time changes everything, how a new year, a new Congress invigorates one into thinking that perhaps they were right all along. Or, at least it must seem that way to Jane Fonda.

In a reprise of her antiwar youth, Jane Fonda finally came out and spoke to an antiwar rally in Washington DC last weekend. "I haven't spoken at an antiwar rally in 34 years," she said. But, "Silence is no longer an option."

Oh, yes it is! Hasn't this woman learned anything? After all, she apologized at least twice for her actions supporting the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, acts which she acknowledged caused harm to other Americans and which gave aid and comfort to the enemy. In other words, treasonous acts that at any other time would have seen her prosecuted. Haven't you learned to keep your ignorant mouth shut yet?

Maybe Jane and her Fellow Travelers should reminisce a little further back, and ponder the words of an American president who was himself attacked for leading the country into an unpopular war, who was savaged by his Democratic opponents, and yet whom, unlike Jane Fonda, was proven to have been on the right side of history:

“If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.” -- Abraham Lincoln

Jane, we know your game. Silence is no longer an option... it's mandatory. Shut the hell up and let the President win the war.

Read this for more on Hanoi Jane and her avowed appetite for her own foot.

*apologies to Jefferson Starship

...And the Democratic (Non-) Response

After stewing on James Webb's response to the SOTU overnight, I felt compelled to write about what was said, and as important, what wasn't. I'm going to focus on Iraq because that is the primary subject in front of the country.

Many people who identify as Democrats think that Webb really put the wood to Bush last night. Yes, he was very eager to blame, but was anything really accomplished. I don't see it. Come on! What did Webb really say?

Whether or not you believe invading Iraq was necessary back in 2003 (I do), the fact remains that we did. All of the finger-pointing, blame-gaming, insulting, etc., is irrelevant. Yeah, I know it's red meat for the Democratic base, but it's basically just so much BS. The question is, what do we do now?

Some are urging that we leave Iraq as quickly as possible. They say that achieving our objectives is impossible, that those objectives aren't worth another American's life, or both. Some, e.g. Michael Moore, say that, because we shouldn't have invaded in the first place we deserve to fail and we should give up, retreat, and accept the consequences as our just desserts. What I haven't heard these types fully explain is their understanding and acceptance of what will happen should we heed their urge and abandon Iraq immediately.

Others realize that, as Hillary said (unfortunately not about Iraq), we must be "in it to win it." Whether or not we were right to invade Iraq, whether or not we've made mistakes, we have to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it would be. And, the reality is that abandoning Iraq would be disastrous for the US and for the rest of the civilized world.

Abandoning Iraq would leave it to be controlled by Iran or by Al Qaeda after a fierce and bloody war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Abandoning Iraq would mean we'd leave the sanctuary of a nation-state with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil to be used as a resource by those who have repeatedly sworn to destroy us by any available means. Abandoning Iraq would give our sworn enemies a new, and much better base than Afghanistan ever was. Abandoning Iraq means the War on Terror (the war against Islamic extremists of both Sunni and Shia persuasion) would come to our shores, as it did on 9/11.

Webb held up the Korean War and the way it was ended as a desirable solution. The Korean peninsula is a mess today because we didn't finish what they started back in 1950. More than 50,000 Americans died and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in Korea over the past half-century. Now, North Korea is frantically working to develop nuclear weapons to go on top of their ballistic missiles, even though they can't feed their population. So, offering the way we handled Korea as being a good way to settle Iraq is woefully ignorant at best, and dishonestly disingeneous at worst.

When I hear Webb mention that the Dems will "show [us] the way" I think about how they showed us the way out of Vietnam... and that way led over killing fields strewn with millions upon millions of bodies. Or, how they showed us the way out of Somalia... and that way led to an emboldened Al Qaeda and increasingly effective terrorist attacks against us culminating on 9/11. We've seen the Democratic way, and it doesn't lead to peace and stability. It leads to war and instability because the Democratic way tells our enemies that we can be attacked with impunity.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: the "cut-and-runners" believe that there's no way we can win in Iraq, there's no way we could win, and that we've already lost so we might as well cut our losses and get out now. This begs the question of why is it that the US can never win a war anymore while the our dilapidated and rag-tag enemies are inevitably victorious? Why is it that the most powerful nation in the history of the world can't win a war, while the weakest and most disorganized states can never lose? Why is it that Ethiopia can completely rout the Islamists in Somalia in a couple of weeks but we can't rout them in Iraq in three years? The answer is obvious... different rules of engagements. We can't win, these people believe, because they can't bring themselves to do what it takes to win.

I used to think James Webb was a smart man. Now, I wonder if he really did learn anything from Vietnam, or is he just embittered and angry and looking for someone or something to, as we rednecks say, whup up on. That's not what the country needs now. Why don't people realize this?

The State of the Union

George Bush gave one of the best speeches of his presidency tonight. It was cogent, coherent, and well-delivered. The question is, was it well-received? Only the pollsters know... maybe.

Watching his speech tonight via a live Internet video stream, I was struck by the reactions of the various members of the audience in the House chamber, especially to Bush's statement of "Whatever the people voted for, they didn't vote for failure [in Iraq]." Unfortunately, the Democrats seem to be circling like sharks smelling blood in the water, Bush's blood. They think he's fatally wounded (and he may be), but Bush isn't giving up yet. "Lame duck" status is a matter of perception, and Bush has the advantage of strength of character; he really doesn't care what people think of him as long as he believes he is on the right path. So... regardless of whether Bush's positions on the issues have merit, too many of his opponents will seek to act in whatever manner gains them the most political advantage whether or not the country is helped or hurt.

I also watched the Democratic response, given by Senator James Webb. Now, I have been a Jim Webb fan ever since I read "Fields of Fire" and especially "A Sense of Honor" while I was an NROTC midshipman. I thought George Allen's attack on Webb based upon the father/son scene in "Lost Soldiers" was pathetic; it cost Allen the election as it should have. However, James Webb the Senator is not as impressive as James Webb the author, or James Webb the Vietnam-era Marine war hero. In many ways it seems he has become the type of politician he reviled in "Something To Die For" when he pontificates on the mistakes that were made as "reckless" instead of acknowledging that mistakes are the "friction of war" as von Clausewitz noted.

Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. Two years later, it's blindingly obvious what should have been done in the aftermath of the Iraq War; declare martial law, clamp down on Iraq as we did in post-WWII Germany and Japan, set up the country as a US protectorate and get the civil institutions up and running before we turned Iraq back over to its citizens. However, at the time, there was little popular support for a long occupation just as after the Clinton Administration there were insufficient numbers of troops to successfully fully occupy Iraq while meeting our commitments across the globe. More important, what is accomplished by continually harping on our mistakes and publicly threatening the Administration with a Congressional fight over the war? Yes, I know it's good for partisan political advantage, but is it good for the country? Imagine how much harder it would have been for FDR to fight World War II if the Republicans had continually pointed out the mistakes that were made, from failing to reinforce Wake Island, to letting the Philippines fall, to the disasters in the Solomon Islands, Anzio, etc. We would not have won that war in this political climate.

Do I think the surge in Iraq will work? Evidently both Al Qaeda and al Sadr do; the former has evacuated Baghdad knowing that to stand and fight means losing, the latter is desperately trying anything and everything to avoid the coming smackdown. The problem I have with the Democrats and their views on the surge is, as John Kerry so aptly put it, they were for it until they were against it. There is no reason to the Democratic opposition to Bush's plans, unless one considers it acceptable to seek partisan advantage by any means necessary regardless of the troops it endangers and the harm it does to the country.

The Republicans lost the Congress because they failed to live up to their campaign promises and took their constituencies for granted. "Where else are they going to go?" was the attitude. The Republican leadership knew that most conservatives wouldn't vote for liberal Democrats. What they forgot is that their base might not go anywhere and choose to stay home and not vote at all. This is what happened in 2006; the Republican turnout was very light while the Democratic base showed up at the polls and voted. The same thing happened in 1992, with the same results (the GOP lost everything). However, I don't think 2006 portends a continuance of Democratic Congressional rule after 2008. Just as they did in 1992, the Democrats are well on their way of reminding the voters why they were kicked out in the first place, and we all know what happened in 1994.

Despite their missteps and blunders, the Republicans have brought the country a long way from where it was in 2000, from the start of a recession with an administration that refused to face the oncoming economic and terrorist storms. We weathered the recession and 9/11, and the country is stronger with more jobs, a better economy, and reduced deficits. The terrorists who were gaining strength in 2000 have been largely obliterated and the few that are left are hiding in holes in remote regions of the world. Most of us no longer worry about terrorist attacks on our country, and that goes a long way to explain why Democrats won (we don't se the threat). But our troubles and travails aren't over yet, despite wishful thinking on the part of the majority of Americans.

So, the State of the Union is that we are both stronger, and blinder, than we have been in a long time. We have a president who still believes we are threatened, and not only does the opposition disagree but many from his own party are starting to distance themselves as well.

Who's right? Unfortunately, I think we'll find out sooner rather than later.

Winter Windstorm Aftermath

It was no Hurricane Katrina, but the worst winter storm in more than a decade hit us last Thursday evening, eventually turning out the lights on more than 1.5 million people in the Pacific Northwest.

You don't realize how much modern society depends upon electricity until you are forced to do without it for several days. It looks like our power won't be on until at least tomorrow (Monday) and perhaps even Tuesday, and many people have been told that it will be until after Christmas. We who are without power are not the unluckiest ones; several people were killed by falling trees.

The picture to the left shows a house in our subdivision that was hit by a falling tree. Luckily, no one was hurt but the house was extensively damaged. The woman who lived there with her family had arranged to have the remaining trees on her lot removed. She told me that the falling tree had hit her children's rooms and scared everyone to death, and that she was cutting every tree on their lot down. "It's going to look like a desert." I can't say that I blame her.

Why do so many trees fall? The Pacific Northwest's ubiquitous evergreen is the fir tree, and these trees have evolved to survive in thickly-timbered forests. The root systems of these trees goes maybe a foot into the ground, but spreads out to the diameter of the widest limbs... wide but shallow. Fir trees survive windstorms because a grove of them have interlocking roots so each helps support the other. However, all bets are off when people come along and thin out the trees in order to put things like houses and roads and powerline right-of-ways.

The reason we are without power for so long is shown, to the right. The high voltage feeder lines that run into the area substation were knocked out by several falling trees in a quarter-mile stretch. The damage was extensive; a couple of poles will need to be replaced and several of the feedlines will need to be re-rigged. This will take a couple of days and only started this morning.

The strategy for coping with widespread power outages is to go for effectiveness... make the quick fixes that will restore power to the most people with the least amount of work. The harder problems, or those that affect fewer people, are handled later.

Our problem is a time-consuming mess, and affects a few thousand people, so it had to wait while the easier or more wide-reaching problems were taken care of first.

Even though this is an inconvenience, it does point out some things I need to add to the emergency kit. The number one item is going to be a generator, followed by an electric cooler. The food in the fridge was the first thing to go; opening the door on Friday morning quickly let the cold air out and the milk spoiled by the evening. We have natural gas, but the furnace is useless without the blower motor, so the second thing is to get an electrician to set up the breaker panel so we can run a few things off of the generator. It would be nice to be able to do a couple loads of laundry, or run the dishwasher, or watch the television, and we don't need to do everything at once.

This was a good wake-up call, for those of us who are only inconvenienced. My condolences go out to those who fared worse.

On Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

This article was inspired by a fellow blogger's post about her latest present.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on knife fighting (far from it). But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

In all the hoopla about the utility of guns, particularly handguns, for self-defense, many seem to forget about knives.

We've all heard the old saw about "bringing a knife to a gunfight" as a warning about being outgunned, as it were. However, knives do have a place in one's defensive armory, and every professional man-at-arms that I know carries a knife at all times. Especially when they can't carry a gun.

Knives have many characteristics that make them as good, or perhaps even better, than a gun for close-range self-defense. These include:

• A knife never runs out of ammo
• A knife never jams (especially a fixed-blade knife)
• A knife is quiet
• A knife is scary, because everyone has been cut and we all know it hurts
• A knife is seen by many as not as dangerous as it truly is, making its possession less threatening to the general public

Knives has some disadvantages, as well:

• You must be within arm's reach to strike your opponent
• Using a knife effectively requires a modicum of training (as much as a basic handgun course)
• Most people find that stabbing or cutting an attacker to be much harder from a psychological viewpoint than shooting an attacker, because knife fighting is up close, personal, and brutal
• You will get bloody, even if you don't get injured
• If the other person also has a knife, you both will be cut; the winner just gets cut less.

In other words, if you intend to use a knife as one element of your self-defense plan, then you need to be tactically and psychologically prepared to have a reasonable chance of success.

While the use of the sword reached its peak in Renaissance-era Spain, the development of knife fighting techniques and tactics reached its zenith in the Phillipines during the first part of this century when, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent suppression of the Moro Rebellion, practitioners of Escrima, the Filipino martial art of armed and unarmed combat, traveled, interacted, and competed thus exposing each subgroup's unique techniques to examination and adaptation by all. During four centuries of Spanish rule, the open practice and instruction of Escrima was punishable by death. As a result, Escrima practitioners trained with sticks of varying lengths, first as a substitute to knives and swords and later in addition to them as the utility and effectiveness of stick fighting became apparent. The real beauty of the style is its superficial simplicity and adaptability of the techniques to swords, knives, and the empty hand; a true Escrima master is always armed.

Escrima spread to the Hawaiian Islands and then to the US West Coast via Filipino workers, where it was generally only taught to persons of Filipino descent. Eventually, the style was learned by dedicated Western martial artists.

An Escrima master is someone that you certainly don't want to anger. The speed and skill of a true master is extremely scary, and very effective. Take, for instance, the elderly Filipino man who was accosted by a gang of youths who attempted to rob him a few years ago. When the police arrived, they found one innocuous-looking unharmed old man with a bloody pocket knife, and a half-dozen bleeding youths, each bearing numerous assorted painful yet superficial knife wounds. The old man was arrested and charged, but was found not guilty at his trial by a judge who couldn't fathom how a slight aged senior citizen could defeat several juvenile delinquents with extensive violent criminal records. Before letting the old man go, the judge asked for, and received, a short demonstration of Escrima from the old man in open court, and acquitted him after realizing that the master could have easily killed all of his attackers if he so chose.

So, bringing a knife to a gunfight isn't always a losing strategy... especially if your opponent doesn't realize that you have a knife, and you can lure him close enough to eliminate the advantages of a gun. Tactics, not weapons, win fights.

The Final Solution: Will It Be Ours, or Theirs?

We're never going to have peace in the Middle East until we get rid of the problem.

That means getting rid of present-day Syria and Iran, the financial and logistical supporters of terrorism in the Middle East and the world.

That means killing the leadership of these two countries, and anyone else who just doesn't get it.

That means actively helping Israel hunt down and kill Nasrallah and his Hezbollah henchmen hiding like cockroaches.

That means killing Hezbollah fighters. No quarter asked or given.

The US should use Syria's continued support for insurgents and terrorists who kill American in Iraq as the cassus belli and do a little dance on Damascus.

If we're lucky, Iran will honor its mutual defense pact with Syria, and we can go there and rearrange the furniture, B2-style. But, I think the Iranian mouth has written a check its ass can't cash. A couple of days after we went into Syria, sitting in Baby Assad's former throne, the Iranians would be scared shitless, cringing in fearful anticipation of the upcoming bitchslap. They wouldn't be talking very tough then.

Could the US and Israel do this? Militarily, yes. Who's going to stop us? Not the mullahs. Not the Russians... they'd probably take the opportunity to smack Chechnya. Not the Chinese. They're not going to get started in a war they can't win.

I'd tell you who'd stop this, though. The American Left. There'd be screams about impeachment, massive (paid) protests by International ANSWER and their fellow-travelers, and of course the media would happily equate Bush with Hitler.

Never mind, of course, that the course of action described above IS going to happen... it's just a question of when, not if. And, the longer we wait, the readier they'll be and the harder it will be.

It's 1938 all over again. Except the starting gun isn't going to be the invasion of Poland. It's going to be a mushroom cloud over a Western metropolis.

Casus Belli

While most in the West have been going about their business, enjoying the summer, and generally living their lives, momentous happenings have occurred in the Middle East.

The Iranians, having stalled for as long as they could, have finally run out of time diplomatically. The US-led diplomatic efforts to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions has reached an impasse due to Iranian intransigence, and the European powers have finally admitted that the matter must move to the UN Security Council and sanctions imposed on Iran.

The Iranians know that at the end of the day they'll lose in the UN, despite the assurances of their Russian and Chinese protectors. Therefore, anything must be done to move the story of Iran and its nuclear weapons program off of the world stage. Anything, that is, except stopping their development of nuclear weapons.

So, the puppetmasters start pulling the strings. North Korea launches numerous mid- and long-range ballistic missiles in an impromptu test. Hamas terrorists dig a tunnel under the border with Israel, attack an Israeli army outpost, and kidnap a soldier, dragging him back through the tunnel into Gaza and into hiding, and Hamas spokesmen claim responsibility, offering to trade him for hundreds of Hamas terrorists that Israel has imprisoned. Israel launches a massive military strike into Gaza, destroying Hamas-occupied Palastinian government offices, destroying infrastructure, and dividing the territory, as they search for their missing soldier.

The Israelis have tried bargaining with the Palestinians, and that didn't work. They've tried disengagement, withdrawing from Gaza and building a wall to separate the two sides, and that didn't work. The Palestinians, or enough of them, don't want peace or coexistence; they want to look out over the Mediterranean and see miles of Jewish corpses floating in the surf, and that is clearly untenable to Israel. I believe that Israel is going to try their only remaining option: killing enough angry Palestinians so that the rest are frightened enough to leave Israel alone. After all, what have they got to lose?

Iran, unprepared for the scale of Israeli operations against Hamas, and besieged by calls for assistance from its Hamas proxies, instructs Hezbollah, its proxies in Lebanon to conduct a similar operation on the Israeli-Lebanon border, which proves equally successful in that two Israeli soldiers are kidnapped and brought back into Lebanon and eight are killed. The escalation is designed to force Israel into diverting some of its forces from Gaza where Hamas is hard-pressed... but again Iran miscalculates. Israel has already mobilized considerable reserves, and these are unleashed against Lebanon while the pressure is increased in Gaza.

Iran has also miscalculated world opinion. Arab countries, after their pro-forma criticism of Israel, hold Iran and Syria and their terrorist proxies primarily responsible for the outbreak of hostilities. In Lebanon, most blame the incidents on Hezbollah and support for disarming the Iranian- and Syrian-backed terrorist group grows both inside and outside the government. The Lebanese have few illusions about the capabilities and will of the Israelis especially after such a provocation, and wish to have no part of war with Israel.

In Europe, support for Palestine is tepid, and most countries condemn Hamas for starting the conflict. The US, under George Bush, issues a terse statement holding Syria and Iran directly responsible for the crisis. The message to Israel is unspoken but clear: there will be no consequences for destroying Hamas and Hezbollah.

Make no mistake: this is a very dangerous time for the world. Hamas and Hezbollah will be devastated. Syria will see Hamas- and Hezbollah offices, and the homes of leaders, bombed. Syria is defenseless against Israeli air attack, and the Israeli Army would be in Damascus within days should the Israelis launch a ground attack. The Iranians realize this, and have warned Israel that any attacks against Syria would result in an Iranian counterstrike. However, Israel already believes itself to be under attack by Iran thru its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies, and the recent rocket attack against Haifa is believed to be the result of Iranian rockets launched by Iranian Revolutionary Guards units located in Lebanon. Israel will do what it believes is necessary to end the threat of Hamas and Hezbollah once and for all, and that will most likely include at least air attacks on Damascus targeted at Hezbollah leaders.

What will Iran do? Expect to see further escalation, perhaps by North Korea, perhaps in Iraq (al Sadr is Iran's proxy here). This crisis is the result of another miscalculation on its part; Iran truly thinks that the civilian populations of Israel and the West are timid, the leadership is politically constrained, and therefore we are unable to respond effectively. As to why Iran believes this, we have only to look at our own press and the attacks against the current Administration by the Democrats. Iran believes that Western media sentiment reflects popular sentiment and this popular sentiment, especially in America, has politically damaged George Bush to the extent that it has removed his ability to respond military to any threats, in the same way that popular sentiment crippled Lyndon Johnson and removed the US's ability to respond effectively on a strategic level against North Vietnam. Iran believes wrongly.

Most wars are started by miscalculations; one side believes that the other won't fight and so it escalates in an attempt to achieve its goals via intimidation. When the other party escalates similarly, the first party continues until the first blow is struck. By that time it is too late: both sides are committed to a course of action which involves fighting which continues until the conflict is resolved. Hitler didn't think the West would fight for Poland; Japan didn't think the US had the stomach to fight after the blow struck at Pearl Harbor; Saddam didn't think the US would respond military to his invasion of Kuwait, or to his refusal to comply with UN resolutions. Oops.

The Iranians didn't think the Israelis would fight, and they don't believe the US will, either, hence their clumsy attempts at intimidation. What will they do when, shortly, Israel destroys their proxies and kills its leaders, and then punishes Syria for its hand in the attacks? They will be facing considerable loss of prestige and power, and the eradication of two decades worth of work as the terrorist organizations they've invested considerable amounts of time and money are destroyed. They may even face attack from Israel, which may decide to strike Iran's nuclear sites as retaliation for Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Count on this happening if Israel has solid proof of direct Iranian attacks against it. And, the Israelis may get help in their strikes via the use of Iraqi airspace for refueling... and perhaps even US airbases in Iraq.

The Iranians, seeing the rest of the Moslem world through their malevolent eyes, overestimate the hatred of Israel and the US throughout the Middle East. They believe that if Israel and/or the US strikes Iran, fellow Moslems will arise by the millions to declare jihad against the Great and Lesser Satans. In their hatred of us, they overlook the fact that most of the Middle East, unlike Iran, is Arab, and that there is a considerable level of animosity against Persian Iran by its Arab neighbors. The Iraqis especially, both Shia and Sunni, have no love for their Iranian neighbors. If Israel or the US is legitimately provoked to strike Iran as a response to aggression, most Arabs will rationalize it away as "They deserved it." Iran is on its own here.

Machiavelli wrote, "Never do your enemy a small harm" and "If you go to stab the king, make sure that you kill him." The warning here was to finish what you start, because it is very dangerous to act so as to leave a slightly wounded and greatly angered enemy. This is the situation we face with Iran today. We need to finish what we start. We need to stab our foe, and ensure that he is dead. We need to realize that Iran is the heart of the terrorism problem against the US, the West, and the rest of the world. We need to cut out this heart, or put a stake through it, and end the threat once and for all.

And we need to do it sooner rather than later, before Iran gets nukes.

See this for more on Iran

A Quick Note to the Netroots

You guys are nuts.

Let me rephrase that; you guys are perfectly, splendidly, logical... but your worldview is hopelessly skewed. Your worldview doesn't comport with reality, but you keep insisting that you're right and reality is wrong.

In your worldview, 'facts' like everyone wanting to get US troops out of Iraq ASAP, people think that war profiteering is a huge problem, the economy sucks, etc., are valid reasons why people will overwhelmingly arise and throw the Republican scoundrels out. Unfortunately, for you, the majority of voters don't agree with your 'facts' and see things a little differently.

Why have the Dems gone from running every branch of government to running nothing in a decade? Because the majority of Americans have seen the Dems govern... and didn't like it. Make that "were deathly afraid of it."

Between Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate, the American voter has seen a party that is indecisive, delusional, myopic... a party that thinks that having good thoughts and good intentions is all that matters. A party that truly thinks that issues like North Korea were better when the Dems ruled... and did nothing. A party that thinks Bush is a greater evil, and a greater threat, to America than bin Laden. A party that, when at the reins of power, ignored bin Laden and Hussein and any other problem it could because dealing with those problems might make some people uncomfortable. A party that views leadership as merely the ability to take a poll, gauge public opinion, and then run to get in front of it. Even worse, a party that uses loaded questions and skewed polls and the 'bandwagon' approach ('most right-thinking people believe we should do X', so come join us!') on everything from gun control to tax policy to education to whether lying under oath is perjury (yes for Scooter Libby, no for Bill Clinton) to the Iraq War to manipulate the voters. The American voter has seen how the Democrats operate, and he doesn't like it.

Face it: your party is in denial. The American voter may be somewhat disappointed in Bush, but perhaps that disappointment isn't that he's gone too far... but that he hasn't gone far enough. The American voter wasn't upset about Abu Graib. Heck, worse happens in San Francisco on a Saturday night. The American voter isn't upset about Guantanamo, he's upset that we let these bastards live instead of killing them on the battlefield as the Geneva Convention specifically allows. The American voter isn't upset about going to war in Iraq, he's wondering why we're not kicking Iran's butt. The American voter isn't upset because the Bush Administration immigration plan is too tough, he's upset because it's too lax.

You guys all hang around together, and talk to each other, and you all agree... but that doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with you. Get out, travel, and hang with people who DON'T normally associate with you. Maybe then you'll understand that, unlike the '90s when Democratic power was at its peak, the American voter isn't going to buy your nonsensical talking points.

Maybe then you'll start to understand why a Dem majority just isn't going to happen until the Democratic Party leadership changes, and definitely not towards the netroots.