Pistols at Dawn

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. I find it amazing that Burr was Vice-President at the time of the duel. Remember the hullabaloo the media made when VP Cheney accidentally shot his friend? Can you imagine Cheney shooting someone in a duel!

Anyway, I came across this kind of long but very interesting article on dueling on the PBS site and thought I would post it in honor of the Hamilton-Burr Duel anniversary.

The History of Dueling in America


The fatal duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr shocked the nation. But it was the identity of the man killed, not the fact of the duel itself, that produced such dismay. By 1804, dueling had become an American fixture. And for another thirty years or more, its popularity would continue to grow.

Like many early American customs, dueling was imported. Starting in the Middle Ages, European nobles had defended their honor in man-to-man battles. An early version of dueling was known as "judicial combat," so called because God allegedly judged the man in the right and let him win. In an era known for its bloody encounters, judicial combats probably prevented men from killing in the heat of passion. Still, numerous authorities, including heads of state and the Catholic Church, banned dueling -- with little effect.

In 1777, a group of Irishmen codified dueling practices in a document called the Code Duello. The Code contained 26 specific rules outlining all aspects of the duel, from the time of day during which challenges could be received to the number of shots or wounds required for satisfaction of honor. An Americanized version of the Code, written by South Carolina Governor John Lyde Wilson, appeared in 1838. Prior to that, Americans made do with European rules.

In a typical duel, each party acted through a second. The seconds' duty, above all, was to try to reconcile the parties without violence. An offended party sent a challenge through his second. If the recipient apologized, the matter usually ended. If he elected to fight, the recipient chose the weapons and the time and place of the encounter. Up until combat began, apologies could be given and the duel stopped. After combat began, it could be stopped at any point after honor had been satisfied.

Edward Doty and Edward Lester, of the Massachusetts colony, fought the first recorded American duel in 1621, just a year after the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth. Armed with swords, both men sustained minor wounds. A unique aspect of this duel was that Doty and Leicester were servants. For the most part, only gentlemen dueled.

Most duelists chose guns as their weapons. The large caliber, smoothbore flintlock pistols Hamilton and Burr used in their encounter typified the American dueling weapons. Many American men owned a pair of such pistols, and, from about 1750 to 1850, many were called to use them.

The chance of dying in a pistol duel was relatively slim. Flintlocks often misfired. And even in the hands of an experienced shooter, accuracy was difficult. Generally, pistols had to be discharged within three seconds; to take aim for a longer time period was considered dishonorable.

In an 1802 duel, DeWitt Clinton was challenged by John Swartwout, a friend of Aaron Burr. Swartwout accused Clinton of trying to ruin Burr with political smears. The men exchanged five rounds. After each round, as the code provided, seconds encouraged the combatants to mend their differences. Clinton adamantly refused to sign a letter of apology. Swartwout, despite being shot in the thigh and ankle, refused to quit. Unwilling to continue shooting at a wounded man, an exasperated Clinton left the field. Surgeons standing at the ready tended Swartwout's wounds.

In America, duels were fought by men from all walks of life. But many of America's most important citizens defended their honor on the dueling grounds. Button Gwinnet, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, was shot down by General Lachlan McIntosh in a duel. Commodore Stephen Decatur of the United States Navy, an experienced duelist, died at the hands of another commodore, James Barron. And Abraham Lincoln narrowly averted a battle with swords by apologizing to an Illinois state official he had ridiculed in a local newspaper.

Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were among the most prominent Americans to condemn dueling. Franklin called duels a "murderous practice…they decide nothing." And Washington, who undoubtedly needed all the good soldiers he could get, congratulated one of his officers for refusing a challenge, noting that "there are few military decisions that are not offensive to one party or another."

Religious and civic officials worked hard to stop duels. But diatribes such as Reverend Mason Weems' illustrated pamphlet "God's Revenge Against Dueling" did little to change public sentiment. Anti-dueling ordinances also failed to stop the flow of blood. Duelists ignored or evaded such laws. In fact, the most popular dueling ground in America was at Bladensburg, Maryland, near the nation's capital. Dueling was banned in Washington, but not in Maryland, which was a short carriage ride away. Irate legislators could simply shuttle out to Bladensburg and fire at will.

Due to the partisan nature of their work, politicians frequently received challenges -- as did newspaper editors and attorneys. As a young man, attorney Andrew Jackson, future president of the United States, earned a reputation as a formidable duelist. His honor suffered, however, after a duel against Charles Dickinson in 1806.

Dickinson fired his pistol, slightly wounding Jackson. Jackson's weapon misfired -- which according to dueling rules counted as a shot. Technically, the duel should have ended there. But Jackson coldly pulled his hammer back again and fired, this time killing Dickinson. In the eyes of many, Jackson's behavior amounted to little more than murder.

By the time of Hamilton and Burr's deadly encounter, dueling had begun to decline -- at least in the North. In the South, where the chivalrous novels of Walter Scott held sway, dueling remained the preferred way to defend one's honor -- or even to commit murder. A jilted lover need only wait for a rival's insult, or even manufacture one. He was then free to challenge and kill the rival without condemnation.

Some men -- accurate shots in particular -- practically made careers of the duel. Among these men was Alexander McClung, who once killed an opponent at over 100 feet with a smoothbore pistol. This remarkable shot -- and subsequent killings at shorter distances -- honed McClung's fearful reputation. Yet it was said that he was haunted by the ghosts of his victims, and maybe this was so. The last man McClung killed with a pistol was himself, in 1855.

For every man who gloried in the duel, there were many others who feared it. A word or two passed in private company on a Friday night could well mean a challenge on Saturday morning and death on Sunday. Avoiding a challenge wasn't easy. Particularly in the South, where men who refused to duel would be "posted." A statement accusing them of cowardice would be hung in public areas or published in a newspaper or pamphlet.

When Congressman John Randolph of Virginia refused to meet General James Wilkinson in a duel, a furious Wilkinson posted him. The post declared "In justice to my character I denounce to the world John Randolph, a member of Congress, as a prevaricating, base, calumniating scoundrel, poltroon, and coward." Wilkinson, a co-conspirator in Aaron Burr's treason plot, had little character to damage. Randolph lost little by his posting.

By the time of the Civil War, dueling had begun an irreversible decline, even in the South. Not surprisingly, public opinion, not legislation, caused the change. What once had been a formal process designed to avoid violence and amend grievances had deteriorated into cold-blooded murder. People at last were shocked by it, and they showed their disdain. It may have been too late to save Alexander Hamilton. But if American was to become a truly civilized nation, the publicly sanctioned bloodshed would have to end.

From the 'Tell Me Something I Don't Know Files'

Saw the headline for this story on Opinion Journal's 'Best of the Web' column:

French are rudest, most boring people on earth: British poll May 20 3:00 AM US/Eastern

The French have been voted the world's most unfriendly nation by a landslide in a new British poll published. They were also voted the most boring and most ungenerous.

A decisive 46 percent of the 6,000 people surveyed by travellers' website Where Are You Now (WAYN) said the French were the most unfriendly nation people on the planet, British newspapers reported.

The Germans have no to reason to celebrate the damning verdict. They came second on all three counts.

WAYN's French founder, Jerome Touze, told the papers he had been stunned by the thumping condemnation of his compatriots and sought to blame it on Gallic love-struck sulking.

"I had no idea that the French would emerge as such an unfriendly country," he said.

"I think our romantic 'moodiness' is misunderstood and I will be sure to pass on the message to my family and friends back in France to be a bit more cheerful to tourists in the future."

Italy was voted the world's most cultured nation with the best cuisine, while the United States was named the most unstylish with the worst food.

The British did not feature in the top 10 of any of the categories.

"The British fit in nowhere -- good or bad. It appears that we are so completely average that the voters did not include us in any category," the tabloid Daily Express commented.

"And to our shame, four percent of respondents -- all British of course -- said they would only talk to other Britons when they are abroad."

This unwillingness to talk to the locals appears to go hand in hand with respondents' perceptions of foreigners.

While most said Spain was the foreign country where they would most like to live, they said the Spaniards were nearly as unfriendly and ungenerous as the French.

To add insult to injury, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph put the boot in on Saturday by saying in an editorial that the French stank.

"The French may like to think that Chanel No 5 is their scent but we all know that garlic and stale Gitanes are much more representative."

Howls of Indignation from Liberal Catholics

Here is a "great"(more accurately -- grate) editorial from the liberal National Catholic Reporter that I came across via Seattle Catholic. It makes for some very interesting reading -- if you can stomach the whining and spitefulness -- as you can see how these liberal Catholics view the "battle" over liturgical translations from their side of the barricade.

What's most telling is their heavy use of perjorative, emotionally-loaded words, e.g., "tactics used to reverse the reforms [of Vatican II] ... were secretive and engineered by people incompetent in the discipline and accountable only to a small group who had achieved power." Wow, they sure are gracious in defeat! :-)

Apart from the amusement in reading this piece, it is also instructive to note that, like most liberals, the editors at the National Catholic Reporter are never willing to admit defeat. They see this as only a setback (albeit a significant one) in their battle to rewrite Scripture and liturgical texts in feel-good inclusive language. Note how the editors offer some friendly advice on what to do next:

In service of that Gospel [really -- more like in service to your self-absorbed ego], there are numerous possibilities for moving ahead on this issue now that it has been decided [Hmm. How does one "move forward" if the matter has "been decided"? Methinks you don't really think the matter has been decided]. One of the most important considerations will be acknowledging the mistakes of the past. Yes, even though one might agree with the general direction and processes of liturgical reform since Vatican II does not mean one automatically agrees with every word translated or, God knows for certain, every song sung.

What will be most important is the manner and degree of educating -- catechesis -- that is done regarding the new translations and why things are changing [here's the plan (and it's worked so well in the past) get liberals in influential positions (DRE's, liturgists, etc.), and dismiss, belittle, sabotage and undermine the Magisterium].

We hope that the educating is user-friendly, pragmatic as well as theoretical and theological. Most of all, we hope professional liturgists and practitioners are brought in as full partners in the preparation of teaching materials and in the implementation of the new translations.

Finally, we suspect that the way forward will also include accommodating those who simply refuse to go along and will stand in place and continue to use the same language they’ve been using for decades. Our suspicion is that God will not be terribly upset by a little show of resistance. [Sure. Just like the liberals "accomodated" traditionalists who loved the Latin Mass, "refused to go along" with the deconstruction of the Mass and "continued to use the same language they'd been using" for centuries! I can't speak for God, but I seem to recall that liberals in the Church hierarchy were more than a little upset by those "little shows of resistance". What rank hypocrisy.]

Internet Urban Legends

Urban legends have been around for decades. However, the growth of e-mail and the internet gave a whole new impetus to urban legends. With these new technologies, urban legends could be disseminated to dozens, hundreds and even thousands of people instantly, and posted on web sites to be viewed and re-disseminated by millions.

Here are a couple of the early internet urban legends that I recall seeing. Both make for some good humorous reading.

JATO Rocket Car

You all know about the Darwin Awards - it's the annual honor given to the person who did the gene pool the biggest service by killing themselves in the most extraordinarily stupid way. Last year's winner was the fellow who was killed by a Coke machine which toppled over on top of him as he was attempting to tip a free soda out of it.

And this year's nominee is:

The Arizona Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering metal embedded into the side of a cliff rising above the road at the apex of a curve. the wreckage resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it was a car. The type of car was unidentifiable at the scene. The lab finally figured out what it was and what had happened.

It seems that a guy had somehow gotten hold of a JATO unit (Jet Assisted Take Off - actually a solid fuel rocket) that is used to give heavy military transport planes an extra 'push' for taking off from short airfields. He had driven his Chevy Impala out into the desert and found a long, straight stretch of road. Then he attached the JATO unit to his car, jumped in, got up some speed and fired off the JATO!

The facts, as best could be determined, are that the operator of the 1967 Impala hit JATO ignition at a distance of approximately 3.0 miles from the crash site. This was established by the prominent scorched and melted asphalt at that location. The JATO, if operating properly, would have reached maximum thrust within five seconds, causing the Chevy to reach speeds well in excess of 350 MPH, continuing at full power for an additional 20-25 seconds. The driver, soon to be pilot, most likely would have experienced G-forces usually reserved for dog-fighting F-14 jocks under full afterburners, basically causing him to become insignificant for the remainder of the event. However, the automobile remained on the straight highway for about 2.5 miles (15-20 seconds) before the driver applied and completely melted the brakes, blowing the tires and leaving thick rubber marks on the road surface, then becoming airborne for additional 1.4 miles and impacting the cliff face at a height of 125 feet, leaving a blackened crater 3 feet deep in the rock.

Most of the driver's remains were not recoverable; however, small fragments of bone, teeth and hair were extracted from the crater, and fingernail and bone shards were removed from a piece of debris believed to be a portion of the steering wheel.

Smithsonian Barbie

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities

Bean Counting

Real Clear Politics is a great site; it not only collects and posts a number of good articles, it also does a great job of tracking different political races, polls, etc. One race that is near and dear to me is the upcoming House election for my district (the IL 8th). Here is a recent post from RCP's blog and bad news for the Dem incumbent Melissa Bean.

More Bad News For Bean

Last month Melissa Bean's reelection bid in the 8th Congressional District in Illinois hit a rather sizeable bump in the road when the state AFL-CIO refused to endorse her - political payback for her vote in favor of CAFTA last year.

Now comes word that third-party candidate Bill Scheurer has made it onto the ballot in November. Scheurer is a lay minister and "progressive" peace activist who ran against Bean in the 2004 Democratic primary, winning 22% of the vote. Adding insult to injury, it turns out that Scheurer made it onto the ballot with the help of labor unions, which provided volunteers to help him collect signatures and have also donated more than $30,000 to his campaign this year.

A third-party progressive candidate with even minimal union backing is bad news for Bean, who is in a competitive race with Republican Dave McSweeney to hold onto the seat she took from Phil Crane in 2004. Illinois-8 is a decidedly Republican-leaning district (Cook Partisan Voting Index R+5), so if Scheurer manages to siphon off even a couple of points from Bean it could prove lethal.

On the plus side for Bean: she ran unopposed in the primary and is flush with close to $2 million cash-on-hand while McSweeney is essentially broke after spending more than $2.4 million (the vast majority of which came from his own personal fortune) to outlast a crowded primary field. McSweeney has been bringing in Republican dignitaries left and right - Speaker Hastert, Vice President Cheney and Rudy Giuliani all made appearances in Chicago in June - in an effort to fill his coffers and post a respectable number for the latest FEC filing.

The money race becomes all that more important now that Scheurer is on the ballot. Unless McSweeney proves to be utterly incompetent - which isn't very likely - Bean is going to need to outspend him in a big way to compensate for the vulnerabilities created by a challenge from her left and lack of union support.

Timeless Truths

"You can't hardly find a law school in the country that don't, through some inherent weakness, turn out a senator or congressman from time to time...if their rating is real low, even a president."

— Will Rogers

Some Long Term Perspective

Got this e-mail today -- a little long, but worth reading.

This is by Raymond S. Kraft, a California lawyer.

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war. Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million. Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would probably have won that war.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one. There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews. This is what they publicly say.

If the militants prevail, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

It is hard for some to see, but we have no choice here. We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again .. a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed out on 9/11.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned by 60 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is just not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

We have four options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them. The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them. Real facts, real life.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people.

The US has taken a little more than 2,000 dead in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 Killed in action a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high - a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. He feels that high school and college students need to obtain a full perspective on the world situation today - information and the real hard facts about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY. By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

Suppressing Communist Atrocities

I'm going to paste the entire article below because I think you need to subscribe to the WSJ in order to see it online so a link to it won't work.

I read this article yesterday (our Independence Day) and that's probably why it impacted me as much as it did. In addition to being a good article on the true "fruits" of the Communist system, I was equally struck by how the left in this country still tries to suppress and/or ignore the horrors that Communism inflicted on those unfortunate enough to live under a Communist regime. I can't help wondering why this exhibit isn't on a nation-wide tour at the most prominent forums. Why, instead, isn't being rolled out to a couple of out of the way sites and not promoted?

Communism was responsible for millions and millions of deaths -- and is still responsible for brutalizing people today (think China). Yet most of our cultural elites choose to ignore these "inconvenient truths".

Siberian Death Camps on Ellis Island

By BRIAN M. CARNEY
June 27, 2006; Page D6

Ellis Island, N.Y.

Tucked out of the way on the top floor of the main building here is a curious little traveling exhibit about the Soviet Gulag. On the day that I visited, no signs in the lobby of the Ellis Island Museum announced the presence of the exhibit; one happened upon it through determination or by chance, stepping with little warning from display cases devoted to the hopes of immigrants seeking freedom or opportunity in America into the hopeless deprivation and cruelty of Siberian death camps.

The Gulag exhibition is on display at the museum through July 4, after which it will travel around the country over the next two years -- to Boston; Independence, Calif.; Atlanta; and Washington. The show's title, "GULAG: Soviet Forced Labor Camps and the Struggle for Freedom," offers some hint as to why the exhibit is being housed here during its New York stop; Ellis Island is, in its own way, about the struggle for freedom. And it sits, of course, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty.

The Belomorkanal was built with the slave labor of the Gulag camps. Workers who grew too weak were killed or left to die.

In this setting, the exhibit's collection of artifacts from Gulag camps -- supplemented by a brief history, Soviet propaganda newsreels and short biographies of notable dissidents who were exiled to the Gulag at one time or another -- takes on an affecting, mesmerizing quality. The space it occupies could be tramped through in the blink of an eye. But one is invited to linger, not least by the secluded feeling up in the attic, away from the bustling main reception hall, and the sense of discovery that comes from having found the exhibit at all. Moreover, the small artifacts with which the story of the Soviet Union's system of forced-labor camps is told are strikingly effective. One display explains that spoons, cups and bowls were in such short supply that the crude and makeshift examples here on display -- made from cast-off tin cans and bits of scrap metal -- were highly prized.

Another explains that the Belomorkanal -- a slave-labor-intensive project that was hailed as a great early success of Stalinism -- was not only built by terrorized prisoners but proved useless in practice. It is only after this that one is shown the silent newsreels of the allegedly happy socialist workers building the canal, intended to connect the White Sea with the Baltic, while Stalin looks on approvingly. Experienced in this way, the cheerful-seeming newsreel shot takes on a captivating, horrifying double-meaning. From the explanatory panels elsewhere in the exhibit, a visitor now knows, watching the grainy footage, that prisoners who grew too weak to move their quota of dirt in this and other projects were routinely killed or left to die; the socialist system had no resources to waste on those who could not contribute their share.

There are also full-scale mock-ups of a Gulag prison cell and prisoners' first-hand accounts of their degrading treatment at the hands of both guards and fellow prisoners -- common criminals were sent to the Gulag along with political dissidents, and the former were often employed by the prison guards as oppressors and tormentors of the latter. As for what constitutes a political crime, we learn of a man sent into exile for scrawling an ironic remark on an allegedly secret ballot (which had, in any case, only one candidate listed). Others, we are told, might receive three years of forced labor for being thrice late to work; indolence was a crime against the people.

But then, abruptly, the spell is broken, and in a dispiriting if not alarming way. "Brutal systems have played a prominent role in many countries, including the United States," one of the exhibit's last panels tells visitors. By itself, that one clause -- "including the United States" -- would be bad enough. But the panel continues. "Although slavery ended after the American Civil War, its consequences persist. The repercussions of the Holocaust in Europe and apartheid in South Africa reverberate even today. Similarly, Russians face the legacy of the gulag. How can citizens in these countries face up to the horrors of the past?"

Just as it is the small details of the Gulag exhibit that lead one to consider the depth of the deprivation its captives endured, it is the word "similarly" that so effectively undermines what has just been shown. After all, if the Gulag is "similar" to anything in American life or history, does it teach us anything about the Soviet Union -- or about anything at all? "If you cannot distinguish between levels of evil, you are a cause of evil." Such was the astute reaction of a man whose father spent a decade in the Gulag, when confronted with this moral equivalence in the paragraph above.

DETAILS

GULAG
Ellis Island Museum
Through July 4
Exhibition then travels to Boston;
Independence, Calif.; Atlanta; and Washington.

It is certainly true that learning about evils perpetrated in other times in other countries can too easily lead to a comfortable sense of moral superiority. That can, in its own way, undo what might otherwise be a teaching moment. All the same, however, things are not all the same. If the Gulag is interesting only as a means of turning a mirror on the injustices of our own penal system, it is arguably not interesting at all. The Gulag was, and is, a reductio ad absurdum of sorts of the Soviet system itself. It was where "counterrevolutionary" elements were sent to learn the virtues of work and of collectivism, but the lesson was predominantly that of man's inhumanity to man. All prisoners were slowly starved to death, and those too weak to work were starved faster than the strongest. Thus the weak grew weaker and the strong stronger. The overwhelming impression at the heart of the Gulag exhibit is just this -- that cruel and arbitrary power lay at the heart of a system that purported to redress inequalities but instead etched them in stone.

The Soviet Union tried throughout most of its existence to forcibly prevent its citizens from seeking freedom in the West. The rest of Ellis Island tells a very different story about a quite different country and system. It's the story of a country that, for centuries, people have risked their lives to reach. No moral equivalence there.

Mr. Carney is a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

Rob Long on Al-Zarkawi

Rob Long writes a column for National Review. Here is his recent take on Al-Zarkawi's initiation into "Paradise".

ROB LONG
WELCOME TO YOUR AFTERLIFE!

Q: Why am I here exactly?

A: You are here because your work leading al-Qaeda forces in Iraq and your commitment to violent acts of terrorism encountered what we in the trade call “push back” from U.S.-led forces based in Iraq, which in turn led to the dropping of two 500-pound bombs on your “safe house” resulting in your death, and subsequent appearance here, in our Facility.

Q: You’re telling me that the infidel invaders actually got me?

A: We here in the Facility try not to use loaded, judgmental terms. Yes, you were “gotten,” but try, if you can, to shed yourself of the prejudices and categories of your past. Your time here in the Facility will be a lot more enjoyable and life-transforming if you enter into the spirit of open, loving, and all-embracing inquiry.

Q: I didn’t think that heaven was going to be like this.

A: Why don’t we table that one for a moment, if you don’t mind. Are there any other questions?

Q: Okay, I’ve got one. From here, can I see the future?

A: We get that all the time. No, you can’t see the “future,” as you put it. From our perspective, and it’s one that we STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you to adopt, there is no quote unquote future to see. As you become more acclimatized to the Facility, you’ll realize that we live here entirely in the present, allowing us to enjoy and savor each moment.

Q: This sounds a little, I don’t know, loosey-goosey.

A: Thank you!

Q: I guess I expected more pageantry, more heavenly majesty, or something.

A: Are you sure you’re not Catholic? Just kidding! No, but seriously, we try to match the Facility that you experience as closely as we can to the person you once were, but we’re also experimenting with this more austere approach, of the simple, classic waiting room with clean lines and a more Scandinavian design sense. It’s true that some people are expecting a more, I don’t know, Cirque du Soleil-ish type atmosphere, but we here in the Facility have done a great deal of research — we’ve surveyed our members and done focus groups of some key demos — and we feel that the efficiency and simplicity of this system is well worth the temporary letdown you’re feeling.

Q: Where do I go from here?

A: Once your questions are answered, you simply follow the blazing red line along the stone path until you’re greeted by our concierge, who will escort you through the premises and familiarize you with the various offerings of the Facility. Please feel free to ask any additional questions during your tour.

Q: I still can’t believe that I’m dead. I keep thinking that I’ll wake up.

A: This is a perfectly normal reaction to being killed. But we here in the Facility RECOMMEND STRONGLY that you begin to accept the fact that you are dead — absolutely and incontrovertibly — and that you will be here for eternity.

Q: What about my fallen comrades? Will I be able to see them again?

A: Undoubtedly. You will see many of them on your tour, as you pass the Lake of Fire.

Q: Lake of Fire?

A: I mean, the swimming pool.

Q: If you meant “swimming pool,” why did you say “Lake of Fire”?

A: Look, we’re running out of time. There are a lot of people left to deal with. See that line behind you? Are there any other questions I can help you with?

Q: Oh, yeah. One last one. Where are the 72 virgins?

A: Your question no doubt refers to the belief of some people that their faithful devotion will be rewarded in Paradise by the presentation of 72 virgin girls for their sexual delight.

Q: So where are they?

A: You’re not, strictly speaking, in Paradise.

Q: So no sexual delight?

A: On the contrary. There will be an unceasing, unending eternity of sexual delight, with the part of the 72 virgins played by you. The part you expected to play will be played, instead, by an enormous horned demon.

Q: Wait. There must be some mistake. Can I please speak to the —

A: Sorry. We’re out of time. Please move along. Next!

Someone Else You Should Know

“All Right, They’re On Our Left, They’re On Our Right, They’re In Front Of Us, They’re Behind Us ... They Can't Get Away This Time”

The Opinion Journal article I just posted on did not mention him (and I don't think it was a slight), but if you have a chance, I highly recommend his biography "Marine!". His name is Lewis B. Puller, commonly called "Chesty" Puller, who is the most highly decorated and one of the most legendary soldiers ever produced by the Marine Corp. However, you should check out his biography which you can get from amazon.com (or your local library).

The Founders: "A Florescence Of Wisdom, Character, Virtue And Vision That Has Not Since Been Equaled"

Here is an article worth reading from the WSJ's Opinion Journal. The author asks how the British Colonies and the American heartland of the late 1800s were able to produce such a talented, self-less group of men in the same place, at the same time in history. It's a facinating question.

Most people don't realize how unique the American revolution was. Most revolutions have common features. For example, they are initiated by outsiders who want to tear down the existing institutions. Also, they tend to be marked by a lot of violence -- during and afterwards (think of the bloodshed in the Russian Revolution after the Communists won).

The American Revolution was started by the American political and business leaders -- usually the group that is the target of the revolutionaries, not the revolutionaries themselves. Also, while (obviously) the War for Independence was violent, the aftermath was remarkably peaceful. There were only a couple of instances of violence once the new government took hold (e.g., the Whiskey Rebellion).

Anyway, back to the main point, if you get the chance, read this article. Here's an excerpt:

Like the heroes of the early Roman Republic and ancient Greece (Rome more than Greece) whom they emulated, these Americans discharged their obligations, as they understood them, by answering multiple vocations and duties, all serving a common end. They did not particularly count the cost. They were not concerned to lay up fortunes for themselves. They had small conception of what our own age calls (and is obsessed by) "stress." They were educated in the classics of ancient literature, history particularly, and in the philosophical literature of 17th- and 18th-century Europe--Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu, Hume. Many did not attend college: There were only nine universities and colleges by the end of 1776.

Yet they wrote with a grace and lucidity we cannot match. Their minds seemed clearer than ours. And they had also what was imputed to a great general of a later generation: the imaginations of engineers. They knew how to transform ideas into action, into policies and institutions.

Another Reason to Get a REAL Dog
(and not some coiffured rat)

Alligator snatches up pooch in Largo park Al Clark says the reptile attacked with amazing speed as the dog ran near the shore. He was helpless to save his pet. By LORRI HELFAND, Times Staff Writer Published June 27, 2006

	FiFi, a miniature Shih Tzu, was killed by a gator Sunday.

LARGO - FiFi and Cassidy romped through Ridgecrest Park on Sunday afternoon with their owner, Al Clark.

Cassidy, a brown-and-white Shih Tzu led the way while the pup's 8-year-old mother FiFi, a black-and-white miniature Shih Tzu, trailed behind. Clark had removed their leashes when they arrived.

Around 5:30 p.m., the three made their second lap around the freshwater lake, just about 3 feet from the shore. But as they approached the pier, Clark heard a rustle behind him.

He turned to see FiFi, his 10-pound dog, in the jaws of an 8-foot alligator. Cassidy charged toward it, but Clark scooped him up just in time. They could only watch as the gator slipped back into the rippling waters and across the lake.

"I just can't describe how fast it was," Clark said Monday.

He put Cassidy in his car and ran around the lake, looking for something with which to strike the alligator.

"I decided I'd go over and meet him," said Clark, a retired Army Airborne reservist and Vietnam War veteran.

But when Clark caught another glimpse of the gator, he knew it was too big to tackle on his own.

"If I'd had a gun I would have shot him," Clark said.

FiFi guarded her owner loyally. At 7 a.m., most mornings, she woke Clark by barking and leaping onto his bed. She followed him throughout his Indian Rocks Beach home like a shadow and snuggled on his lap practically every time he sat down.

"I'm thankful for the time I had with her. I will just remember the pleasant things," he said. "I won't remember the gator."

Clark reported the incident to a park maintenance worker, Robert Redding, who got a glimpse of the alligator later that night.

Redding, who has worked at the park for 27 years, said he's seen a number of gators there, but he doesn't recall any similar incidents.

Park officials notified the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, calling its Statewide Nuisance Alligator Program hotline. And Floyd Campbell, district supervisor of Pinellas County Parks and Recreation, said he expected a trapper at the park sometime today.

Jeanne Murphy, a park naturalist and wildlife biologist at the Pinellas County Extension, said alligators usually eat fish, snakes, large and small birds and occasionally other alligators. But she said pet owners should beware because alligators might confuse small pets for common prey.

"I would not recommend walking small dogs or even medium-size dogs along the water's edge," Murphy said.

A sign at the park with a picture of an alligator warns "do not feed or molest."

Clark said he'll never walk Cassidy at the park again. He knows how dangerous it is now.

"It's awful. It's almost like losing a kid," said Clark, a somber expression washing over his face.

Clark also mentioned that his brother Jeremiah died on the same date two years ago of leukemia.

"Now he has a dog to play with," he said.

--Lorri Helfand can be reached at 445-4155 or lorri@sptimes.com.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

C. S. Lewis