Blog Spam, Stupid Comments, and Other Annoyances

I don't moderate, delete, or necessarily read my comments. Apparently this has caused my blog to become the equivalent of my e-mail inbox, but with less emphasis on my penis, prescription drugs, or impossibly low mortgage rates below the Prime. Interest-only mortgages are nothing but rent.

I apologize for the inconvenience. Those who are spamming my blog will be hunted down, one-by-one, and liquidated. Watch your backs. Oops! I was in front of you!

I guess I should be happy some people think I get the traffic to make it worthwhile, but I don't, so it's just a pain in the ass. This blog is not a business opportunity for ME, FOOLS!

If you've made a comment even slightly related to something I posted, this message does not apply to you. Links are fine. When I'm looking for a business 'opportunity' I'll be sure to mention it.

The DSC is for heroes

Charles has linked to my blog. Welcome LGFers. You may know me as Beagle. No pressure, no pressure, no pressure....

Military City is a great website for military information.

The Army Times (not to be confused with the New York Times) carries the story.

Last November, insurgents attacked several police stations in Mosul. According to the military’s account of his actions, Coffman was with a group of Iraqi commandos moving to reinforce one police station that was under attack when insurgents ambushed them.

All but one of the commando team’s officers were killed or seriously wounded early in the fight, leaving the Iraqi officer and Coffman, an adviser to the commandos, to direct the battle.

“Coffman exhibited truly inspirational leadership, rallying the commandos and organizing a hasty defense while attempting to radio higher headquarters for reinforcements,” his award citation reads.

During the fight, Coffman was shot in his shooting hand, a shot that wrecked his weapon. But he picked up AK47s from the wounded Iraqis and kept shooting.

The battle lasted four hours, ending only after U.S. armored vehicles and air support arrived. Coffman consented to be evacuated for medical treatment only after all of the Iraqi wounded were evacuated.

Twelve Iraqi commandos were killed, as were 25 insurgents, the military said.

I often wonder what separates the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) from the Congressional Medal of Honor (CMH)? Heroism under fire is hard to measure empirically. It is clear that the CMH tends to be awarded posthumously or after critical injury. Congratulations to Col. James H. Coffman Jr. for NOT earning the CMH.

U.S. Army Decorations

Congressional Medal of Honor

b. The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

Distinguished Service Cross

b. The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a Medal of Honor; while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing or foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing Armed Force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.

How to Mismanage Statistics and Hoodwink People

The latest stench wafting from the dankest, foulest, fetid, and odious corners of the blogosphere fever swamps goes something like this:

"60% of Americans don't support President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq War."

The explanation is that Americans want the troops out. Suddenly a majority apparently believe Michael Moore's "Minutemen" (al Qaeda head-choppers) should be allowed to run roughshod over those brave Iraqis who've stood up for a chance at democracy and freedom, despite the long odds in that part of the world.

Is that the real explanation?

In a word, no. Manipulating polling data is really very simple. The first rule of manipulating polling data is to fail to distinguish types of negative responders. In all liklihood a substantial number of Americans who "don't support Bush" would favor a more robust approach to terrorism.

In recent weeks it's become clear that both Syria and Iran have funded and supported the "insurgency." That the vast majority of suicide bombers come from outside Iraq is now common knowledge to anyone who reads the news on a regular basis. To complete the third strike, troops in Afghanistan have been complaining the Pakistani border has become a safe haven for Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.

It is not hard to imagine those on the Right losing support for Bush's handling of the "War on Terror." The only way to properly fight an enemy is to take the fight to his doorstep, his turf. There is no home-field advantage in war. These "negative responders" would not favor withdrawl and surrender to the terrorists as the manipulators of the data would have you believe.

When, or if, I do a next installment on "How to Mismanage Statistics and Hoodwink People" it will be entitled "The Form of the Question: One Word Can Make the Difference."

Boo Frickin' Hoo - and more taqiyya for the masses

More Muslims Whining

First I'd like to shed some crocodile tears for the poor, victimized Muslim population which suffers the attacks of fearful looks, anger, and justifiable suspicion.

The anti-Muslim rhetoric, which has saturated public discourse, has left the impression that Islam and its followers are being targeted for annihilation.

Project much? It's the Koran which calls for Islam to dominate the world and kill all the unbelievers. Please consult Religion of Peace @ Casualties available to the left of this post.

The sure test of a Muslim lying to protect the ummah is a quote from CAIR:

As noted by Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, terrorism is not consistent with Islam, and "those who try to commit acts of terror in the name of Islam try to misinterpret and misuse certain issues in Islamic jurisprudence and have no authority or qualification except their anger."

Which is why both of Osama's fatwas (1996,1998) are filled with quotes from the Koran. This explains why Osama is the most popular man in Islam, his 'misunderstanding' of its core principles. Please. You can fool some of the people all of the time, but I'm not one of them.

I don't want Muslims dead, just not in the United States. Clear?

Islam is a totality. Islam is not a religion. We already have the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. What we don't need is sharia law, slavery, misogyny, honor killings, and lying as part of what claims to be a religion.

Just the notion of "Muslim land" is barbaric. Yet we hear this raised as a legitimate reason for killing civilians every day. Saudi money can buy a great deal of influence.

When Saudi Arabia allows a Christian church or synagogue to be built I will quit calling for the deportation of Muslims from the (still, for now) free nations of the Earth.

I'm wise to your games. The "Muslim world" means Earth to you. I'll offer you Mercury. Perhaps advanced Muslim technology (flying carpet?) will allow you to settle there peacefully. You know, not counting exterminating 'apostates' like the Shia, women who show ankle, or children who break the fast.

Sometimes the truth sneaks out despite the best efforts of self-righteous do-gooders to bury it alive

Kenyan economist blames aid for Africa famine

This might seem counterintuitive to those people who grew up in privileged societies with rule of law, material plenty, and democratic governance. But the history of aid in Africa, viewed empirically, has never alleviated famine except in the very short term. Aid to the Third World is often stolen, bartered for weapons, used as a means of control over the starving poor, or simply left to rot on the docks.

The Kenyan economist highlights another problem, the culture of dependency and corruption aid to Africa often creates.

"When aid money keeps coming, all our policy-makers do is strategize on how to get more," said the Kenya-based director of the Inter Region Economic Network, an African think tank.

"They forget about getting their own people working to solve these very basic problems. In Africa, we look to outsiders to solve our problems, making the victim not take responsibility to change."

Moving the aid can be nightmare in itself. Africa's good roads are few, and often pass through the front lines of civil wars. But Shikwati notes an additional problem: Even African countries that have food to spare can't easily share it because tariffs on agricultural products within sub-Saharan Africa average as high as 33 percent, compared with 12 percent on similar products imported from Europe.

"It doesn't make sense when they can't even allow their neighbors to feed them. They have to wait for others in Europe or Asia to help," he said. "We don't have any excuses in Africa. We can't blame nature. We have to tell our leadership to open up and get people producing food."

Nature, of course, does bear some of the blame. Recurring drought is a part of life in Africa. Farmers have learned to cope, but exploding population growth sucks up water, pasture and livestock.

Many food crises result from bad government and civil wars. For 30 years after winning independence from France, Niger was ruled by coup and military dictatorship. Now it's a peaceful multiparty democracy, but its desert is getting bigger and drought is unrelenting.

"ships loaded with anti-aircraft guns from stem to stern"

I wonder what the U.S. had in mind for the clouds of kamikazes which were sure to descend on every attempt at invasion?

The U.S.S. Oakland is a WWII anti-aircraft cruiser.

Overall U.S. Army anti-aircraft capabilities were quite good.

Although they receive little attention, US Army anti-aircraft systems were actually quite good. Their smaller tactical needs were filled with quad-mounted 50-calibre machine guns, which were often mounted on the back of a half-track to form the Half Track M16, Anti-Aircraft. Although of even less power than Germany's 20mm systems, they were at least widely available. Their larger 90mm heavy guns would prove, as did the eighty-eight, to make an excellent anti-tank gun as well, and was widely used late in the war in this role. Finally just as the war was ending a new 120mm gun with an impressive 60,000ft altitude capability was introduced, the so-called stratosphere gun, which would continue in use after the war into the 1950s.

US anti-aircraft received little attention firing at German aircraft, due obviously to U.S. dominance of the airspace from June 6, 1944 until VE day.

The mobile quad-50's were very useful against infantry and the 90mm 'anti-aircraft' was the most reliable direct fire tank killer in the US inventory.

This is the standard loadout of the Essex Class Carrier. This was the state of the art at the end of WWII.

Aircraft (average operational complement, October 1944): 90 planes, including 38 F6F day fighters, 4 F6F night fighters, 27 SB2C scout-bombers, 18 TBM torpedo planes, 3 F6F photographic planes.

Gun Armament: Twelve 5"/38 guns in four twin and four single mountings plus a large (and variable) number of 40mm and 20mm machine guns

It's likely each fleet carrier of this type, about ten, would have carried at least 50 F6F Hellcat or Corsair day fighters into the early stages of Operation Downfall. The Corsair link has a comparison between the Hellcat, Corsair, and P-47 Thunderbolt.

The USS Little is a Fletcher Class destroyer, one of many which would have been tasked with protecting the transports, carriers, and other critical high-value naval targets. This is the standard anti-aircraft load.

5x 5"38DP - Dual Purpose
4x 1.1"AA - Anti-Aircraft
4x 20MMAA - Anti-Aircraft

"Eclipse miracle" saved the USS Boyd when it was forward deployed as a screen against kamikaze suicide attackers, deadly duty. However, it was not uncommon for experienced naval gun crews to destroy incoming fighters at ranges over a thousand yards.

On the other hand...


UPDATE:


I claimed of the Essex Class aircraft carrier "This was the state of the art at the end of WWII."

Perhaps I was wrong about that. There were ten Essex Class fleet carriers in service for a potential Operation Downfall.

There were also a number of Ticonderoga Class fleet carriers available, and more coming all the time.

This is the most obvious difference:

Throughout the very large program to build Essex class aircraft carriers, modifications were constantly made. The number of 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft machine guns was greatly increased, new and improved radars were added, the original hangar deck catapult installation was deleted, the ventillation system was massively revised, details of protection were altered and hundreds of other large and small changes were executed. In fact, to the skilled observer, no two ships of the class looked exactly the same.

Beginning in March 1943, one visually very significant change was authorized for ships then in the early stages of construction. This involved reshaping the bow into a rather elegant "clipper" form to provide deck space for two 40mm quadruple gun mountings, thus greatly improving forward air defences. Thirteen ships were completed to this "long-hull", or Ticonderoga, class. Four of these were finished in 1944, in time to join their Essex class near-sisters in Pacific combat operations. The rest went into commission between early 1945 and late 1946.

That makes a potential of 23 Essex and Ticonderoga Class fleet carriers - ignoring jeep carriers, anti-sub carriers, land-based planes, and other classes of fleet carriers in operation off the shores of Japan by the end of 1946.

23 fleet carriers with 60 first line fighters of the Hellcat or Corsair variety each is not unreasonable. There was plenty of land-based bombing to allow the carriers to concentrate on killing the kamikazes.

At the kickoff of Operation Downfall that number might have been closer to 'only' fifteen fleet carriers of those two classes.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Operation Downfall

Operation Downfall (Wikipedia) was the evolving set of plans for blockading, bombing, softening, and eventually invading Japan.

Each of the home islands (casualties) would have to be taken with amphibious operations against battle-educated Japanese soldiers.**

**["From Beyond Bushido: Recent Work in Japanese Military History a symposium sponsored by the Center for East Asian Studies, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Office of International Programs, and the Departments of History and East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Kansas. Monday, February 16, 1998."]


The inevitable question, was using the atomic bomb justified?

Richard B. Frank's Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (Amazon link at atomic bomb) is a significant work in the ongoing debate over the two fateful days in nuclear warfare history, August 6th and 9th, 1945. Subsequently, the decision-making process has been scrutinized and criticized from every angle. The comparative advantage versus the comparative horror which resulted, the cold calculus of war, is a harsh reality for every commander in a total war. If dropping the bombs ended the war sooner, how much sooner, and how much more of a toll could the war have exacted on Japan and the Allies?

Downfall - From the Back Cover

Downfall opens with a vivid portrayal of the catastrophic fire raid on Tokyo in March 1945--which was to be followed by the utter destruction of almost every major Japanese city--and ends with the anguished vigil of American and Japanese leaders waiting to learn if Japan's armed forces would obey the Emperor's order to surrender.

America's use of the atom bomb has generated more heated controversy than any other event of the whole war:

Did nuclear weapons save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans poised to invade Japan?
Did U.S. leaders know that Japan was urgently seeking peace and needed only assurance about the Emperor's safety to end the war swiftly?
Was the bomb really used to intimidate the Russians?
Why wasn't the devastating power of the weapon demonstrated first before being unleashed on a city?

Richard B. Frank has brought to life these critical times, working from primary documents, reports, diaries, and newly declassified records. These pages present the untold story of how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their compromise strategy to end the war by blockade and bombardment, followed by invasion, had been shattered; radio intelligence had unmasked a massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu designed to turn the initial invasion into a bloody shambles. Meanwhile, the text and analysis of diplomatic intercepts depicted sterile prospects for negotiation before a final clash of arms. Here also, for the first time, is a full and balanced account of how Japan's leaders risked annihilation by gambling on a military strategy aimed at securing political bargaining leverage to preserve the old order in Japan.

Downfall replaces the myths that now surround the end of the war and the use of the bomb with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.

Consider one mighty battle which never took place. The Japanese were stockpiling kamikaze suicide planes, among other weapons. The suicide planes, guided human bombs, had success sinking American ships in previous engagements. They exacted a toll standard Japanese aviation no longer could against heavily-defended capital ships.

Wikipedia - Operation Downfall

Kamikazes
The Japanese defense relied heavily on kamikaze planes. In addition to fighters and bombers, they reassigned almost all of their trainers for the mission, trying to make up in quantity what they lacked in quality. Between them, the Army and Navy had more than 10,000 aircraft ready for use in July, and would have had somewhat more by October—and were planning to use almost all that could reach the invasion fleets.

During the Battle of Okinawa, less than 2,000 kamikazes had gotten about one hit per nine planes that made an attack. At Kyushu, given the more favorable circumstances, they hoped to get one for six. The Japanese estimated that the planes would sink more than 400 ships, and since they were training the pilots to target transports rather than carriers and destroyers, the casualties would be disproportionately greater than at Okinawa. One staff study estimated that the kamikazes could destroy a third to a half of the invasion force before its landings.

A graphic account of the plan of attack.

The Japanese had 58 more airfields on Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks.

Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more that 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed that 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.

In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5,651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12,725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing activity. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, under viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.

Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka - a rocket-propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot.

When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.

While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over Kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports.

As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour-by-hour attacks.

By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving the defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners.

Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuos firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikazes would continue. With the fleet hovering off the beaches, all remaining Japanese aircraft would be committed to nonstop suicide attacks, which the Japanese hoped could be sustained for 10 days. The Japanese planned to coordinate their air strikes with attacks from the 40 remaining submarines from the Imperial Navy - some armed with Long Lance torpedoes with a range of 20 miles - when the invasion fleet was 180 miles off Kyushu.

The Imperial Navy had 23 destroyers and 2 cruisers which were operational. These ships were to be used to counterattack the American invasion. A number of the destroyers were to be beached at the last minute to be used as anti-invasion gun platforms.

Once offshore, the invasion fleet would be forced to defend not only against the attacks from the air, but would also be confronted with suicide attacks from the sea. Japan had established a suicide naval attack unit of midget submarines, human torpedoes and exploding motorboats.

The goal of the Japanese was to shatter the invasion before the landing. The Japanese were convinced the Americans would back off or become so demoralized that they would then accept a less-than-unconditional surrender and a more honorable and face-saving end for the Japanese.

But as horrible as the battle of Japan would be off the beaches, it would be on Japanese soil that the American forces would face the most rugged and fanatical defense encountered during the war.

The United States had a plan to blunt some of this kamikaze punch due to evolving intelligence alerting the high command of the reality of the threat.


Wikipedia - Operation Downfall

Air threat
U.S. military intelligence initially estimated the number of Japanese aircraft to be around 2,500. The Okinawa experience was bad—almost two fatalities and a similar number wounded per sortie—and Kyushu was likely to be worse. To attack the ships off Okinawa, planes had to fly long distances over open water; to attack the ships off Kyushu, they could fly overland and then short distances out to the landing fleets. Gradually, intelligence learned that the Japanese were devoting all their aircraft to the kamikaze mission, and taking effective measures to conserve them until the battle. An Army estimate in May was 3,391 planes; in June, 4,862; in August, 5,911. A Navy estimate, abandoning any distinction between training and combat aircraft, in July was 8,750; in August, 10,290.

The Allies made preparations, adding more fighter squadrons to the carriers in place of torpedo- and dive-bombers, and converting B-17s into airborne radar pickets—the ancestors of the AWACS. Adm. Nimitz came up with a plan for a pre-invasion feint, sending a fleet to the invasion beaches a couple of weeks before the real invasion, to lure out the Japanese on their one-way flights, who would then find—instead of the valuable, vulnerable transports—ships loaded with antiaircraft guns from stem to stern.

Hat Tip to Rancher: Nasal Stem Cells Funded by RCC

Rancher alerted me to this article. I reserve the right to criticize the Catholic Church so I should point the very good deeds of the Church, this being one of them.

With the help of the Catholic Church, Australian researchers have successfully grown adult stem cells harvested from the human nose, avoiding the ethical and legal problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

Australia bans creating human embryos to harvest stem cells but scientists may use embryos left over from IVF (in-vitro fertility) treatment. Stems cells harvested through other means, such as from the nose, is legal.

Head researcher Alan Mackay-Sim of Griffith University said the adult stem cells taken from inside the nose could potentially be used to grow nerve, heart, liver, kidney and muscle cells.

Partnership between religion and hard science should be encouraged.

I don't think science will ever research the mystery out of the universe. Trying to understanding the Big Bang, Quantum Foam, or String Theories seems to create more mystery to me. Dark matter, dark energy, all the new phenomenon found by the Hubble or other telescopes every day. Planets being discovered for the first time. Now is a time of great discovery for humanity, scientific and religious.

London Can Take It

Hitch
Can London dish it out?

All signs, hate crimes legislation with an exemption for the Koran, refusing to use surveillance on mosques, and focusing on recruiting Muslims instead of training Europeans in Arabic, point to misconceptions about the enemy we face.

Hitchens:

Galloway is an open supporter of the other side in this war, and at least doesn't try very hard to conceal the fact. Far more depressing are the insincere and inauthentic statements made by more "mainstream" types. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone--another Blair-hater and another flirter with any local Imam who can bring him a few quick votes--managed to say that the murders were directed at "the working class," not the "powerful." That's true enough, but it doesn't avoid the implication that a jihadist bomb in, say, the Stock Exchange would have been less reprehensible. Another dismal statement, issued by the Muslim Council of Britain in concert with something called "Churches Together in Britain and Ireland," got as far as proclaiming that "no good purpose can be achieved by such an indiscriminate and cruel use of terror." This is to say too much and too little. It still hints that the purpose might be ill-served by the means. Further, it fails as an ecumenical statement in that it was evidently not submitted to Britain's large Jewish community for ratification. Why do I think that there were some in both the Muslim and Christian leaderships who thought that, in their proud "inclusiveness," they didn't need to go quite that far?

On the other hand, I must say that the leadership of "Imaan," a "social support group for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Muslims," managed to issue a condemnation that was not shaded or angled in any way, and consisted of a simple, unequivocal denunciation and a statement of solidarity with the victims. That's the stuff. At last, the Churchill touch!

"London can take it!" That's what the patriotic proles are supposed to have yelled from the bomb-sites when Churchill toured the battered East End. London can indeed take it. It is a huge and resilient city, and if there were ten thousand jihadist guerrillas operating full time within its precincts, they could scarcely make a dent before they were utterly defeated. Once I had guiltily assured myself of the safety of my own daughter, I allowed myself to think that the long-awaited attack had not been as bad as many of us had expected. It was planned to be worse, and the next assault may be worse still. The tube stations selected for the mayhem show beyond doubt that the perpetrators must have expected to kill quite a number of Muslims, just as their co-thinkers have been doing in Kabul and Baghdad.

But another reflection now deposes the preceding one. In 2001 there was an enemy to hit back at, and some business to conclude with the Taliban. Since then, there has been unfinished business with Saddam Hussein and his notorious fedayeen. But from now on, we must increasingly confront the fact that the war within Islam is also a war within Europe. It's highly probable that the assassins of 7 July are British born, as were several Taliban fighters in the first round in Afghanistan. And the mirror image also exists. Many Muslims take the side of civilization and many European fascists and Communists are sympathetic to jihad.

These are not the bright, clear lines that many people fondly imagine to be heritable from a heroic past. But the nature of the enemy is somewhat similar. Like the fascists that they are, the murderers boast that they love death more than we love life. They imagine that this yell of unreason is intimidating and impressive. We shall undoubtedly go forward and put these grave matters to the proof but, meanwhile: Death to them and Long Live London!

Hitchens is right on the mark. He points out the fertile base for recruiting within European youth already determined the United States and their own government are the greatest threats to world peace. The BBC, Guardian, Mirror, and Independent have seen to that. The Telegraph and Sun, ironically, provide some balance.

Don't get eaten in Florida, Part II

How many times will we see cable news breathlessly reporting,

Terror in the Oceans, Summer of the Shark 200?

ANCHOR

Bob: "Why are the sharks suddenly biting people and killing them in the ocean near busy beaches of all places?

Nancy: "We'll have two marine biologists after this break."


Bull sharks have an undeserved reputation for not killing people.

You hear about the great white, tiger, mako, white tip, and hammerhead. At least the nurse shark has an appropriate name. Only #4 (disregarding common sense, below) could get one of those to turn on you.

Bull sharks aren't friendly neighbors. "They're a critical part of the ecosystem...yadda...yadda." That's all true, but we are part of the food chain allowing them to inhabit the ecosystem.

According to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF) bull sharks are historically responsible for at least 69 unprovoked attacks on humans around the world, 17 of which resulted in fatality. In reality this species is likely responsible for many more, and has been considered by many experts to be the most dangerous shark in the world. It's large size, occurrence in freshwater bodies, and greater abundance in close proximity to numerous human populations in the tropics makes it more of a potential threat than either the white shark or tiger shark. Since the bull shark occurs in numerous Third World regions including Central America, Mexico, India, east and west Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and South Pacific Islands, attacks are often not reported. The bull shark is also not as easily identifiable as the white or tiger shark, so is likely responsible for a large percentage of attacks with unidentified culprits.

Note the "occurrence in freshwater bodies," the only shark to do so. Consider where bull sharks live in the ocean.

The bull shark prefers to live in shallow coastal waters less than 100 feet deep (30 m), but ranges from 3-450 feet deep (1-150 m). It commonly enters estuaries, bays, harbors, lagoons, and river mouths. It is the only shark species that readily occurs in freshwater, and apparently can spend long periods of time in such environs. It is not likely that the bull shark's entire life cycle occurs within a freshwater system, however. There is evidence that they can breed in freshwater, but not as regularly as they do in estuarine and marine habitats. Juvenile bull sharks enter low salinity estuaries and lagoons as readily as adults do, and use these shallow areas as nursery grounds. They can also tolerate hypersaline water as high as 53 parts per thousand.

I've seen shots of surfers on the East Coast of Florida circled by bull sharks as the helicopter films, also circling overhead.

Note #4 below:

#1 Avoid swimming near river mouths or other estuaries with turbid waters where bull sharks are known to occur.

#2 Do not swim near schools of fish in inshore areas. These schools are often pursued by large predators.

#3 Be cautious if spearfishing. Bull sharks are known to approach spearfishermen carrying their catch.

#4 Do not duplicate the practices of some television "adventurers" who flagrantly disregard common sense for showboating around sharks while underwater.

Jeremy, who disregarded common sense as a recreational diver, knows everything about bull sharks after that really exciting macho ecotour he paid for.

"Bull sharks have the most fearsome reputation for shark attacks, yet you can flick a hand at them and they will retreat," observed Jeremy.

Jeremy was able to conduct this experiment once and therefore the full range of bull shark behavior had been analyzed for the purposes of selling more dive trips.


The Bull Shark
It lurks in the shallows, even in fresh water. And it loves to kill.

Loves to eat is more like it. Bull sharks are all muscle.

By Douglas McCollam
Posted Wednesday, July 18, 2001, at 12:00 AM PT

On July 6, as 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast waded in about 2 feet of water along Florida's Gulf Islands National Seashore, a 7-foot-long bull shark ambushed him, tearing off his right arm and a chunk of his right leg. The attack came so near to shore that Jessie's uncle and another beachgoer were able to grab the shark and drag it onto land where park rangers shot it, pried its mouth open, and retrieved the severed arm. The boy almost bled to death and lapsed into a coma. Surgeons reattached the limb, and though Jessie is showing signs of coming to, doctors say it's too soon to know if he'll make a full recovery.

...

Less than two months later Thadeus Kubinski, a retired businessman living near Tampa Bay, was attacked by a bull shark when he jumped off his backyard dock into five feet of water. His stunned wife ran to call 911. Kubinski died before help arrived. As I finished this story, the Associated Press reports that a man surfing just down the beach from the scene of the Arbogast attack was bitten while sitting on his board. He was taken to the same hospital, but his condition did not appear serious. The culprit wasn't identified, but the attack fit the bull shark's MO.

The mighty Great White would much rather eat an island seal than slum it at your favorite beach.

The bull shark possesses an indiscriminate palate: It will eat just about anything—other sharks, dolphins, and porpoises. (That stuff about dolphins meaning there aren't sharks around? Forget it.) Compared to their cousins the tiger and blue sharks—whose large, dark, disc of an eye make them such efficient sight hunters—the bull shark is as blind as Magoo. They often hunt in murky waters where visual acuity is less of a factor. Like all sharks, they command a keen sense of smell and can detect erratic movements from long distances. When zeroing in on prey, bulls use either a "bump and bite" technique to investigate the target or a more deadly rush attack where it delivers maximum damage immediately. As its stout build is complemented by disproportionally large jaws and teeth, the bull's bite is a deadly, shredding, vise.

Some day this will be a Trivial Pursuit question or maybe even Final Jeopardy so pay attention.

What animal has the highest testosterone levels?

Surprise, did you guess three-toed sloth? Well, it's the bull shark.

Florida tourist tips from a native, don't let our fauna eat you

Fire Ants are always setting up mounds in my back yard. Ralph Moore takes a dim view of them:

To look at a fire ant, it doesn't seem that scary. It's brown and small, but its bite is ten times bigger. What's worse-- and frequently dangerous-- is the ant's swarming habit. If you find a fire ant mound and brush a stick across its puckered top, thousands of angry ants immediately spill out, biting the air. The only defense is a fast retreat. Those who can't move quickly after inadvertently stepping on a mound -- toddlers, the elderly-- are quickly covered and stung to death. A single mound contains several hundred thousand ants.

While his final statement is true, the actual number of our children and parents consumed by fire ants is not high. Everyone gets bitten - did I mention a huge mound unloaded on me yesterday? - but I've never personally known anyone consumed by fire ants. Even a small child can squash them rubbing with enough vigor, which hundreds of them is sure to produce. Babies would be helpless.


There are fire ants which post guards, warrior ants, atop the plant stalks or long grass they build their nests around. If you disturb the nest, rest assured thousands of fire ants will be manning the towers in a second even if they aren't that particularly nasty kind.


I was playing frisbee golf at Turkey Lake Park in Orlando. A tourist from Europe met me at the first tee. We decided to play along more for someone to run for help if there was a rattlesnake bite than any issues of course crowding. This is frisbee golf after all.

Rattlesnakes, to their credit, won't eat you. Most people are bitten on their hands and arms after consuming alcohol.

Don't step on them and don't grab them by the tail like all the 'trained professionals' on television.

On another occasion I nearly stepped on a large Eastern diamondback rattlesnake at Turkey Lake Park on the ninth fairway. There were many downed limbs after a hurricane made it pretty windy and rainy. Word to the wise, pay attention when you walk fast.

My mind: "stick, stick, weird stick, SNAKE!" At that point I was committed to putting my right foot within a foot or so of its head.

It never raised to strike or rattled. After I skipped past like someone sneaking away in a cartoon, on tiptoes, I turned back once I got to ten feet or so into the clear. Without showing any aggression the rattler continued on its way, which was fine with me. The snake was over five feet long and looked like it had been eating well.

My newly-found European friend asked me about all the large sand mounds around the fifth hole. When I told him fire ants and that he should be careful not to step on the mounds, he said "why?"

As you've read, European conceptions of ants and a Floridian talking about ants must not produce the required survival reaction. I'm doing my public service now for any of you planning on visiting.

Fire Ants won't leave you alone. We are fighting for our property rights, children, the elderly, and small cute furry things. Read about their inflitration into every neighborhood.

The red fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, (invincible stick) live in and around us everywhere and particularly are fond of golf courses and gardens that get plenty of sun. These unwelcome residents came from South America and with the exception of humans have no natural enemies and this explains their ubiquitous presence now throughout most of the South and certainly in South Carolina. A survey conducted in just South Carolina revealed that in the 1990, physicians reported treating 5000 cases of imported fire ant stings on humans. This represented a 14-fold morbidity. In all, there were 27 hospitalizations, one death and 170 cases requiring imported fire ant desensitization by an allergy specialist. Undoubtedly with the growth in ant and human population since 1990 we are talking about a much higher incidence of stings. In fact, in infested areas like Charleston County it is estimated that half of the population will be stung by a fire ant each year.

"gardens that get plenty of sun"

So I'm in my back yard trying to kill this fire ant mound which has grown among my sarracenia plants in my bog garden. I've tried various types of chemical warfare. They seem to use fire ant poison as building material.

I have another approach which is more risky but works if you get lucky. I use a garden hose to flush away the top layers of the nest and some of the first wave of attackers and go after the mound (they dig down and build up) with a probe, hoping to nail the queen or destroy something important. The danger comes when they race up your probe and start biting and stinging your hand, which won't be long.

I needed to get in there and weed. This mound is a good meter across. Keep in mind the amount of underground activity which goes along with that.

So I hit it with water, some hedge clippers, more water, hedge clippers. I tried to let the mound settle down after that. I needed to weed on the other side of the garden about ten feet away. Well, I guess that's a fire ant rally point.

So now both hands, both feet, and the bottom half of my legs are covered in fire ant bites.

The tourist from Europe also asked me if he could swim in Turkey Lake over by some reeds near the course after we finished playing golf? I advised against it. When he heard how big they could get he made a sound like someone punched him in the chest (OUF!)

That would ruin your whole vacation.

France, France, France

Jacques Chirac has been one of the most arrogant and inept leaders I've seen in a long time. Those are the nice things I can say about him.


Speaking of invading France...

Patton was right.

Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable.

Patton

It is very easy for ignorant people to think that success in war may be gained by the use of some wonderful invention rather than by hard fighting and superior leadership.

Taking the war to the jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq has certainly proven the latter true.


France, what would we do without your philosophers? I'd love to test it empirically.

Jean-Francois Revel is one we should keep in the publishing control group.



Moving from our allies the French over the Chunnel to the UK. Howdy friend!


Guardian or Monty Python?


It's OK that the Guardian picks on us a little bit. Our own 'loyal' opposition has been known to stretch some analogies or bend some facts. Dick insists criticism comes from the orchestrated right-wing attack machine. "He's a hero for speaking out," and so forth. Steyn's dose of reality:

But give Mr. Durbin credit. Every third-rate hack on every European newspaper can do the Americans-are-Nazis shtick. Amnesty International has already declared Guantanamo the "gulag of our times." But I do believe the senator is the first to compare the U.S. armed forces with the blood-drenched thugs of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Way to go, Senator. If you had a dime for every crackpot Web site that takes up your thoughtful historical comparison, you would be able to retire to the Caribbean and spend the rest of your days torturing yourself with hot weather and loud music, as well as inappropriately provocative women and insufficient choice of hors d'oeuvre and all the other shameful atrocities at Guantanamo.

Do you remember Stripes?


What kind of training have you been doing soldier?

Wahhabi training, brother!

All were being trained as dias--preachers who would, on graduation, go out to Asia and Africa, as well as Europe and America, to do dawa: run mosques, madrasas and Islamic centres, teach and preach.

Where is the Gandhi of Islam?

Charles Moore of the Daily Telegraph asks the world.

MY FIRST T-SHIRT SLOGAN OBSERVATION SINCE I BEGAN BLOGGING

If you changed one letter of this quote it would make a great T-Shirt

The idea that thes[r]e are divine 007 licences to kill has been explicitly repudiated.

This could prove to be a sticking point when we try to multiculturally blend sharia law in with our English Common Law and U.S. legislative system.

Charles Moore is nobody's dhimmi.

So it must be with Muslims in Britain. In fact, the situation is more serious because we are dealing with a religion, not merely a national aspiration, and the demands of a religion are more absolute than anything else. If fanatics can persuade people that their religion insists that they kill others (and often themselves) in its service, then they will obey. And whereas the IRA, though utterly sadistic and fanatical, kept in mind a political aim which, once achieved, would mean that they need kill no longer, the religious fanatic lacks even this check on his behaviour.

From time to time, perhaps, he will kill for a specific reason - to take power in one country, to drive foreign troops out of another - but, in principle, there is no end to his killing until everyone who does not share his particular version of truth is exterminated.

What strikes one again and again about the reaction of the public authorities, of commentators, of the media, is the terrible lethargy about studying what it is we are up against. We are dealing with an extreme interpretation of one of the great religions of the world.

We flap around, looking for moderates and giving them knighthoods, making placatory noises, putting bits of Islam on to the multi-faith menu in schools, banishing Bibles from hospital beds, trying to criminalise the expression of "religious hatred", blaming George Bush and Tony Blair. But if we do not know the way the faith in question works, its history, its quarrels, its laws and demands, we will not have the faintest chance of distinguishing the true moderate from the fellow-traveller or of bearing down on the fanaticism.

Read this article as if your life depends on it

I'd like to thank Dave Ray, writer of Bulletproof Dandy, contributor to Little Green Footballs, and Discarded Lies, for bringing this article to my attention. Everyone capable of reading English should read this article.

Terror on the Dole

In the event my arm-twisting didn't work, here are some key excerpts.

Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."


...But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."

They also mock the idea that they are attracted to al-Muhajiroun because they have suffered alienation from white society. "Do we look like scum?" they ask. "Do we look illiterate?"

As they call for the bill, Abu Malaahim flicks open his 3G mobile phone and, with a satisfied grin, displays the image, downloaded from the internet, of an American Humvee burning in Iraq.

Abu Yusuf says: "That's nothing. I downloaded the picture of the four burnt Americans hanging from the bridge." It's oneupmanship, al-Muhajiroun style.

Sayful, the only married one in the group, prepares to go home to his wife and children. Before he departs, he says he has a message to deliver.

"I want to warn that the police raids - if repeated - could create a bad situation.

"Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek. If they raid our homes, it could lead to the covenant of security being broken.

"Islam allows us to retaliate. That would include" - he tugs his "Jihad" coat tight against the night air - "by violent means."

The Left forced this moderate into the Republican Party

Recently the New York Times published a piece which suggests social conservatism or liberalism (best termed the Left to avoid confusion with real liberalism) is determined genetically. Where does that leave me? I'm a moderate on social issues. Having taken several political-orientation tests, I always fall in the exact middle socially with a slight tendency to libertarianism when considering the role of government in society.

Abortion:

Women should have a limited right to abortion. I do not believe late-term elective abortion is anything but early infanticide. I was born premature, as was my now-deceased son. I was actually more premature, and more underweight than Alexander. Don't tell me a six or seven month fetus is not a human being. I'm living proof that's a crock of feces. Women should have a choice, strictly limited to early pregnancy except under extreme circumstances: horrible birth defects or the life of the mother. "Health" is too broad. Having a baby is unhealthy for women, and has been for the entire breadth of human history.

In the law, no choice is unaffected by when the choice is made. Similary, no rights are unlimited when another party - in this case a potential human life - is directly affected. I read a column in the Telegraph (UK) which suggested that many feminists would support abortion after delivery when the umbilical cord is still attached. That's inhumane, sick, and nothing but an excuse for infanticide. Once you cross the birth barrier, what prevents you from extending abortion out until the end of breast feeding or the child's first words?

Embryonic stem cells:

Are we going to put no limits on human experimentation? Do we really want to allow science to determine the limits on human experimentation without considering the moral questions which arise? Germany, Austria, and Ireland have banned embryonic stem cell research for that reason. Germany and Austria are particularly experienced on the slippery slope of human experimentation. Someone must draw a line somewhere. Wherever that line is drawn will stop science from human experimentaton alleged to be important by some researcher. I don't have the "right" answer to these questions. And I am equally certain, drawing no legal lines is the wrong answer.

Gay marriage:

I don't have a problem with states permitting gay marriage. If it came up for a vote in Florida, I'd vote for it (ending up on the losing side). Pretending there is a penumbra or emanation from the United States Constitution which makes gay marriage a national constitutional right is based on nothing but abusive judicial activism. Given the long history of gay marriage - which is to say, never until recently - social change should follow the democratic process. That means slow, messy, contentious change at the state level. That's democracy.


On these three key issues, the moderate position actually parallels (without being a great fit, granted) the so-called conservative position. Those who would ban all abortion, permit no stem cell research, or pass a constitutional amendment precluding any gay marriage, I oppose.

In a nutshell, my views don't parallel the extreme Left or extreme Right. I would prefer both sides tone down the rhetoric and start asking the hard questions instead of trying to score political points.

BOTTOM LINE: Given the wash on social issues, I'm a foreign policy voter.

That leaves me with Pelosi, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, Conyers, Lee, Rangel, McKinney, (Pat Buchannan), and Dean on the Democratic (anti-war) side of the coin. If modern history shows us anything, and it does, it shows us that the extreme Left and extreme Right consistently oppose the U.S. military and always end up on the wrong side of history: supporting terrorists, fascists, Communists, theocrats, thugs, despots, and those who would destroy our constitutional republic.

Until the Democrats get serious about foreign policy, they cannot expect to gain any traction with their extreme views on social issues. This is why Demorcatic rhetoric gets more shrill and divorced from reality. Only by misrepresenting the mainstream Republican positions on social issues can the Democrats hope to gain any political traction on the Heartland Street. So far, they've managed to make themselves look like defeatist, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, totalitarian, radical, secular fundamentalists.

It would not be unfair to say the leadership of the Democratic Party supports the global Islamic jihad against the United States. The Nazi, Left, Islamist coalition is alive and well in the Democratic Party.

If GWB had one half the rhetorical skills of a Reagan or Clinton, or their understanding of the bully pulpit, the Democratic Party would be on the ropes and hoping for the bell to ring.

The America First Anti-War Coalition

America First:
the Anti-War Movement, Charles Lindbergh
and the Second World War, 1940-1941

David Gordon

The America First Committee initially had seemed only the latest and most extreme example of isolationist opinion in the United States that had grown up in the 1920s, and which had become stronger during the Great Depression. There had been a widespread belief in America since 1919 that the country had gained nothing out of the First War. That this was not true had little effect. The earliest important anti-war organization, the Keep America Out of War Congress, had been created in 1938 by Socialist Norman Thomas with the help of liberals like John T. Flynn, Oswald Garrison Villard, the former editor of the Nation, and Harry Elmer Barnes, revisionist historian of the First World War.[9] Anti-war organizations on American campuses were similarly led by liberals, Socialists and Communists. The Committee itself had been created by two Yale students. (One, Robert Douglas Stuart Jr., a 24 year old Princeton graduate, and son of the senior vice president of the Quaker Oats Company, was a law student sympathetic with New Deal reforms.[10] The other was Kingman Brewster.[11]) America First therefore appeared neither particularly conservative, nor pro-German. It was not surprising that Thomas and Villard soon joined the executive board.[12]


However, most AFC supporters were neither liberal, nor Socialist. Many simply wanted to stay out of the war. Since many also came from the Midwest, an area never as sensitive to European problems as the east coast, isolationist arguments was soon buttressed by more traditional prejudices against eastern industrial and banking interests. (Almost two-thirds of the Committee’s 850,000 registered supporters would eventually come from the Midwest, mostly from a radius of three hundred miles around Chicago.)[13] Many AFC supporters were certain industry and the banks wanted war for their own profit.[14] Many other supporters were Republicans who flocked to the AFC for partisan political reasons. Still others were covertly pro-German. Some were German-Americans whose sentimental attachments had not been diminished by the crimes of the Nazi regime. Others, whether of German origin or not, were attracted to Hitler’s racism and anti-Semitism.


Midwestern voters had long been suspicious of eastern elites. The building of transcontinental railroads, organized by New York bankers and financed with British capital, had opened new markets for farm produce. Yet dependence on them had also created fear and hatred in many farming states.[15] By the 1890s, the struggle for a “cheap dollar” that would help farmers pay off mortgages, and which led them to support a silver and gold based currency, had brought them into open conflict with New York bankers anxious to preserve a gold standard. William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech had stirred many farming communities. It had done little to advance their cause. Farm fortunes had improved dramatically during the First World War, when J.P Morgan and Company, as official British purchasing agent, had paid inflated prices for Midwest produce. But it was the subsequent collapse of farm prices after 1920 (when the commodity price index fell from 205 that year to 116 in 1921) that was remembered in the decades before Pearl Harbor.[16] The enduring anger this created would provide fertile ground for anti-British and anti-eastern rhetoric.


...


The leaders of the AFC had different political beliefs, but once they decided to work together, they began to sound remarkably alike. Like their supporters in Congress, many believed war hysteria was being created to distract the public from the failures of the New Deal.[24] The second collapse of the economy in 1937, widely regarded as the “Roosevelt depression,” had certainly hurt the president. His prestige was at its lowest during the early part of 1939. Precedent, as well as his failed economic record, had suggested that his second term would be his last. Then came the war crisis, and the revival of his fortunes. Many believed, in the words of John Flynn, that Roosevelt wanted war because he found it a “glorious, magnificent escape from all the insoluble problems of America.”[25]


In order to defeat the president’s pro-British agenda, Committee members insisted the crimes of the western powers were as great as those of Germany. Their arguments usually began with a formulaic denunciation of Hitler, without any serious examination of his actions. This was followed by a detailed catalogue of the sins of the allies.[26] Since the war initially was assumed by AFC spokesmen to be for the preservation of the French and British colonial empires, and not for the democracies themselves, they could claim that Britain and France were as least as great oppressors as Hitler.[27] This argument, however, did not change even when the situation of the democracies became desperate. Thus, Norman Thomas had insisted in 1939 that “French imperialism is … a curse to mankind, and that the anti-German phobia of the French did much to create the Nazi movement.” Yet even after June 1940 he would continue to turn his fury against Britain. Senator Nye in the same period called the British empire “the very acme of reaction … and exploitation.”[28] As late as July of 1941, with the Nazi invasion of Russia already begun, Robert Maynard Hutchins could still write that there were more victims of aggression before1939 than after. These included “populations in Indochina, Africa, the Malay States, and especially, India.” General Hugh Johnson, former director of the National Recovery Act, also insisted that Britain’s sole war aim was “to maintain her dominant Empire position with her own kinsmen (as well as) over black, brown and yellow conquered and subject peoples in three continents.”[29] One AFC pamphlet asked “when Britain is going to release the 30,000 political prisoners in India?“[30] The verdict was clear. The European democracies, tainted by imperialism, were not worth saving. But it took a sly politician like Gerald Nye to strike the appropriate homely note. “The conflict in Europe,” he said, was not “worthy of the sacrifice of one American mule, much less one American son.”[31]


In making these arguments, America Firsters chose to ignore fundamental differences between the western empires and Nazi rule in Europe. Hitler in the first six months of 1940 had overrun six democratic states. He was determined to destroy democracy wherever he found it.[32] His rabid hatred of Jews and Slavs was already having affect in Poland. The Holocaust had not yet begun. But the Polish educated classes were already being systematically destroyed, and Polish schools and universities permanently closed. Jews were being ghettoized in horrific conditions. Anyone interested could have discovered these things. The French and British colonial empires were not democratic. But by the 1930s they had no central or consistent policy of slavery and mass murder. Created in a earlier age uninformed by Wilsonian principles, they were moving, however slowly, towards more democratic government and greater respect for individual human rights.


The most important difference, however, was between the governments of France and Britain themselves, and Nazi Germany. Britain and France (before Vichy) had both valued humanitarian ideals, which, however poorly honored at home and abroad, still assured the fundamental human rights of their citizens. These, combined with a free press, had also come by the 1930s to mitigate the worst excesses of colonialism. It was the British press that had made Gandhi a hero, and allowed his campaigns of passive resistance to succeed. The 1937 Government of India Act had hardly satisfied members of the Congress Party anxious for immediate independence. But it was a step towards democracy and self-government. Hitler’s dictatorship repudiated both democracy and human rights. The Nazi empire was the arena in which Hitler’s master race philosophy was to be put into practice. Censorship prevented the German press from exciting the conscience of the nation. There could never have been a successful passive resistance movement against the Nazis. The inability of members of the AFC to recognize this, especially men like Hutchins of Chicago, and Norman Thomas, is remarkable.


...


The effect of the invasion

[German invasion of the Soviet Union lauched on June 22, 1941 - Operation Barbarossa -- ending in a bloody armored stalemate at the gates of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad -- partisans fighting and dying in droves in the German rear areas -- Jews rounded up and executed -- Chip]

was not what the Committee had hoped. Most Americans sympathized with the Soviet Union. German support in the country was further reduced by the desertion of their erstwhile Communist party allies. The Nazis more than ever appeared to most Americans the country’s most dangerous enemy. The invasion also had a bracing effect on Churchill. Up to the last the Soviet Union had supplied Germany with supplies that made the British blockade ineffectual. The invasion had thus not cost Britain a potential ally. It had cost Germany a real one. It also had given England its first major partner in the war since the fall of France. Despite the initial fears of many in Britain and America, Russia did not collapse. The result was that Hitler seemed more vulnerable than ever. American determination to oppose him increased.



The summer of 1941 was a curious time for the AFC. Pro-German elements in the country waited anxiously for Hitler’s blitzkrieg to succeed. The majority of Americans, sympathetic to Russians defending their own country, hoped for a German defeat. America Firsters continued to be troubled by the popular mood. American concern about Britain was now joined with that for Russia. This they feared could only strengthen interventionist forces. That realization, combined with the passage of Lend-Lease, inspired a new tactic. Previously, most AFC propaganda had been directed against Britain, its American friends, and the president. The largely Protestant banking establishment, from J.P. Morgan to the Rockefeller controlled Chase National Bank, had been attacked without charges of bigotry. Roosevelt had always been a legitimate target. The Committee would now attack Jews.[67]


The unstated charge was disloyalty. Since Americans of undivided loyalty, Committee members reasoned, had to see that neutrality was the only rational course for the nation, pro-interventionists had to be working for alien interests. Lindbergh had already suggested this.[68] America First itself had been careful to keep those of divided loyalties out of its own ranks. Neither members of the German-American Bund nor Communists, anxious to oppose war before June 22, had been welcome.[69] Father Charles Coughlin’s Christian Fronters were also discouraged from joining.[70] The Committee was now ready to apply its own high standards to its opponents.


Anti-Semitism was the most inflammatory issue in the isolationist debate. Jews had good reason to hate Hitler. Their loyalty was suspect by some for that very reason. Since most Americans assumed the country was safe from German invasion, American Jews, they concluded, were also safe. Jewish interventionists could therefore be motivated only by a desire to help co-religionists in Europe. To save them, Jews appeared willing to sacrifice American lives. This to many seemed more than just a case of divided loyalties. It was pernicious. The fact that interventionist sentiment was strongest in the traditionally conservative south and southwest, areas of small Jewish population, had done little to change popular belief that Jews were leading the drive for war.[71] (So great was the antipathy for America First in the south, and so complete the consensus in favor of support for Britain, that its few sympathizers had been intimidated into silence.)[72] Interventionist organizations, fearful of being labeled the tools of Jews, had been careful to keep Jewish membership on their governing boards small.[73] The AFC, which since its creation had been careful to avoid appearing anti-Semitic, had the opposite policy. General Wood had been very pleased when Lessing Rosenwald, a member of the Sears, Roebuck board, had joined the executive committee. But Rosenwald had resigned to protest the presence of Henry Ford, and no Jews had been found to take his place.[74] At a time when the Committee was being attacked in much of the press as a tool of Hitler, charges of bigotry had to avoided at all cost.[75] That many American anti-Semites, anxious to avoid fighting Germany, had joined the AFC, made this task more difficult. AFC chapters in the east from the beginning had struggled to keep out Christian Fronters.[76] The Committee leadership was painfully aware they had not always succeeded.[77] Jews in much of the world had become by 1940 a beleaguered minority threatened with mass murder. Most Committee members, as people of conscience, did not want to add to Jewish tribulations. Some AFC supporters had in the past occasionally expressed hostility to Jews.[78] But they had kept these views private. This reticence would now come to an end.


.....


Some AFC supporters had been motivated by humanitarian ideals. Not all interventionists were. Yet in the end those who supported intervention also supported the preservation of democracy and human rights in Europe. Those who opposed war did not. This obvious fact had long troubled some Committee members, including Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Although anti-fascist, his Party had never been able to explain how fascism could be eliminated without war.[127] The argument that war would only bring fascism to America had been neither entirely convincing, nor satisfying. It was a problem anti-war supporters of democracy never succeeded in solving.



This moral dilemma was the AFC’s most serious weakness. The Committee’s enemies had been quick to see their advantage. The Chicago Daily News observed that “a crazier coalition was never assembled! Come lately German Nazis and Italian Fascists, Communists, pacifists, professional Anglophobes, Socialists, anti-Semites, rabid partisans who hate Roosevelt more than they hate Hitler, ostrich isolationists and a scattering of timid citizens afraid of they don’t know what - all rally around …to attack and calumniate the United States government in a moment of national crisis. These people, whether they know it or not - and some of them do - are performing Hitler’s work in America.”[128]


It was optimism that fundamentally separated interventionists from America First and its allies. Roosevelt and his supporters believed the safety of the American Republic could only be assured by the destruction of Nazi Germany.[129] They were also certain they could reestablish democracy in Europe. In the end, they would be proven right. But at the end of 1941, they had still failed to convince the American public. America First had been unable to prevent aid to Britain or Russia. Interventionist failure was more serious. By the beginning of December Hitler was at the gates of Moscow. Most Americans were concerned. They were also not going to do anything more about it.


This natural reluctance to go to war without first being attacked prevailed right until Pearl Harbor. Most Americans refused to the last to enter the battle, even against as brutal an enemy as Hitler, if it was primarily for the benefit of others. Even after the Japanese attack, it was only the German declaration of war that brought the United States into the European conflict.



It was only then that America’s moral purpose was fully restored. The nation with few exceptions supported a conflict that began as a struggle against military aggression, and ended as a battle against mass murder. Professor Maynard Kreuger of the University of Chicago had earlier told an anti-war rally that the issues in Europe were more complex than many would admit. “The image of a madman loose on the peaceful world oversimplified the realities of international rivalries and competition for resources.”[130] The professor was wrong. The Committee had always claimed the war was about rival imperialisms, and not simply about Hitler and his Nazi ideology. But it was. The German dictator was a madman, and the empire he hoped to create in Europe would have meant the destruction of all of those political ideals upon which American democracy was based. Interventionists understood this. America Firsters did not.


The optimism and moral vision of interventionists and the Roosevelt administration produced great achievements. The mounting of a massive invasion of Europe was followed by the political and economic reconstruction of much of the continent. It took years, and billions of Marshall Plan dollars, but in the end western Europe emerged solidly democratic and more prosperous than any time in the past. Victory in 1945 had not been complete. It would be almost another fifty years before Communist dictatorship disappeared from the continent. But the war and post-war reconstruction had been a good start. It helped subvert the Soviet Empire by placing successful democratic, capitalist regimes on its border. The Chicago Tribune in 1939 had proclaimed “the frontiers of American democracy are not in Europe, Asia or Africa.”[131] . Interventionists had a more generous vision. In the end, they liberated half a continent.

Any of this seem like deja vu all over again?

They used to get it (a new series based on old historians)

This is a sequel to my post from Living Religions of the World written in 1956.

A few decades earlier Andre Servier made similar astute observations in ISLAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MUSULMAN (1924).

“To sum up: the Arab has borrowed everything from other nations, literature, art, science, and even his religious ideas. He has passed it all through the sieve of his own narrow mind, and being incapable of rising to high philosophic conceptions, he has distorted, mutilated and desiccated everything. This destructive influence explains the decadence of Musulman nations and their powerlessness to break away from barbarism…”

...

“Islam is Christianity adapted to Arab mentality, or, more exactly, it is all that the unimaginative brain of a Bedouin, obstinately faithful to ancestral practices, has been able to assimilate of the Christian doctrines. Lacking the gift of imagination, the Bedouin copies, and in copying he distorts the original. Thus Musulman law is only the Roman Code revised and corrected by Arabs; in the same way Musulman science is nothing but Greek science interpreted by the Arab brain; and again, Musulman architecture is merely a distorted imitation of the Byzantine style.”

...

“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was—and it remains—incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”

Now we have MESA professors, Saudi money tainting everything, lawsuits chasing anyone who dare speak the truth about Islamic theology or history, and dhimmi politicians.

I doubt Servier's book will ever see a reprint.

Must Read: Egyptian Reformer Sayyid Al-Qimni (MEMRI)

MEMRI

In the wake of the recent wave of terrorist bombings in Egypt, the reformist Egyptian writer Sayyid Al-Qimni published an essay in the weekly Roz Al-Yousuf in which he argues that the responsibility for terrorism in Egypt lies not just with the terrorists themselves but also with those who create a cultural atmosphere conducive to terrorism. Thus, in Al-Qimni’s opinion, the fight against terrorism requires combating extremist trends among Muslim clerics and in the Arab media.

...[I could not agree more -- Ed]...

[Al-Qimni:]

"The generator of hatred, revulsion, and cruelty is like a generator of energy; it explodes if internal pressure rises. That is what happens to the poor Muslim when he is exposed to the enormous pressure of the religious people in our country, which is far greater than that to which people of other religions in the world are exposed. While for the Christian it is enough to make the sign of the cross, which only takes one second, the Muslim is required to be a mechanical instrument, performing the same action every day. He is required to go to the mosque five times a day, and is required to constantly read the Koran, and to force himself to weep if he cannot weep, and to spend an entire work day in the mosque. No one can make him work so long as he is reading the Koran and reciting endless supplications and devotions. [Such recitations] accompany his every motion and position, from the moment he gets up at dawn to the moment he retires to the conjugal bed...

"There is a barrier separating the [Muslim's] mind from the real world around him, so that he falls into a state of constant hallucination and, as a result, loses the capacity to distinguish between good and evil. He only recognizes the value of halal and haram [i.e., permissible vs. prohibited] according to the Islamic point of view. Muslims are burdened with many repressive restrictions... Freedom of thought and expression are fenced in by Islamic restrictions ..."

...

Qaradhawi and His Followers Have Appointed Themselves the Deputies of Allah

"When we ask ourselves who is the [real] criminal murderer in the [terrorist]
incident at Al-Azhar, and in those that occurred before it and after it, we are at a loss.(3)

"Is it Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi, the [religious] authority for the Muslim Brotherhood and for their brethren of various sorts? It is he who took a stand against tourism, which is the most secure source of financial income for Egypt...?

"[Al-Qaradhawi] said in a television broadcast on Al-Jazeera: 'They [the reformists] claim that it is in the people's interest to permit prostitution and to permit [the selling of] alcohol so as to encourage tourism.' First of all, this - prostitution and alcohol - is his pretext for declaring tourism to be contrary to Islam.

[Al-Qaradhawi continued,] 'Mecca was also like this [i.e., with prostitution and alcohol], but the Prophet forbade this kind of income and replaced it with another kind of income - jihad for the sake of Allah, in order to gain an income which is greater and better by conquering other countries. And Allah said: 'If you fear poverty, then know that Allah will enrich you from his bounty, [Koran 9:28]' meaning that if you are afraid of suffering dire [financial] straits, the Lord will deliver you from these straits- and in fact Allah enriched them through conquest and spoils.'

"Consider [how Al-Qaradhawi] brazenly attempts to deceive the Muslims and Allah. The substitute, then, [for income from tourism according to Al-Qaradhawi,] jihad in order to conquer the entire world, after tourism is banned from our country...

"Al-Qaradhawi’s position against Egypt is certainly not [merely] his own personal position ... because he is part of a whole band, mostly in Egypt, that constantly repeats the same message. Qaradhawi opines: 'There are [people] who strive to break Islam into pieces. They want it to be an Islam without jihad ... principles of faith without shari'a... and the Koran without the sword. [Islam, however,] is a calling that encompasses all aspects of life, from toilet etiquette to the structure of the state. It provides laws [to govern] man's [life] from birth to death.'

"Naturally, Al-Qaradhawi does not tell us that there is no legal Islamic statement on political matters or on the nature of the regime... However, Al-Qaradhawi and his followers say that political affairs should be under Allah's rule and not under human rule, and since Allah does not rule in person, they have appointed themselves to rule as His deputies.

You should read the whole thing. There's much more.

Al-Qimni takes on Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood), ridiculous rules, Muslim groupthink, the unaccountability of Islamic governance, and the absurdity of replacing tourism with jihad, among other subjects.

Other than providing trenchant analysis, Al-Qimni must be a brave man.

Tropical Storm Update 2007: proposed names

[From the NOAA Weather Station in Pensacola, Florida]

Adolph

Boudica

Caesar

Devil

El Diablo, Elvis (he's the king, baby), Electricity

F#(?-I've-got-nothing-left, Flood, Frankenstein's Bride

Goner, Going-to-move-up-North, Ghost-Towns

ahem

Helena, Harriet

[office closed for repairs until December]

LIVING RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD (1956) - Islam: "a portable theocratic state"

FREDERIC SPIEGELBERG

From Chapter 16: Islam and Sufism

When in the 7th century Mohammed enunciated his creed, he did so to a society existing in a state of primitive consciousness; and one whose environment -- sunscorched, storm-wracked, and unproductive -- was an arduous one. The people who wandered over this land were a savage people united only by tribal alliance, and had no highly-developed system of ethics, social integration, or cultural expression. Mohammed understood them thoroughly, adapted his religion accordingly, and in the space of his lifetime united and transformed these vagrant peoples into an empire, chiefly by forcing them to accept a common loyalty not to the tribe or an individual, but to a national religious community. This was a nation in the Jewish sense of a group of people, rather than of a group of people in a specific geographical area. The transformation was unique; the only empire in history to be totally rooted in a religion. In Islam religion created an empire; in Christianity, an empire adopted a faith and called itself The Holy Roman Empire, which, as the old saw goes, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Whether led by Arabs, Persians, or in later times the Turks, Islam remained essentially all three, a portable theocratic state, much of whose impetus came from the fact that it was portable.

"a portable theocratic state"

Can anyone better define Islam in four words?