Each Must Choose His Own Way to Serve Humanity

***

Another previously-lost Chefjef post, wherein he says that compassionate conservatives must strive to serve the little people. I serve mine with a tart lemon-caper sauce, usually complemented by a big oaky chardonnay.

--Monk

***

The Bush Administration is working hard to bring about more business friendly regulation in Washington. Such things as streamlined and more flexible pollution standards, chemical handling rules, and workers’ medical leave protections are on the horizon. It shouldbe remembered that U.S. manufacturing was hammered by recession and overseas competition during much of President Bush’s first term. Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a pro-consumer group that monitors the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), calls the latest efforts a new assault on anticompetitive rules that amounts to rewarding the President’s political supporters in the business world. OMB is leading the effort through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The project is being coordinated by a former Harvard professor, John Graham, who has turned OMB’s regulatory arm into a voice for the Administration’s pro-business views on regulation. Clearly, Big Business interests have made headway in Washington on several fronts, including passage in Congress of the so-called class action reform. Passage of new consumer bankruptcy laws also points to the power and influence of Big Business in Bush II. The White House is now putting forward a new priority list of regulations for agencies. Some changes can be made administratively, with little or no input from Congress, which sets a very dangerous precedent. It appears that consumers will have almost no voice in what comes out of the White House over the next 3 years.

I hope and pray that the President, who claims to be a compassionate conservative, will develop a feeling and concern for little people who are really hurting today!

Chefjef

The Republican Party is Out of Control

***

This is a post of Chefjef's that got lost in the Great Purge. I will fisk it later. For now, suffice to say that the sentiment the title expresses seems to me to be something from Bizarro World -- Monk

***

It has long been established that the "Rockefeller Republican" has gone the way of the spotted owl in terms of its influence within the GOP.

There remains token representation from a band of northeast "liberal" Republicans, who represent states carried by John Kerry in the last election. The title of a recent book by former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, adequately describes the existing tension: "It's My Party Too."

But the latest version of Republican conservatism has also displaced notable right-wing luminaries such as Jack Kemp, William F. Buckley, George Will and Barry Goldwater.
The hallowed name of Ronald Reagan is used within contemporary Republican circles the way many fundamentalist Christians invoke the name of Jesus, something suitable for framing but bears little resemblance to the original orthodoxy.

I used to believe – back when I was a Young Republican in undergraduate school - that Republican conservatism was a philosophy that emphasized the individual, the free market and less government. That was the platform of Goldwater, the 1964 presidential nominee and author of "The Conscience of a Conservative." Such beliefs inspired a generation of conservative activists, including President Reagan.

Didn't conservatives believe that the U.S. Constitution set up a government of strictly limited powers? Wasn't the government supposed to protect us from foreign threats and deliver the mail, leaving other matters to the states or to the private sector?

Personally, I have found the Goldwateresque conservatism lacking when it came to moral questions. It allowed for Jim Crow segregation to fall through the cracks between justice and equality. It was indeed such thinking that led to Goldwater voting against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s; but through the process of evolution and self-reflection, Goldwater himself eventually understood the shortcomings of such positions.

This nouveau brand of conservatism, however, is less philosophical and more dogmatic. By advocating a one-size-fits-all private morality, it seeks not to replicate the shortcomings of the Goldwater variety. It embraces a more myopic approach that unabashedly believes that "right" is their sole possession.

However, the arrogance recently demonstrated during the emotional Terri Schiavo case raises serious questions about whether the brand of conservatism currently practiced on Capitol Hill and supported by the president is in line with mainstream America. Even Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio noted that every credible national survey found that 60 to 80 percent of Americans opposed Congress' Palm Sunday intervention in the Schiavo matter.

In writing about the Schiavo case, how could a leading conservative such as Bill Bennett suggest that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush break the law and willfully go to jail and risk impeachment to protect Schiavo's rights? Bennett considered such actions in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil disobedience, which he states "answered to a higher law than a judge's opinion. In so doing, King showed respect for the man-made law by willingly going to jail." Oh PALEEZE.

Such actions prompted former GOP Sen. John C. Danforth to write in a New York Times op-ed article, "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians." The private face of nouveau conservatism is egregiously beholden to big business -- as the passing of the credit card industry-supported bankruptcy legislation restricting the ability of individuals to file bankruptcy, while easing the ability of corporations to claim bankruptcy, as well as Congress recently making it illegal for Automobile manufacturers to forcibly place arbitration clauses into adhesion contracts with auto dealers while at the same time maintaining the absolute right of auto dealers to forcibly place arbitration clauses in their adhesion contracts with consumers, while also denying a minimum wage increase, will attest. (see more on this issue in the next article).

Whether it is the ethical violations of House Majority Leader Tom Delay or the words of Texas Sen. John Cronyn, who rationalizes violence against judges, or members of Congress who suggest the ruling of activist judges killed Schiavo, the Republican Party is a political party that is completely out of control.

Chefjef

Back to the Future, Part 1, or Revenge of the Burrito

When Vita ab Alto died, I had a number of posts of my own and from others in the queue. I still have all those others sent me. Today seems like a good day to begin reposting them. I can blog between visits to the necessary to ralph--it seems that all in the Monk Cave have eaten something that disagreed with them. The Veep and oldest daughter, although queasy, were well enough to take part in end-of-school-year activities. Your ineluctable Monkster and youngest daughter are house-ridden. As I say, a good day to catch up on blogging.

I pray that this malady was contracted from the local magaburrito joint, and not from the meal that the Veep and I prepared for Youth Snack Supper at church last night. Poisoning the whole church: that's a Bad Thing. If you hear from the deep South of a couple run out of town while tied to a rail and covered in tar and feathers, accompanied by a cursing, puking mob of Methodists, you'll know what happened.



Monk

Leadership, Relativism, and Pope John Paul II

*****************

This is a continuation of the thread that began in early April, but was lost for a time when this blog was accidentally killed by my fool fingers.

(Have I ever told my audience that I first learned DOS back in the mid-80’s after accidentally killing the main hard drive that stored all the standardization and evaluation records for the 62d and 596th Bomb Squadrons at Barksdale AFB? I thought not. The Chief of Stan/Eval, Major Meador—who could be quite intimidating when he wanted to be, which is why he held that job—was amusedly patient, but made it emphatically clear that my future in Stan/Eval, and perhaps even my upgrade to Aircraft Commander, rode on whether I could “get it back.” I did. Eventually. And I learned DOS. What happened last week was kinda the same thing……I now know some HTML! Some. One must break eggs to make an omelet. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing…..)

Anyway, this post has a later date stamp than the original post because, while my correspondents’ posts are reproduced verbatim, my responses are new material, intended to recapture the main points of my earlier posts in abbreviated and/or slightly updated form.

--Monk

******************

Correspondent Izmud said earlier this month that the late Pope John Paul earned only middling grades--"yeah, you helped kill communism," he seemed to say, "but what have you done for me lately?"

Pope John Paul II may have been notable and respected for many of his achievements in his lifetime, most particularly in the international relations ealm. However, IMO he also bungled the handling of the priest sex scandal cases, and his hard-line stance on modern social issues has led to a Church-admitted net loss of the faithful averaging 10-15,000 per month worldwide! While conservatives may agree with his stance on these issues, or admire his doggedness in refusing to bend to modern convention and liberalism, the bottom line is that his effectiveness as a leader of a group of people comes into question if his numbers are dropping rather than rising. So, a mixed report card overall for the late Pope.

Surely, Izmud, he earned at least a "B?"*

I agree that PJP II was “notable and respected for his achievements in international relations”--I would take that praise a step farther and say the he was one of the central figures of the last half of the twentieth century. He, along with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, and others of similar ilk, helped kill history’s bloodiest form of tyranny and one of Christianity’s most dangerous and odious adversaries—the most verminous outgrowth (so far) of relativism as a philosophy.

All of that aside, however, I believe he deserves great praise for his handling of the doctrinal crisis that has beset Catholicism in the last fifty years and for his uncompromising stand against the “spirit of the age,” if you will: the latest incarnation(s) of moral relativism.

Gracia Grindal at A Lutheran Hymnal for Church and Home, put it quite well several weeks ago:

The reason for his success is not simply his brilliance, which was extraordinary, nor his genius at using the media to get out his message, which was astonishing, but most of all, his ability to lead by stating clearly and unwaveringly what it means to be Catholic today. Despite calls for him to adjust his message to the contemporary world, he stood firm. In contrast, we see the mainline Protestant churches in America tripping over themselves to be relevant and modern.

The evidence is in: it hasn’t worked…. When a church attempts to change its identity to fit with the times, it will lose.

This captures the soul of the matter, I think. In the wake of secular humanism’s seeming philosophical triumph, all of Christianity rushed to prove itself “relevant” to modern man—if its theology appeared to be irrelevant, it could still render useful social services or market a fuzzy-warm "product" that would make people feel good about themselves--enhance "self esteem," in the language of our age.

So from the New Frontier on, Christianity met the developed world with Presbyterian hootenannies, Vatican II, Methodism’s “you are loved” acceptance of everything, and the rise of “God on the gymnasium floor” congregation-pandering in the EvangiBaptist MegaChurches: “Do whatever steps you want if You have cleared them with the Pontiff …”

Bishops, Elders, and Deacons across Europe and North America, whether they wore lucre-encrusted vestments and tent-sized hats or sky-blue polycarbon suits and Brylcreemed DAs, thought that “Christianity must be “where it’s at”-- The Church of What’s Happenin’ Now.” They must offer the “consumer” “choices”—McChurch, if you will.

The churches that grew believers during this period were those that taught the right (as God gave them to see the right) and accepted the Holy Spirit’s inspiration and guidance. They may (or may not) have expressed the message in modern forms, but—bottom line—they did not compromise it (as the Catholic Church seems to have with many of the outcomes of Vatican II). They may have repelled some people who were more “of” the world than just “in” it, but such winnowing is not necessarily a bad thing.

And this brings us to the next issue: Izmud claims that it is a measure of the late Pope’s failure as a leader that the church lost “10-15,000 per month worldwide." First of all, this number is disputable, even if it did come from the Vatican. There is at least circumstantial evidence that it doesn't capture the whole picture. PJP II's part of the visible church may have lost absolute numbers, at least in the developed world, but he held fast to the essence of what it is to be a Catholic. I will be optimistic for a moment and assume that some of those 10-15,000 sought out a purer relationship with Christ and became Protestants. This was probably the case in the US. In Europe, sadly, those that fell away were probably lost altogether. But again, this is not all bad: the church has been tested by the spirit of the age like a military unit is tested in combat. Some fell in the battle. Many more deserted, but they were the weakest soldiers anyway. Those that remained were tested and proven--the Old Guard; the Grognards.

There’s a further issue here: is popularity (and the concomitant rise in supporters and poll numbers) really the best measure of leadership? If so, then this guy was the greatest leader of modern times:

Despite his many and manifest transgressions, he could milk a poll or a constituency for all they were worth. Conversely, this guy

Was defeated in popular election by a moral and intellectual homunculus who Churchill rightly summed up as, “a modest man, who has much to be modest about.”**

Likewise, this guy

Was popularly elected (in fact, this is a campaign poster--creepy, no?), while this guy,

though also popularly elected, was so by a much smaller proportion of his nation's population than Hitler was in '33, and was widely reviled even by portions of the press that supported "his" war, even as the Union was being won.

No, the real test of greatness in my mind is moral leadership: Is the leader willing to follow the right course, and guide those who will follow, regardless of what this does to his poll numbers? Note here that I say "moral" leadership--this presupposes that there is a "right course," according to some objective, absolute standard. There is no thought of ethical relativistic equivalency here--Hitler, after all, believed in his own carpet-chewing way that he was following the right path. John Paul II was following where God led him and was leading those who would follow down that path. This meant some would fall away, loving the world more than the Word--sad, but inevitable; one of the prices those who lead in God's paths must pay. The Grognards stayed with him, and eventually he began to attract

And this brings us to the next, perhaps most important, issue: John Paul II was among the 20th Century's staunchest opponents of moral relativism--the prevailing mind and spirit of this age and several past (depending on how you reckon an "age"). Man has always lived with this tension: "is the universe centered on God, or on me?" Eve and Adam gave the latter answer, and sin entered the world. It's always been an option, but it was the particular genius of the Enlightenment and later eras to systematize this relativism as a philosophy and put the entire engine of modern science behind realizing it in various forms: "God is toppled from His throne--let's see who or what we can put in His place!"

At best, this philosophy has led people into rootless nihilistic anomie. More often, it has led into tyranny and dark savagery. Humanist relativism may seem pretty harmless in modern American, feel-good garb:

We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity... Humanists strive toward a world of mutual care and concern [and] ... are concerned for the well being of all.

Which is all very good, but why? Why believe each person has "inherent worth and dignity?" Where does it inhere from? More to the point, what do I get out of that? If humanity is no longer tied to the transcendent and the infinite, then we are free to define ourselves however we want. Screw “worth and dignity”—that’s for sissies! I’m gonna see what I can get outta life for me ‘n mine! We no longer have to make our wishes conform to objective reality; we can now mold reality to conform to our wishes. And that means aligning the world as conveniently as possible to me and mine, however I may define those things, and, inevitably to some degree, as inconveniently as possible for not-me and not-mine.

The result has been unprecedented disaster. Every time man has dethroned God and seized the crown for himself, as it were, he has created untold misery and mischief, regardless of how noble or utopian the words used to describe the “cause:”

Is man born free, but found everywhere in chains? Well then, let’s free him! Of course, a few recalcitrants may have to be “encouraged” to accept their liberte, egalite, & fraternite. Oh, and we’ll need a big, modern army to overthrow the oppressors in the rest of the still-benighted world. [The Terror, 12-17,000 killed without trial; wars of the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, 1,000,000 – 1,750,000 killed.]

Is our national destiny the hope of the world? Why, it must be—just look at the glories of our culture, at all we have achieved! Of course, these glories prove that we are evolutionarily superior to all the verminous, rat-like peoples around us. We must “educate” them about our superiority! [15 – 16,000,000 killed in all social-Darwinist wars of national aggrandizement, from the Austro-Prussian War to World War I.]

Has mankind lost touch with a vital part of his soul? Lost an essential link to the dark looming forests or the ancient polis in the process of building civilization? Well then, let’s give him his soul back, suitably dressed up with all the trappings that modern media make possible. Oh, and all those “people” who can’t appreciate this ancient yearning—they’re no better than animals at best, fit only to be slaves to those who can. Never mind the damn Jews! [30 – 55,000,000 killed in the wars of fascism, esp. World War II.]

Is mankind oppressed by a wealthy exploiter class? Arise ye prisoners of starvation! Arise ye wretched of the earth! For justice thunders condemnation--A better world’s in birth! Oh, and those that don’t realize this yet—that stand in the way of the inevitable march of history—they’ll have to be “re-educated.” And who can really trust a kulak, or anyone over thirty, or anyone who knows how to read, anyway? [We don’t yet know how many died to institute “scientific socialism” in its various forms from the revolutions of the mid-19th Century until the fall of communism. Let’s see: around 1,000,000 dead in the 19th C.; about 9,000,000 dead in the Russian Civil War; 19,000,000 or so in Stalin’s purges and terror famine (14,000,000 in the Ukraine alone); post-WW II European “resettlement” and national “relocations,” about 2,100,000; the Chinese Revolution, about 2,500,000; in Mao’s purges, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, between 41 – 46,000,000 (never mind aborted babies and girls left to die as part of national contraceptive policies); in Vietnam (all wars), about 2,500,000; in Democratic Kampuchea, around 2,000,000; in assorted communist-inspired “wars of national liberation” around the Third World, from 3 – 6,000,000; so over 80 million conservatively—and still counting— Cuba and North Korea (or even all the Chinese dead) have not been reckoned yet.]

The latter death toll alone is enough to make PJP II a hero (and an “A student”) by any reasonable standard due to his role in killing that beast. But he was also among the loudest and most articulate enemies of the root disease in all its forms. Today, it infects mostly the American and European Left—John Kerry is not so very different in outlook than Trotsky or Che. The “liberal” state government of California is not so very different than a post-WW II East European communist suzerainty like Poland or East Germany. The city government of San Francisco resembles Paris under the Commune. The average Hollywood entertainer is more extreme in ideology than the average late-communist dictator. The entire Visible Body of Christ in the US, Catholics included, can and should do more to fight the latest incarnation of this disease.

So, ultimately, Izmud is right about one aspect of PJP II’s ministry, but for the wrong reason, I think. The late Pope can be faulted for not coming to terms with the sex scandal in the US episcopate, but not because he rendered the church too stodgy and hidebound. I think, rather, that he didn’t go far enough—that the Catholic Church is not yet conservative enough, not sure enough of itself again as a unique institution, not free enough yet of the taint of modern relativism to take the steps necessary to prevent a recurrence of this type of scandal. When John Paul toook office, the Catholic Church was mired in Vatican II-inspired, Mackerel Plaza leftism. PJP II started a revolution. He replaced many leftist bishops and cardinals around the world, populating much of the upper echelons of the episcopate with like-minded men. He did not complete the revolution, however, and several of the most entrenched bastions of Catholic leftist relativism survive. One of those is the US episcopate, from the seminaries to the Council of Bishops. It is no coincidence that one of the most “liberal” bodies of priests in the world was also heavily infested with predatory pederasts. The former produced the latter, just like crap produces stink. When he was first made aware of the mess, the late Pope should have called CNN and broken the news himself, helped law enforcement prosecute those that betrayed their vocations to the uttermost extent of the law, and swept the US episcopate clean of leftist buggerers and the other “filth” that new Pope Benedict XVI referred to in his speech before the Papal Conclave several weeks ago. For his failure to carry the revolution far enough in his many years in service, PJP II is culpable—I agree.

The good news is that the new Pope was John Paul’s closest intellectual mentor back when he was a mere mortal. He understands what the church must do. I congratulate new Pope Benedict and hope he gets speedily to work, for the sake of all in the largest single slice of the Visible Body present on the earth.

Monk

* I know, Izmud: “No he didn’t and don’t call me Shirley!”

** It is a testimony to Britain’s decline as a great nation that Clement Atlee was recently rated the UK’s third greatest Prime Minister of the 20th C—two places ahead of the Iron Lady, but thankfully two behind Churchill. I guess all the pub rats and soccer hooligans know where their bread was originally buttered—Atlee gave them the modern British Nanny State.

Exodus 22:24

Here's the final installment of the conversation Izmud and I started in February.

Izmud worte, in response to our conversation regarding “Going Michael” versus turning the other cheek:

Exodus 22:24 (New International Version):

"My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.”

Well, it isn't Michael speaking but close enough. My response to radical muslim verbosity.

This is a perfect segue into the theme, “always read for context—especially the Bible.” You’re right, MudMan, it isn’t Michael talking, it’s God Himself. And to whom is he talking? Yep—the Israelites themselves, telling them that this is what He will do to them if they are abusive of those to whom they’re supposed to extend charity. Here’s the whole context:

22 "Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless."

[This is in His elaboration of the social requirements attending the Ten Commandments, of course.]

Can’t say I disagree in principle with going Joshua Chapter 10 on radical muslims. They’re a people who have chosen war with God’s people specifically over the issue of which God is true—the Lord prescribes, shall we say, rather…harsh…treatment for such people(s). If anyone has earned “kill them all, let God sort them out” treatment, they have—and God was not chary about having His people accomplish this when called for. Still, He commands us to act in love and justice first and, interestingly, threatens to go Old Testament on us if necessary when we disobey. I say we let Him decide when Jo10 is warranted and pray for our leaders, so they’ll know when that call is made. (Of course, this means electing leaders who believe in the first place, but that’s a different topic…)

(And, having said that, I'll be loading up the B-52 with B-53s should they need me... Just hafta say the word... "Would you like a little Cobalt salt with those fries, Akhmed?")

Monk

Son of the Archangel Michael

Since Izmud was the first to ever solicit an input for posting, I’ll do him the honor of having first dibs on posting to the resurrected Vita ab Alto. Way back in Feb He wrote:

I had to comment on your lines: "I often get in “kill them all, let God sort them out” moods..., but I am always eventually pulled back ...only He forgives and loves entirely."

For a man who prides himself on independent thinking I would rather consider you more like Michael the Internet Arch Angel, sweeping the electronic Heavens free of the demonic with your flaming blade, driving the Lucifers to their eternal punishment, slaying the dragons from the pit, and being a general all-around Old Testament verbal bad-ass rather than the born-again, turn-the-other-cheek kind of modern Christian. After all, you are a bomber pilot for cripes sake! Not some pansy intel officer! :-)

Good luck on this venture--I've thought you should do it for along time.

Hmm. Hmmmmmm....

Something like this?

Naw…too traditional.

Perhaps this?

Oh, hell no! Way too pimply-gay-teen-obsessed-with-D&D…

Maybe this is what you had in mind?

No ... it has a disturbing Aryan Nations vibe ... (it'll scare the liberals ...)


But no…I’m not Michael; I’m just a humble Monk. I’ll slay what dragons I can and will doubtless sling around enough verbal bad-assery for anyone’s taste, but that’s not ultimately what we’re called to be. Turning the other cheek requires a lot more courage than taking up a sword. When you realize this, Grasshopper, you will many steps down the road to wisdom…


Peace—out,

Monk

Finally, A MAN'S UAV

Thanks to all those who sent me items to post. Our conversations will be back up shortly. I must first rebuild some of my portions.

But now for something completely different: I don't do much mil blogging around here, but as a former BUFF driver, I found this irresistible:

*

Yup: a fully-flyable radio-controlled B-52G.

Here is a movie of its maiden voyage. I must, with jaundiced professional eye and a weary cynicism born of many years in SAC, make a few comments:

-- I like the horde of modelers surrounding the plane before and after the flight. Nice touch. They only needed little tiny blue breadtrucks to complete the effect.

-- The takeoff looked like several MITOs I've been in.

-- The craft flies way too nose-up. Get it going faster, close to the ground--I need to see that nose-down flying freight train effect.

-- Nice landing! Probably the first BUFF pilot ever not to get a nosegear on his first try at landing the plane!

-- I like the markings--this particular tail number, 57-6483, was at 2 Bomb Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA for many years in later versions; the livery depicted would have been worn when G-models first arrived at Barksdale in 1965, which would have meant this was a 62nd Bomb Squadron bird when it arrived--my first squadron.

-- Sadly, this BUFF found its own version of Bud Holland, who got the thing into knife-edge flight and crashed it. Stoopid sumbiatch. Word up: BUFFs don't fly very well on their sides.

-- Okay ... now for the really frightening thing: I've flown the actual tail number this model was based on. In fact, I flew it in combat during DESERT STORM, if memory serves (must check logbook). It was a Barksdale bird again when it was retired in Sep '91. Man, I feel old.


Update: I did not fly 6483 during DESERT STORM. The aircraft was used by the schoolhouse at Castle from the time I went through as a copilot (where I flew it once) until July 1990, when my crew and I brought it back to Barksdale. I used the off-station training mission as an excuse to see my fiance--the Veep; we were planning our wedding in October. This aircraft wan't used in DS, but I flew it several times after in '91, before it was retired. I had it confused with "Old Crow Express"--57-6490, which I did fly in DS. 6483 is either still at AMARC or was scrapped prior to 1997.

Monk

* Yes, folks--photos! Bwhahaha! I can now photoblog--and so can you: just email me a copy of the pix you would like posted. Nothing too large, please. Oh ... and no more photos of Hans and Izmud together, naked except for galoshes and cassocks .... please! I still wake up screaming ....

Vita ab Alto!

To my regular readers and new correspondents alike: Greetings & Felicitations!

I have finally been shamed into entering blogdom by a “fan”—let’s call him Hans—who tells me flattering lies about my “writing ability.” I have posted to friends for years, feeling that broadcasting emails was less solipsistic and more urbane than hanging entries on a glorified electronic vanity press. Nonetheless, a blog is convenient—it allows me to share intelligent commentary I get from correspondents like ChefJeff and Izmud with a wider audience and it thus opens up the possibility for wider conversation. I hope it draws in some comment from readers who usually just read and don’t respond. Besides, millions of navel-gazers before me have worn smooth grooves in the stone steps leading to the heights of self-aggrandizement. Who am I to think I am better than, say, James Lileks?

To All Those Presents, Greetings:

The Veep—you’re in my heart, you’re in my soul…you help keep me on the right track ... but I can still quote Mike Yaconelli when I want to!

Hans—liebe meine Aufsmünkey, you magnificent black fascist bastard!

RedLeader—where are the posts you promised? A number of professional bus drivers read this blog; consider it a potential forum for some of your issues

RedLeader & The Miller—you both know the “F”-111 was a bomber, right?

The Administrator—may this help pass your hours among the heathen each day

ChefJeff—I salute my honorable liberal friend! Please keep up the great commentary. He tasks me…he tasks me and I shall have him

Bruce of Bagdad—as always, keep building a better mousetrap

Fingers & The Voice—only two things frighten me and nuclear war is one of them! [What's the other?] [Bloggers! Small hands ... smell of well-worn pajamas ...]

French Horn Lips—kid, have you rehabilitated yourself? I want you to go sit down on that bench that says “Group W”…Now, kid!

Rommel—Keep up the good fight, Desert Fox

Marvin—Life ... let's talk to him about life ...

Max—welcome back to my nightmare. As an F-15A/C guy, you’re the only real fighter pilot among my readers right now. Despite that, I don’t really think you’re gay

CaveDave—Bama drools, Auburn rules! Always has, always will.

Momma & Pappa Sattui—perhaps this site will offer an occasional voice of reason in the intellectual deserts of the People’s Republic; in lieu of that, keep Napa one hand, Amador in the other

Mustang Teach and Magical Trevor—(Eww…stop that! Get a room!) Diz & Bird--what a work of art! I must commission you, Magic. Ever thought of doing blog design?

To my Midwestern Mustang Mormon friends (One Southern Belle & Billy Bob)—luv ya!

Frenkenstein—run, Forrest, run!

Izmud—If you don't have time for blogging, when will you have time for a novel??

To all new friends who may encounter this site, welcome!

My original conceit was to name this blog "Mors ab Alto," to honor my airpower roots with a handle that was (at least somewhat) BUFF-specific. When I googled that title, however, I found it appropriated by a fellow in snake-eater togs and camo makeup. His site had numerous references to Latin phrases of the “I bring fear” and “I will destroy and devour” sort (you know—the kind favored by guys who never quite outgrew their girl-rejected, scrofulous, proto-Columbine phase), along with a picture of (I presume) himself under the heading, “The Devil,” wearing Air Force Tech Sgt rank and a readable nametag. To this brother-in-arms I say: nice site name! Now get over yourself. You’re not Satan, as you will find to your eternal horror if you meet the real one face-to-face. Oh…and efface your nametag, before Top 3 or some phone colonel finds your site and makes your life here resemble your life to come… I hope I’m wrong; maybe the “devil” is his NCOIC, in which case the usage is probably appropriate.

As I contemplated “MaA,” however, I was pulled by conscience and thought of MonkCorp’s Vice President for Acquisition and Inquisition back to a name that was more consistent with being a child of God. I intend, as always, to offer outrageous opinions, outrageously expressed. I warn readers now that I may proffer opinions that may sound like they came from the dude who purloined Mors ab Alto. I often get in “kill them all, let God sort them out” moods (whoever “they” are—leftist moonbats, sportocratic thugs, racist fools, linear thinkers, muslim fundamentalists, ground-centric military types, Ward Churchill…whoever), but I am always eventually pulled back to the correct perspective—that all are children of God in Christ alike, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, only He can judge the hearts of men, and only He forgives and loves entirely. If I stray from this perspective, dear reader, please feel free to pull me back and/or kick me in the arse.

(Consider this last my equivalent of Charles Foster Kane’s New York Journal “manifesto.”)

I envision this site as a collaborative effort and hope it encourages, cajoles, and/or provokes regular readers of my posts into contributing. Feel free to respond in the comments section. I will pull the best responses out and post them. Or submit articles to me for posting via email. I will post these under your noms de blog, which will be those listed in the greetings above (you know who you are), unless you choose different moniker. Responses may not be immediate (I’m not Glenn Reynolds), but I will try to have something new up every day. Please keep all discourse here civil and civilized, as befits…

The Monk

New! Improved! Lighter! Leaner!

Yes, folks ... your humble bloghost has fallen victim to one of the most preventable online disasters imaginable. Poor security practices on my part allowed my blog to disappear, leaving only such posts as I had saved in order to transfer from one machine to another, along with my correspondents' comments. Thank God I still have those--most of our conversations can be recreated from them.

I think this time around, however, I will respond to your learned and reasonable commentary (and Izmud's, too) either in phrases from the dreaded Necronomicon of the mad Arab poet Abdul Alhazred, or from the infamous Hungarian Phrasebook. Here are some examples:

Chefjef: BTW, UCLA is not a liberal campus. I spent a few years there, and can tell you that in particular, the graduate School of Public Policy and Political Science - where I have several friends, to include a doctoral candidate who was a schoolmate of mine- are filled with conservatives and Republicans.

Monk: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh UCLA m'wah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl Repflabrikan fhtagn fhtagn!!

[Google translation: Great Cthulhu in dead city R'lyeh sleeping will consume UCLA in large Republican gyro spiced with cumin!]

--Or--

Izmud: Pope John Paul II may have been notable and respected for many of his achievements in his lifetime, most particularly in the international relations realm. However, IMO he also bungled the handling of the priest sex scandal cases, and his hard-line stance on modern social issues has led to a Church-admitted net loss of the faithful averaging 10-15,000 per month worldwide!

Monk: Ya, you great poof! Mine hovercraft is full of eels, but I am no longer infected! Drop your panties, Sir Winston ... I cannot wait til lunchtime--my nipples explode with delight!

I shall start things off again with a re-posting of Vita ab Alto's original manifesto, with a few names changed to better implicate the guilty.

Until then, to paraphrase the immortal words of Wensleydale and Customer:

Reader: It's ... um ... it's not really much of a blog then, is it?

Monk: Finest in the district, squire!

Reader (annoyed): Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

Monk: Well, it's so clean, sir!

Reader: Yes, it's certainly uncontaminated by blogging...

Monk

PJP II: Not All As & Bs?

When Pope John Paul II died recently, I wrote a tribute praising his contributions to the death of communism, his strong stance against dilution of his denomination's teachings, and his stance against moral relativism. The details of my post are unimportant now, but it started a long thread concerning Popes and religion in general that I will try to recapture in Vita ab Alto.

Monk

Izmud started the comments:

Pope John Paul II may have been notable and respected for many of his achievements in his lifetime, most particularly in the international relations realm. However,IMO he also bungled the handling of the priest sex scandal cases, and his hard-line stance on modern social issues has led to a Church-admitted net loss of the faithful averaging 10-15,000 per month worldwide! While conservatives may agree with his stance on these issues, or admire his doggedness in refusing to bend to modern convention and liberalism, the bottom line is that his effectiveness as a leader of a group of people comes into question if his numbers are dropping rather than rising. So, a mixed report card overall for the late Pope.

Izmud

Imperialism and Treason: The Debate Continues

ChefJef continues our conversation of the last several days:

While an intelligent person may reasonably infer from my comments that I was saying a direct comparison of a U.S. President and Hitler is okay, I did not imply it. I believe I mentioned that that would be insane. I also believe that, in Monk’s quote of the newspaper article that covered the “art” story, the article stated that the “art” display did not draw a comparison between Bush and Hitler. This is why I limited the scope of my comments to a discussion of certain tactics, and why I said “grain” of truth, not simply truth. I’ll admit, to us lawyers adjectives and adverbs are important; maybe too important. Perhaps linguistic nuances to the legally educated are, rightly so, hollow verbage to the sane world. Accordingly, perhaps the preceding has clarified, with my apologies, any erroneous, yet reasonable inferences drawn but unintended from my previous comment.

Counselor, you have me there. I do not think YOU intended even an inference that Bush = Hitler. I do not think you believe this; I sincerely believe that you, like me, think a serious comparison of this nature is a) nuts—carpet-chewing, tinfoil hat stuff—and b) stupid—thoroughly ignorant of history and the nature of evil in the world.

That said, I DO think that the boy and, more to the point, his teachers in Rhode Island, DID intend a direct comparison, even if the boy represented this disingenuously as a comparison between the tactics or operational art of the Wehrmacht and US forces. This is not how the comparison was taken and is not how it was intended. Whatever the words that accompanied the mobile said, a depiction of Hitler giving the Zeig Heil in front of toy soldiers of one (wrong) color directly next to W holding his arms up in front of his own goosestepping toy army cannot reasonably be taken any other way. Many learned treatises (some of them mine) have compared the doctrinal and technological revolution represented in Blitzkrieg with the current transformation of military practice. This is a valid—and values-neutral—line of research. It carries no implied comparison of Hitler’s ideology with that of the Bush administration. The Rhode Island kid’s project did. Period. Regardless of your own opinion on the subject, Chefjef—a reasonable one, I think—this is what the kid and his BlueState betters meant to be taken from his efforts. Any wordy protests and demurrals on their part are just legalese.

ChefJef continues:

I understand Monk’s aversion to the use of the President’s name in same sentence with Hitler. I’ll admit, reading your argument I can “feel” how it offends you. I’ll also admit that I did fully understand it until now. But having read your post, I understand your position, and concede it; so much so that I will avoid doing it, and make the point to anyone who may do it in my presence.

Us RedStaters ‘presheate that. Gitrdone!

That being said, perhaps some on the Right will understand that some on the Left and in the Middle – yes, I consider myself in the Middle, stop laughing Monk! – find objectionable the “looseness” with which some on the Right use the terms traitor and treason. Not just in the legal sense, either, but also, as Monk stated, in the qualitative sense. For example, I have had people in the recent past question my patriotism for my criticism of President Bush, the Iraq war and my suggestions that the war (particular the Wolfowitz, et al, ideology behind it) is somewhat imperialistic – imperialistic de facto, not de jure; just because a person thinks they’re actions are benevolent doesn’t mean they actually are (after all Don Quijote thought himself sane!). Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Me, I served 8 years in the Army, 2 in the Infantry – not a rear unit, the Infantry. Then, after the start of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, I voluntarily enlisted in a highly deployable M.P. unit in the Army Guard, even though I disagree with the current war, because our forces are a tad low on qualified leaders and I can’t sit by watching my American brethren go off to the desert like that. Oh yeah, I serve my city everyday at work, too. I KNOW I am a loyal American. I have served and continue to serve my Country, State and City. Thus, when I, or someone like me, is accused of disloyalty because of our
sincere political analysis, (someone like Michael Moore may be different – there is a sincerity and honesty issue there) I find it beyond offensive. Let’s not forget that this boy we are discussing is in fact just a kid, and one who is clearly, I think we all agree, surrounded by less than objective educators. I truly doubt he is a disloyal traitor.

I concede your point again. I have used the term too loosely at times, I admit. For that I apologize, especially if it has offended an obvious member of the loyal opposition such as yourself. I honor your service, as you have honored mine, and have no doubts whatsoever concerning your loyalty to your country and your community. I can think you a fine American—and I do—and still disagree with you, even on “first principles.” That is, after all, much of the point of this blog. Debating these issues with civility and intelligence is an art that has largely been lost in this age’s partisan fog. It is an art our founding fathers possessed, as you yourself have pointed out. Our founding age was remarkable for the open debate that took place between fine minds of differing points of view and the survival and prosperity of our Republic is in large part a reflection of the reasonable compromise on first principles they were able to achieve. I’m confident similar common cause can be found today; we just need to get past the kind of rhetoric that both sides have over-indulged in these last twenty years or so. The Civil War was an example of what happens even in a nation based on reasoned, moderate first principles when civil discourse breaks down.

I believe I made clear in my last post that there is a distinction to be made between the benevolence of intent and the fact of empire. Conquer, keep, and rule—you do those things and you are an empire. If you sweep away an army and government, set up civil rule of law, and ultimately withdraw all but your commercial interests, you are not an empire, you have a sphere of influence. The US sphere of influence today spans the globe. (I don’t consider that such a bad thing, either.) If we are an empire and if our motives are imperialistic, then the definition of empire has morphed to include the exercise of soft power as well as hard power. By this definition, the Vatican is an empire that spans the globe too. Wahabbi Sunni is also an empire that spans half a billion screaming muslims (scary thought, that). This may be reasonable, but it does not accord with the conventional definition of empire.

A note to veep…. Monk already dealt with the assertion that a democracy cannot be imperialistic. Also, you asked how spreading democracy can be imperialistic. Well, that’s depends upon how it is spread. If a democratic country invades, let’s say, a socialist country (okay…I’ll admit an invasion of Canada - excuse me Kannukistan - would be cool)…

…Gitrdone!…

…where the citizens actually desire and enjoy their socialist existence, and we do so for the purpose of “manifest destiny,” it is probably imperialistic. To simplify, if you have a piece of chocolate cake, and I say, “ sure do like cake,” and you give me a piece, you are a sharing person. If you have the cake and ask me if I want a piece, and I say “no, thank you,” and you say “but you don’t understand how good it is” and then forcibly shove it down my face, well then you’re not a sharer, you’re an assault and batterer. A simplistic example, I know, but the underlying moral and legal principle applies equally to cake sharing and war making.

Uh…..nice try, but no. We forced an end to Fascism on Italy and Germany, an end to militaristic imperialism (correctly defined) on Japan and an end to communism on Soviet Russia, but none of these actions were “imperialistic” per se. We conquered the first three of these countries, yes. But we administered them for several years (taking casualties from disgruntled insurgents the whole time) and we eventually restored or established the civilian rule of law and left them to their own devices. This WAS “assault and battery,” a point I readily concede (albeit they started it), but it WAS NOT imperialism. If I force you to eat a piece of my Napoleon against your will, it is a form of assault. If I then put a gun to your head, put you in a cage, and force you to do my bidding from now ‘til…whenever…that is imperialism. Again, America has done this in the past, even though the results were largely benevolent, but it is NOT doing so in Iraq.ChefJef goes on,

That brings me to one small point to Monk. You mentioned that “how” doesn’t matter in the analysis of pre-emption vs. imperialism. Well, I think those on the receiving end may very much differ.

They may. And they’d be wrong. I’m sure the denizens of Dresden thought it was “imperialistic” of us and the Brits to turn them into 100,000 hunks of well-done steak in atonement for their nation’s genuine imperialism, but they’d be wrong, too. I’m sure the people of Hiroshima would have thought it similarly nasty of us to turn them into shadows and grease spots on the pavement, had they had time to think about it. Terrible? Perhaps. Assault? Certainly. Perhaps even murder in the strict sense. But imperialism? No. It was not. By the same token, I’m sure Slobodan Milosevic thought we were being bloody “imperialistic” when Bill Clinton ordered his cronies’ porn and stolen car parts factories bombed back to the Middle Ages, but, again, that was assault, not imperialism. One can wage war, kill, destroy, coerce, and impose one’s will in a multitude of ways and those you are attacking can curse you to heaven from now until doomsday, but none of this will be “imperialism” unless the attacker’s intent is to conquer, keep, and rule.

Lastly, and most importantly, as Monk pointed out I did vote with my feet. You
got me there! Darn!

And, as the wise man has said, young Grasshopper: GITRDONE!

By the way, I think your blog is swimming along splendidly. Kudos!

Chefjef

Thanks—and you are a large part of the reason it is. Keep those cards and letter coming in, folks!

Monk

Imperialism and Treason

Chefjef responds to this post of mine:

"I meant blitzkrieg. I was too lazy to type it out, so I typed blitz in quotes, but then got lazier and dropped the quotes. Sorry for the confusion.

"While an intelligent person may reasonably infer, from my comments, that I was saying a direct comparison of a U.S. President and Hitler is okay, I did not imply it. I believe I mentioned that that would be insane. I also believe that, in Monk’s quote of the newspaper article that covered the “art” story, the article stated that the “art” display did not draw a comparison between Bush and Hitler. This is why I limited the scope of my comments to a discussion of certain tactics, and why I said “grain” of truth, not simply truth. I’ll admit, to us lawyers adjectives and adverbs are important; maybe too important. Perhaps linguistic nuances to the legally educated are, rightly so, hollow verbage to the sane world. Accordingly, perhaps the preceding has clarified, with my apologizes, any erroneous, yet reasonable inferences drawn but unintended from my previous comment.

"I understand Monk’s aversion to the use of the President’s name in same sentence with Hitler. I’ll admit, reading your argument I can “feel” how it offends you. I’ll also admit that I did fully understand it until now. But having read your post, I understand your position, and concede it; so much so that I will avoid doing it, and make the point to anyone who may do it in my presence.

"That being said, perhaps some on the Right will understand that some on the Left and in the Middle – yes, I consider myself in the Middle, stop laughing Monk! – find objectionable the “looseness” with which some on the Right use the terms traitor and treason. Not just in the legal sense, either, but also, as Monk stated, in the qualitative sense. For example, I have had people in the recent past question my patriotism for my criticism of President Bush, the Iraq war and my suggestions that the war (particular the Wolfawitz (sp?) et al ideology behind it) is somewhat imperialistic – imperialistic de facto, not de jure; just because a person thinks they’re actions are benevolent doesn’t mean they actually are (after all Don Quijote thought himself sane!). Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Me, I served 8 years in the Army, 2 in the Infantry – not a rear unit, the Infantry. Then, after the start of Operation Enduring freedom, I voluntarily enlisted in a highly deployable M.P. unit in the Army Guard, even though I disagree with the current war, because our forces are a tad low on qualified leaders and I can’t sit by watching my American brethren go off to the desert like that . Oh yeah, I serve my city everyday at work, too. I KNOW I am a loyal American. I have served and continue to serve my Country, State and City. Thus, when I, or someone like me, is accused of disloyalty because of our sincere political analysis, (someone like Michael Moore may be different – there is a sincerity and honesty issue there) I find it beyond offensive. Let’s not forget that this boy we are discussing is in fact just a kid, and one who is clearly, I think we all agree, surrounded by less than objective educators. I truly doubt he is a disloyal traitor.

"A note to veep…. Monk already dealt with the assertion that a democracy cannot be imperialistic. Also, you asked how spreading democracy can be imperialistic. Well, that’s depends upon how it is spread. If a democratic country invades, let’s say, a socialist country (okay…I’ll admit an invasion of Canada - excuse me Kannukistan - would be cool) where the citizens actually desire and enjoy their socialist existence, and we do so for the purpose of “manifest destiny,” it is probably imperialistic. To simplify, if you have a piece of chocolate cake, and I say, “ sure do like cake,” and you give me a piece, you are a sharing person. If, you have the cake, and ask me if I want a piece, and I say “no, thank you,” and you say “but you don’t understand how good it is,” and then forcibly shove it down my face, well then you’re not a sharer, you’re an assault and batterer. A simplistic example, I know, but the underlying moral and legal principle applies equally to cake sharing and war making.

"That brings me to one small point to Monk. You mentioned that “how” doesn’t matter in the analysis of pre-emption vs. imperialism. Well, I think those on the receiving end may very much differ.

"Lastly, and most importantly, as Monk pointed out I did vote with my feet. You got me there! Darn!

"By the way, I think your blog is swimming along splendidly. Kudos!"

Chefjef