The Motor City Madman

Ted Nugent is a force of nature. He wrote some classic rock songs in the mid-70s and was the top touring act in the world between 1977 and 1979. He has also written for more than 20 publications, and is the author of The New York Times best-seller "God, Guns and Rock 'n' Roll" (July 2000), and "Kill It and Grill It" (2002), a cookbook co-authored with his wife. In 2003-2004, he hosted a reaity TV series on VH1 entitled Surviving Nugent, in which city dwellers moved to his Michigan ranch where they learned to build an outhouse and skin a boar, among other things.

Currently, Uncle Ted is co-starring with several other rock stars (Scott Ian of Anthrax on guitar, Evan Seinfeld of Biohazard on bass, Sebastian Bach of Skid Row on vocals, and Jason Bonham of Bonham UFO, and Foreigner on drums) in the new VH1 reality show Supergroup. AdmitTEDly (sorry, couldn't pass it up), I'm a sucker for these kinds of shows and I was hooked after the first episode. Any show about aging rock stars with huge egos coming together to create a new band that has to write enough songs to play a gig in 12 days is bound to be good television. The highlight of the show is Nugent--hands down.

He is quick-witted, politically incorrect, and hilarious. He's definately made some big-time gaffes in his lifetime, but that serves to make him more colorful. I just find the guy fascinating. This interview in the online edition of The Independant is a classic. Here's a sample (strong language warning is in effect):

INTERVIEWER:

"What do these deer think when they see you coming?" I ask him. "Here comes the nice guy who puts out our dinner? Or, there's the man that shot my brother?"

NUGENT:

"I don't think they're capable of either of those thoughts, you Limey asshole. They're only interested in three things: the best place to eat, having sex and how quickly they can run away. Much like the French."

Ahhh. Refreshing. The whole thing is great.

Time To Go Home

We leave Hawaii tomorrow morning to go home to Orange County. It's been a fantastic trip. My family and I have had a wonderful time and met some really nice people. Hopefully I'll have time to blog and post more photos later.

Jesus Is Not Their Homeboy

From Tim Graham at The Corner:

Have you ever wondered how the media hype surrounding The DaVinci Code stacks up against the does-Mel-hate-Jews frenzy over The Passion of the Christ? Come see my new report on “The Trashing of the Christ,” which compares ABC, CBS, and NBC news coverage (or with the Code, the thinly disguised free advertising) of the two movies. Not only were the networks endlessly “intrigued” by the anti-Christian “legends,” it spurred them to long prime-time specials peddling wacky theories that even the theorists admitted they couldn’t prove. And they call it “news.”

So, making a movie that attempts to convey a historically accurate event about the passion of Jesus Christ is controversial because of how it makes Jews feel, but a movie involving fantastic claims about Jesus' life with no basis in fact is celebrated, despite the fact that it offends Christians. I don't have a problem with the making of this movie, or the book for that matter, but what I want to know is, when is someone going to make an historically accurate movie about the life of Muhammed?

I'm not holding my breath.

The Outworking of Political Ideology

A thought-provoking post over at The Belmont Club that discusses how the attacks of 9/11 put a defining question to different modes of American political consciousness. Wretchard writes:

Until then it was possible to treat many ideologies respectable since the 1960s as harmless forms of iconoclasm, posing "provocative" but fundamentally hypothetical views. But when attacks on the US homeland made it categorically necessary to answer the question: 'are you willing to fight our assailants', many sincere ideologues paused, shook their heads and said: 'No. In fact I am morally obligated to help our assailants'. When Noam Chomsky went out of his way to support Hezbollah it wasn't inexplicable, it was logical. His long articulated hypotheticals have simply become actuals.

He concludes:

Until September 11 it was possible for the more "enlightened" segments of society to regard patriotism, religion and similar sentiments with the kind of amused tolerance that one might reserve for simpletons. Nothing that a little institutionalization and spare change couldn't straighten out. The problem for the Democratic Party is that the Great Polite Silence is over. People like Chomsky and President Bush have stopped being hypothetical and become all too real. Bring it on.

I don't have enough time to comment on it because we're going to the beach shortly. But, it's well worth reading and, if I have time later, I'll post some thoughts on it.

Nice To Hear Some Good News

MICHAEL BARONE serves up some good news about the state of affairs in the world today.

Things are better than you think. Yes, I know, most Americans are in a sour mood these days, convinced that the struggle in Iraq is an endless cycle of bloodshed, certain that our economy is in dismal shape, lamenting that the nation and the world are off on the wrong track. That's what polls tell us. But if we look at some other numbers, we'll find that we are living not in the worst of times but in something much closer to the best.

It would be nice to hear about this in our media once in awhile.

Instapundit chimes in:

[I]f we elect a Democrat to the White House we'll hear a lot more about those good numbers...

Time For His 15 Minutes

An ongoing court battle in Britain pits Apple Corp. Ltd. (started many years ago by The Beatles) and Apple Computer Inc., in a fight over whether the computer company has infringed on the music company's business interests. BBC TV invited a British journalist and blogger named Guy Kewney, an expert in music downloads, to discuss the issue. When the call came to go on-air, the assistant in charge of bringing Kewney to the set accidently brought his taxi driver. They proceeded to sit him down, pin a mic on his lapel, and interview him. The video can be seen here.

Evidently, he's now a media star in Britain. Good for him. (hat tip: The Corner)

Deligitimizing Debate

Wretchard at Belmont Club links to an article over at the Volokh Conspiracy about the way in which an opposing viewpoint is not refuted, but delegitimized. Volokh takes his example from an article in Slate quoting President Bush.

Here's today's Slate's Bushism of the Day:

"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" -- Showing German newspaper reporter Kai Diekmann the Oval Office, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2006

Here is the context for that quote:

That's George Washington, the first President, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting? People say, so what? Well, here's the "so what." You never know what your history is going to be like until long after you're gone. If they're still analyzing the presidency of George Washington -- (laughter.) So Presidents shouldn't worry about the history. You just can't. You do what you think is right, and if you're thinking big enough, that history will eventually prove you right or wrong. But you won't know in the short-term.

Volokh comments:

Without this context, Bush's quote seems mysteriously inarticulate, and understandable only as an unintentional self-parody of his own unintellectualism. Why would he say that it's interesting that he read three or four books about Washington this year? Mystifying.

Wretchard adds:

It may be that President Bush is a dunce, chimp and idiot. But if so then a cherry-picked quote would not even be necessary to prove the point. It is characteristic of chimpanzees that even if you print their remarks in full they still sound like chimpanzees. The actual point of the the George Washington remark appears to be that history often delivers a judgment different from that of contemporary journalism. This assertion could be legitimately disputed by Slate, which often has wonderful articles. But in this unfortunate instance they've chosen to simply dismiss it as the babbling of a retarded Harvard Business School Graduate and ex-fighter pilot who happens to be President of the United States. There are precious few journalists who can claim as much; and while neither being a Harvard alum, fighter pilot or US President is proof of any particular genius, people having those accomplishments should not normally be presumed illiterate or mentally retarded unless there is compelling proof to the contrary. And the proof, as the full Volokh citation shows is not only absent but suppressed, possibly because it is not proof at all, unless it is proof of the writer's bias.

Exactly right. Dishonest journalism is despicable and often harmful. I'm tired of journalists and publications that selectively edit quotes, lead good news stories with dour headlines or under-report good news altogether, quote "experts" with a political ax to grind without revealing their bias, assume bad faith or intentions on behalf of those they perceive to be their ideological opponents, editorialziing in their "reportage," etc.

Obviously, journalism is reflective of society. Unfortunately, much of the mainstream press is entrenched with leftists, although it is admittedly becoming more balanced over time (or should I say "fair and balanced?"). Nevertheless, the alarming growth of Anti-Americanism abroad over the past few years has been abetted by leftists in the American press who hate conservatives, Christians, and traditionalists--in other words, those whom are personified by Presdient Bush.

Saying that President Bush is an idiot or that he sounds stupid is simply intellectual laziness by those who want to deligitimize his policies as a way to mollify their feelings of hatred toward him and what/whom he stands for. I don't agree with everything the man says, nor do I think he is a good communicator. But, honest debate about the extremely important issues of today requires a fair look at both sides of the issues, using objective truth to make informed decisions, and allowing the best ideas to prevail. Unfortunately, much of what passes for political dialogue today is nothing more than each side trying to deligitimize the other.

Hilton Hawaii

Yesterday we went to the Hilton Waikaloa, which is an amazing hotel near our condo. Here's a couple of reasons why.


Mike and Dara are getting married here. Actually, we have yet to see the wedding chapel area, which is supposed to be spectacular. I'll post some photos of that soon.

Darkness Forms Over Persia

Bad news from Iran:

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

As if we needed any more proof that the rehtoric coming from Tehran isn't just of the chest-pounding variety. If the collective memory of the Europeans exceeds 60 years, this may help to stiffen their backbone so that we can acheive a consensus for meaningful sanctions and/or other measures to prevent the crazy ayatollahs from obtaining the A-bomb.

Powerline has a good round-up of the most recent, impotant essays regarding the Iranian regime.

A Strong American Ally

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia had this to say to Members of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons...

Australia, as you know, is an unapologetic friend and ally of the United States,” Mr. Howard told a Commons chamber that's heard all-too-frequent criticism of Washington in recent years.

Fresh from a visit to the White House, Mr. Howard told a chamber packed with Tory MPs, staffers, lobbyists and party functionaries — but noticeably light on Liberal Opposition MPs — that the U.S. “has been a remarkable power for good in the world.

“And the decency and hope that the power and purpose that the United States represent in the world is something we should deeply appreciate,” Mr. Howard said to sustained applause. ...

Mr. Howard, picking up on the theme, told the Commons that “terrorism will not be defeated by nuancing our foreign policy. Terrorism will not be defeated by rolling ourselves into a small ball and going into a corner and imagining that somehow or other we will escape notice.”

He also cautioned U.S.-bashers. “For those around the world who would want to see a reduced American role in the affairs of our globe, I have some quiet advice. That is, be careful of what you wish for. Because a retreating America will leave a more vulnerable world.

It's nice to know that America has at least one unapologetic friend in this world. Thank you, Mr. Howard.

We're Here!

Fortunately, we have wi-fi. So, I should be able to post a few things from Hawaii.

This new computer is cool. It has this cool photo booth feature that allows you to take some crazy pictures. Here's one I took of Little Man on the plane.

Here's a disturbing one of my youngest at the condominium.

It's really strange because ever since she's arrived she's had an odd fascination with astrophysics and complex mathematical equations.

More photos will follow. We've got to go get some breakfast.

Aloha

My family and I are leaving for Hawaii early tomorrow morning. While there, I'll see my brother-in-law get married (I'm playing/singing "Here, There, and Everywhere at some point during the ceremony), hang out with the in-laws, hopefully write some music, read a book, enjoy the family, and get some much needed rest.

I'm excited to do some more blogging, too. In fact, I should note that this is my first post on my new Apple Book Pro laptop. This computer is awesome. I plan to use it for recording demos, blogging, managing photos and videos, etc. It should be fun. My next blog will probably be from the big island of Hawaii (hopefully I can find some wi-fi!).

Aloha!

Psycho Babble

James Lileks helpfully transcribes the diminutive Iranian President Ahmagonnakillu's letter to President Bush. An excerpt:

...Our people glow with pride over our nuclear efforts, sometimes literally. I repeat that the enrichment is for peaceful purposes only, and we seek only peace, and peace is our goal, and there is nothing more we love than peace. Except death. Sorry; forgot. Death is definitely number one. In third place of things we love, well, there were those nice ice-cream desserts they had at this little place in Tehran. When I was Mayor I had them brought in on Fridays. Good times, good times. But once I found a hair.

Go Back to the Peanut Farm, Jimmy

Redstate:

Jimmy Carter is — by far — the worst American president that anyone alive today can remember. Pick your poison: Unemployment? Inflation? Foreign affairs debacles? Waiting lines at the gas stations? Deadly killer bunny rabbits? Rude and boorish White House aides? Jimmy Carter had it all.

I couldn't agree more. Even as a young boy I remember the disaster that was the Carter Administration. It was a gloomy time in America, politically speaking. Unfortunately, Carter doesn't know when to quit inflicting his brand of foreign policy on America and the world.

Here are some of the lowlights of his post-presidency diplomatic efforts:

1. During the buildup to the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, while the first President Bush was trying to orchestrate an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts.
2. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country's nuclear program. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter said of Kim Il Sung, a brutal Stalinist dictator, "I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country." He then went live on CNN International without telling the administration to undermine Clinton's efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a "treasonous prick" for his behavior.
3. Carter tried to legitimize the Venezuelan referendum in 2004 on the Hugo Chavez regime where exit polls conducted by the reliable American firm of Penn, Schoen, and Berland showed Chavez losing by a large margin (59 – 41), while the official results put Chavez free and clear by a vote of 58 to 41 percent--a 40 point swing. “I think it was massive fraud,” Doug Schoen told Michael Barone at U.S. News and World Report. “Our internal sourcing tells us that there was fraud in the [Venezuelan] central commission.” There are widespread reports of irregularities and evidence of fraud, many of them ably recorded by Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the Wall Street Journal last week. Carter is untroubled by any of this, and declares that Chavez won “fair and square.”
4. In the 1990 election in Nicaragua, Carter, along with most of the liberal Democratic establishment in Washington, openly hungered for a Sandinista victory as a way of discrediting the Reagan-Bush support for the Contras. Sandinista strongman Daniel Ortega had visited Carter in the U.S. and called him “a good friend,” and Carter consistently downplayed or excused reports of Sandinista pre-election thuggery and voter intimidation.
5. Now he is chastising the Bush Administration for not financing the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, for whom he has become an outspoken defender. According to the Jerusalem Post, Hamas calls for the nuclear destruction of Israel in a nuclear holocaust.
6. Carter reportedly volunteered to be Arafat's speechwriter and go-fer, crafting palatable messages for Arafat's Western audiences and convincing the Saudis to continue funding Arafat after the Palestinians sided with Iraq against the United States.
7. He recently accused U.S. soldiers of torture and oppression at Guantanamo.

I wish Jimmy Carter had stuck to teaching Sunday school and his excellent work building houses for the poor for Habitat For Humanity. If he had, there's little doubt that he could have rehabilitated his image and wiped his disasterous presidency from the American consciousness. Even Nixon had China, which he is widely recognized for making important contributions after his failed presidency. Unfortunately, Carter seems to have boundless energy and an uncanny knack for being on the wrong side of history.

While it's too late to impeach him, this organization wants him censured. It'll never happen; but, it's not as if there aren't plenty of reasons to.

The verdict: Nice man, crappy politician.

The U.N. Kills

That's Mark Steyn's conclusion in this article in The Austrailian. Here he points out the absurdity that is the U.N.:

If you think the case for intervention in Darfur depends on whether or not the Chinese guy raises his hand, sorry, you're not being serious. The good people of
Darfur have been entrusted to the legitimacy of the UN for more than two years and it's killing them. In 2004, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan took decisive action and appointed a UN committee to look into what's going on. Eventually, they reported back that it's not genocide.

Thank goodness for that. Because, as yet another Kofi-appointed UN committee boldly declared, "genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated". So fortunately what's going on in the Sudan isn't genocide. Instead, it's just hundreds of thousands of corpses who happen to be from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, at which point the so-called "decent left" can support a "multinational" force under the auspices of the Arab League going in to ensure the corpses don't pollute the water supply.

Victor Davis Hanson illustrates why the daily slaughter of defenseless human beings continues as the U.N. looks on:

[People] simply die because the United Nations acts as if it's going to do things, so it thwarts unilateralism on the part of responsible parties, and it does nothing, and people perish and are forgotten. So I think the United States is saying look, we're willing to step forward, but we're not going to do this anymore where we get hung out to dry in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Balkans, and Panama. Every time we try to do something to stop a dictator or a thug, we have these triangulators who want it to be done, but not us to do it. So I think we're sort of seeing an American zen now, where the United States is trying to say you wanted this type of world, you have it. And then yet not being completely nihilistic, in the sense that we will act, finally, if no one else will, but we want this other dialogue to play out.

Another reason the U.N. is so ineffectual is its leadership. Kofi Annan is too busy raking in large sums of money from people he subsequently appoints to UN commissions to notice the genocide taking place under his watch.

Communism's Been Bedy Bedy Good To Castro

[Fidel] Castro, who says his net worth is nil, is likely the beneficiary of up to $900 million, based on his control of state-owned companies, the U.S. financial magazine [Forbes] said in its annual tally of "Kings, Queens & Dictators" fortunes on Thursday.

I wonder if the people who are actually forced to live under his totalitarian rule feel as warm and fuzzy about communism as Castro? Somehow I doubt it.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is Losing Ground

It's frustrating that the American media do not report more about our military and political success against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Fortunately, the internet can fill in the gaps left by the media.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters analyzes a captured al-Qaeda correspondence in Iraq that discusses the state of the insurgency. Here's a sample:

From the correspondence:

Northern al-Karkh groups are estimated at 40 mujahid, so is the Southern Karkh. They could double that number if necessary. Al-Rassafah groups in general is estimated at 30 mujahidin as I was informed by the commander of al-Rassafah. These are very small numbers compared to the tens of thousands of the enemy troops. How can we increase these numbers?

Morrissey writes:

This plaintive assessment shows how weakened Zarqawi has become at the hands of the Americans. Between the three commands in the Baghdad area, AQ has a grand total of 110 mujahid, admittedly no match for the thousands of American troops in Baghdad and the thousands of Iraqi troops we are training and putting into play. No wonder Zarqawi has given up on suicide missions -- he has almost nothing left.

That's encouraging.

United 93

I saw United 93 by myself last night (Mike and Cherie wisely abstained). It was a good movie, but, obviously, disturbing. I think the writers/directors purposefully (and smartly) played it straight, sticking to the facts without trying to make some stupid political point. I also thought the filmmakers did an admirable job of not overtly demonizing the terrorists (their actions were sufficient to make that point) or overly-hype the heroic deeds of the passengers (ditto).

Naturally, there was a lot of drama, both in the aircraft and, kind of surprisingly, in the control towers and a military base where officials were trying to sort through the confusion of what was happening (e.g. once they realized an actual hijacking was taking place and deciphered Mohammed Attah's statement, "We have some planes," they realized there were 4,200 planes in the air).

My only complaint was that the movie didn't develop some of the passengers that played a central role in attempting to retake control of the airplane. Not that it was possible to make the characters any more sympathetic, but it would have helped a little cinematically to feel more connected to who these people were--that they weren't just passengers or victims. Perhaps the filmmakers didn't want to be exploitative. Or, maybe the whole point was to illustrate their commonality--that they were all just ordinary people.

But, I just think it's fascinating that, for example, two of the main leaders of the revolt were an evangelical Christian and a gay rugby player. I love that two guys from completely different worlds united to lead a rebellion against the terrorists. Another interesting, albeit minor, point that the movie could have highlighted was the fact that, once the passengers realized what was happening, one of the first things they did was vote to decide on their plan of attack. It would have been great to show the contrast between people who live in a civilized society and those who want to take everyone back to the 7th century (under their rule, of course).

The film did acheive one significant contrast. Toward the end of the film there was a scene juxtaposing the prayers of the terrorists and passengers--with the former praying for success in bringing maximum death and destruction, and the latter praying for life and salvation. A stark contrast and, I think, illustrative of the warring ideologies/theologies battling for supremacy today.

All in all, the film did a good job of portraying an awful event. Some say it was the first battle won by our side in the war on terror. Here's to hoping that the American left and most of the remainder of Western Civilization can overcome its tendency toward self-loathing and actually stand up for itself (side note: it was apropos that the one passenger in the film who kept trying to convince the others to appease the terrorists was a European. Go figure).

Real Evil In This World

Moral idiots who think George W. Bush/America, etc. are evil would be well advised to read this post at Powerline and, more importantly, the link below to the Mudville Gazette post, for a lesson about real evil in this world.

Someone filmed the appallingly brutal murder of one of Iraq's leading journalists, a young woman named Atwar Bahjat, some weeks ago. At the time, she was reported to have been shot by terrorists. The truth, as detailed by Mudville Gazette, is infinitely worse.

The enemy is evil, and those who try to excuse that evil, or who lavish ridiculous mounts of news coverage on stories like Abu Ghraib while leaving their readers in the dark about the real atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic terrorists, are complicit.

More from Jihadwatch:

Anyone who thinks that God's greatness is established by such acts of barbaric cruelty must be resisted at all costs. Yet those who hold to the same ideology, and who think that God Himself will grant Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Him (Qur'an 9:111), are streaming into Western countries, by the design and forethought of Western leaders, with no attempt whatsoever made to determine whether or not they approve of such slaughters and the ideology that motivates them.

This is insane.

Also see the article in the London Sunday Times--"Part of me died when I saw this cruel killing."

UPDATE: The video that Mudville Gazette references reportedly is a fraud. Everything else still applies.

Why We Fight--With Restraint

I am often bemused and frustrated when I hear people on the left gloat that "America is losing the war" in Iraq. In the first place I don't think it's true. But, it does beg the question, "why are we 3+ years into this war with no definitive end in sight?"

No one in their right minds believes the U.S. can be defeated militarily in Iraq. "What about Vietnam?" some say. Students of history know that we were winning that war on the battlefield, but lost it when the media spun the defeat of the Vietcong during Tet into a loss for our troops. Grisly images of American casualties on the nightly news broadcasts eventually turned public opinion against that war and, subsequently, America lost the political will to continue the fight. This loss of political will to fight was the first of many over the next 35 years (excluding the first Gulf War) that emboldened Al 'Qaida into believing that the U.S. was a paper tiger, precipitating numerous terrorist attacks against our citizens/interests around the world and culminating in the 9/11 atrocities.

Even without the use of the devastating unconventional weaponry at our disposal, we could end the fight with brutality and ruthlessness. But, that would involve genocidal warfare on an unimaginable scale, which would not be tolerated by the American public. So, we allow our enemies enough room to fight back at the cost of the lives of some of our finest men and women.

Any leverage our enemies have over us on the battlefield is a direct result of our self-imposed restraint. The question is, "why do we allow them to fight back?".

In this article, Shelby Steele traces what he calls "this new minimalism in war" to white guilt. Sounds strange at first, but some of his arguments are compelling.

Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort--only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.

Steele argues that white guilt requires the U.S. to fight a two-front war: one militarily and one of "dissociation" from our history of racism and imperialism. He writes,

...though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.

This hyper-sensitivity to the stigmatization of their objectives causes our leaders to impose severe limitations on their execution of the war. Steele continues,

To maintain their legitimacy, they practice the minimalism that makes problems linger. What but minimalism is left when you are running from stigmatization as a "unilateralist cowboy"? And where is the will to truly regulate the southern border when those who ask for this are slimed as bigots? This is how white guilt defines what is possible in America. You go at a problem until you meet stigmatization, then you retreat into minimalism.

As they say, read the whole article. Steele's case for why America is so restrained in the execution of this war is, in my opinion, compelling.

Little Man

When there is mischief on his mind...

...and when he is being an Angel...

...when he's making fashion statements...

...being crazy...

...skateboarding...

...or just chillin'...

...Little Man is a rock star...

...in my eyes...

...and one of the greatest joys in life.

Ocho

Although the much-anticipated immigration demonstrations took place today, the big topic in much of the Los Angeles media was Kobe Bryant's heroics in the Lakers' dramatic win over the Phoenix Suns yesterday. I've been a Laker fan since I was 11 years old and have seen so many amazing players, game-winning shots, and championship banners (I admit I've been spoiled), but the two shots Kobe made yesterday were definately up there with the best of them.

It's been really remarkable to watch Kobe grow from a selfish egomaniac to a leader who is beginning to transcend the game. He embodies the competitive spirit and, like Michael Jordan in the previous generation, can impose his will on the game, often tipping the balance in the Lakers favor. I think the humiliation of the sexual assault allegations/trial coupled with last season's Lakers debacle had a humbling affect on Kobe. It's nice to see him regain stature as a winner, but more importantly as a leader. I read today that he took time to point out the contributions of each of his teammates in a post-game locker room meeting, praising them for their efforts and perseverance. That's what good leaders do. So many have been surprised by this series because of Kobe's unselfishness.

Someone said: Kobe stopped looking for greatness, and greatness found him. I think that's about right.

By the way, congratulations are in order for Kobe and his wife, Vanessa, who gave birth to their second daughter today. Shaquille O'Neal's wife also gave birth to a daughter today. Coincidence? I think not...well, maybe.