the True Nature of Reality

The news is surreal

Why is the news from Iraq presented as an endless stream of mostly white male western talking heads? Why is it always people talking about the news from Iraq, incredibly scanty as it is, instead of, you know, actual news from Iraq, and elsewhere?

Endless Congressmen and Senators pontificating on high questions of Middle Eastern foreign policy - like they have a clue, of the region's history, politics, religion, or the facts on the ground now. It seems clear the vast majority of them don't.

I don't disparage these guys for making much talk from very little knowledge - I do the same, most bloggers do. What's surreal is that this is almost all there is in news coverage. In other words, no real news coverage at all. Just reports of various outrages telegraphed in somehow to the "on the scene" reporters in a Baghdad hotel, and for every 5 minutes of that "source material" we get days of unqualified talking heads. It's surreal. Life is stranger than fiction.

We're all worked up about world war and political decisions and who is going to be President (if we all live so long) and nobody really knows what the heck is going on.

If it wasn't for the Iraqi and soldier's blogs, I'd feel completely lost. And who would have imagined that? Life is strange.

Unemployment at 3.1 percent

They just announced on the local 247 news channel that Manatee County (just south of here) has an unemployment rate of 3.1%.

Florida is very much in play.

Evolution, Schmevolution

Dean Esmay asks an interesting question. It's something I've wanted to comment on for some time, so I'll use his post as a springboard. Thanks Dean! :)

I notice that yet again, a non-native species is threatening indigenous life. This time it's frogs, but it's happened countless times with other species of bugs, cats, dogs, rats, and so on around the globe.

It does leave me wondering if we won't eventually see fairly uniform wildlife on most continents.

We are clearly well into the sixth mass extinction event in Earth's history. Before it's done we'll lose anywhere from 25-75% of species (that's just my guess, the experts are also pulling numbers out of their...hats). I expect this loss to take centuries but not millennia.

First thing is we should all just get used to the idea. Get over it. It's happening, it's going to happen, and it can't be stopped. Even if someone were to pull a successful "Rainbow Six" and exterminate the human race, things have already gone so far that the extinctions will continue for some time.

We should also stop worrying about our own survival. Life-as-we-know-it has survived 5 of these before, and produced wonderful US at the end. :) There will be no total ecological collapse.

What's interesting is that species don't disappear, in most cases, from direct human predation. Rather they are lost to due to changing local ecosystems. Ecosystem loss is not so widely perceived because the environmentalists are such propagandists that they tend to concentrate on cute but uncompetitive species like pandas and condors. Shots of clear-cut forest or dead coral reef or red tide just aren't nearly as sexy for fundraising, y'know? Who wants to wear a picture of a clear-cut on their t-shirt?

Ok, if we can't save the lost-cause endangered species, then what?

What we can do, and should do in my opinion, is strive to save productive ecosystems. When you save productive ecosystems you save thousands or millions of species. Don't waste a lot of effort on deserts like Mojave and ANWR. Save places where life happens. Try to keep their life-friendliness up. Don't worry so much about exactly what grows. Worry about having enough growing spaces, in enough different locations.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we need to "give back" a bunch more land to Mom. We can support zillions of viable ecosystems with a small proportion of the Earth's surface. We just need to be smarter about how we value certain things.

The very, very long-term upside of the mass extinction process is that new species come from evolutionary opportunity. As existing species die off, or the environment changes, ecological niches open up. The mechanism of evolution and speciation seems to take advantage of these opportunities and the rate of speciation goes way up. Incredible species we cannot today imagine will arise from all this. Of course, that will be a long time ahead in the future. :)

So, in the short term (hundreds/thousands of years), I think Dean's prognosis will come true. Large numbers of species will be lost, and "Über-species" that are effective competitors in many environments will tend to spread and fill the gaps, worldwide. But once the empty niches are occupied again, then the competition for advantage at the margins becomes important, and increased local specialization, and hence speciation, results. Another wild and wacky turn on the Wheel of Life.

Evolution, Schmevolution. Bring it on! :)

The leaders of the Democratic Party

Al Sharpton, near criminal.

John Kerry, near traitor.

Bill Clinton, near impeached.

Howard Dean, near maniac.

Al Gore, near maniac.

They were all also near-President (some a lot closer than others, I'll grant) on behalf of the Democratic Party.

Do I see a pattern here? I think I do. I hadn't really laid them all out end-to-end like this before. It makes an impressive collection. doesn't it?

Seriously folks, these are the people you think should run the United States of America? You want to put your safety, and that of your family, your community, and your livelihood, in the hands of such as these?

This is the best the Democratic Party can do?

It's a disgrace, is what it is. I look at a list like that and think maybe we really should stay home.

Why no comments?

Sondra K asks in email "why no comments?"

Several reasons. I used to have comments, but then I got spammed and shut them off. I tried installing MT-Blacklist but it wouldn't work for me. It's a lot of work to maintain them, especially by hand.

But the main reason is that it bugs me when people write incredibly stupid crap. There's a lot of that online (and yes, I realize many will include this entire site). I can't do anything about it anywhere else, but when I see it on my own site it just grates. Since I don't have the time or inclination to police or control Stupidity in the comments, and since such Stupidity would bug me, I just leave comments off.

Does that also bug me? Yes, very much. I miss out on comments from the likes of Sondra K, and that's a big give-up.

More good news from Iraq

So the New York Times thinks they have been remiss. True. But not in the way they state.

Here's some news from Iraq they won't publish.

Schröder thinks Bush and the US are criminals?

Hmmm. David Kaspar passes along an interesting bit. Amazing what these folks say at home for domestic consumption.

Isn't this nice? And this country is supposed to be an "ally"? Tell me again why we are listening to these bozos?

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has made an offer to Swedish mystery author Henning Mankell to co-write a "Crime Story" about George Bush, the USA and the Iraq war.

Does he think this is all just a "story"? A fairy-tale? A big joke?

Tell that to the folks who jumped from the WTC.

Who says the Iraqis aren't helping?

Check out this report from a Marine, related by Robert Prather.

I could tell you stories of individual heroics of Iraqi soldiers. One specific example is of an Iraqi SgtMaj who came into our lines during the first days of fighting in Falluja. He made his way through the mujahadeen and risked being killed by us to tell us that he was concerned about the ICDC (Iraqi Civil Defense Corps) armory in town. He knew it was only a matter of time until the muj went for the armory to take the weapons. Honestly, I would have thought that they had already done it as the police stations and every other good piece of ground seemed to be occupied by the muj by that time. In short, he wanted to let us know that he was going back into the town to get the weapons. The Marines asked him if he wanted us to help. No. He only wanted us to take the weapons from him when he came back through. This guy took a couple young Iraqi soldiers with a truck and drove back through our lines into the hornets nest of Falluja. He went to the armory, emptied the weapons and ammo stored there and brought it back out through the fighting to us. We expected him to want to stay with us or to move on to Baghdad or some other safe area. He refused and stated that he was going back into the city as that was where his duty was.

Ok, that part's inspiring, but it's not the most important part of this message. The following paragraph relates more of what it is like for the Iraqis, and how difficult all this is.

Imagine that young guy who joins the ICDC or police. He may be somewhat of an idealist when he gets out of our initial training but when he shows up to his unit, the muj have already infiltrated it and immediately make it clear that there is no hope of survival if he does not do exactly what they say. For good measure and effect, they regularly assassinate Iraqi policemen and soldiers just to make it clear that they will kill them on a whim. The guys that were in place prior to April lived in that world. We are working against it still. Without the tradition and culture of the Marine Corps and constantly thinking that their very presence next to us may get their families killed, I am amazed they made it for an hour much less than three days.

There are brave, selfless Iraqis with much more than just skin in the game. They need our help. We must not abandon them again.

Have some patience, and some faith.

Mainstream media lies, en masse. Again.

Jason Van Steenwyk does a lovely job of fisking media "quotes" of General Mattis. Although I didn't look into this when the stories first ran, it smelled to me, right from the get-go. I couldn't believe that an American general would make a statement as callous as:

"Let's not be naive," he said. "Bad things happen in wars."

"I don't have to apologize for the conduct of my men," he added.

And sure enough, he didn't.

Jason runs it ALL down, with a transcript of the original press conference, and contrasts it with 6, um, "creative" interpretations of the General's comments from such worthies as the Globe and Mail, New York Times, Independent, etc.

Typical.

They're worse than useless.

HT: Instapundit

UPDATE

Cox & Forkum illustrate the point perfectly.

HT: Rachel Lucas

It was a good speech

A good speech. Not the best, not his greatest effort, but good.

The President laid out a sensible plan, nothing new there except for some details that seem fairly obvious, but I guess that's the frickin' POINT for all those who keep lying about "there is no plan!" Pay attention this time. There is a plan, and has been all along.

He seemed somewhat worn, and perhaps a bit nervous. The responsibility weighs on him. He stumbled once or twice. My heart went out to him. He's doing his best.

Meanwhile, in unreported news, the military has been achieving tremendous success in Iraq. They got Fallujah quieted down without alienating the townsfolk. They're fostering the emergence of quasi-viable Iraqi-based security there. In other news, note the lack of Shia uprising. Even though the bad guys in both groups tried hard, they were unable to get the Shia and Sunni to rise up together. Sistani and the other Shia clerics continue to distance themselves from Al Sadr. Al Sadr is being chased from pillar to post, dropping fighters by the dozens along the way. His days are now numbered in days.

Things ain't perfect, but they're far from gloomy. We've got a plan, a flexible and loose one to be sure. And we've got our own version of a Greatest Generation over in Iraq putting it into action.

Brahimi or not, UN or not, we're going to try this thing. Let's see if we can't make it work before giving up on it, eh? Time to pull together, people.

Bird Island

The danger

Here are a couple of posts that really need to be read in their entirety. They are on similar themes. I wish I could get every American to read them.

Dueling biases at One Hand Clapping

Bill Whittle gives us

STRENGTH (part 1)

STRENGTH (part 2)

Why do you need to read these? Well, this is why:

UPDATE - There used to be four pictures of the 9/11 attacks here. I took them off. I couldn't stand to see them on my blog. Go ahead, call me lily-livered, or too hot-tempered. Probably both.

And also, most definitely, this is why (from Mr. Whittle)

Throughout this collection I have done my best to try and show how deeply my life has been affected by the miracle that is this country and the family that is her people.

We have been doing a lot of arguing lately, this family. Many things have been said in anger. Well, these are critical, dangerous times…we can all agree on that much, at least.

But we are a family, whether we like each other or not. We are in this together. I would never urge any free man or woman to take sides contrary to their principles, and our principles vary as widely as our places of origins, our accents and our skin colors – no two exactly the same.

I am asking you now, as one voice among millions – nothing more – not to cease criticizing the government, the President, or our actions in Iraq. Without the crucible of heated debate among passionate believers we will lose our way.

All I ask is this:

Do not destroy this house. Do not destroy this house to make a point. It is a magnificent house, a grand and sturdy home to us all. Do not let the stains upon her floor cause you to set her aflame. We have fought amongst ourselves for as long as we have been a people; that will never change, and in its own unpleasant, annoying and wonderful way, it should never change.

But for our sake and for those across the oceans: argue about the paint. Argue about the sleeping arrangements. Argue about how best to wash those stains where they appear.

But for the sake of all who have gone before us here, and all who will come after: help me defend this house.

We're at grave risk, people, in many ways. We have to pull together.

And if that doesn't convince you, consider this, from Rev. Sensing:

There are only four basic outcomes of this war:

1. Over time, the United States engenders deep-rooted reformist impulses in the Islamic lands, leading their societies away from the self- and other-destructive patterns they now exhibit. It is almost certainly too much to ask that the societies become principally democratic as we conceive democracy (at least not for a very long time), but we can (and must) work to help them remit radical Islamofascism from their cultures so that terrorism does not threaten.

2. The Islamofascists achieve their goals of Islamicization of the entire Middle East (at the minimum), the ejection of all non-Muslims from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Persian Gulf, the destruction of Israel, and the deaths of countless numbers of Americans.

3. Absent achieving the goals stated just above, al Qaeda successfully unleashes a mass-destructive, mass-casualty attack against the United States and total war erupts between the US and several Islamic countries.

4. None of the above happen, so the conflict sputters along for decades more with no real changes: we send our troops into combat intermittently, suffer non-catastrophic attacks intermittently, and neither side possesses all of the will, the means and the opportunity to achieve decisive victory. The war becomes the Forever War.

Perhaps you can think of another, different outcome, but I think these pretty much cover them.

So the question for us commentati, whether based on the web or in traditional media, is simply: which of these outcomes is best? Which will be most favorable to human flourishing?

And this:

Roger Simon is right: this war is war at its most basic: "It's about civilization versus a death cult. Make a choice!"

Now.

There's a lot more than George Bush at stake. Consider carefully who really should be vilified, and who should be helped, and consider carefully what the full measure of your stance will be. We're none of us in this alone. We need each other if we're to survive.