Blogger Quiz

Question: which blogger can get all of the following into a single blog post:

Justice is a lot like sex, always interesting, but only truly enjoyable when silly concepts like trust, decency and mercy have been perverted right out of it.

Whenever I look into the mirror and think there can't be a bigger loser in the whole wide world, a voice in my head screams, "Al Gore still lives!" I hear any number of voices in my head, true. But this is the only one that makes me feel better about myself.

Global warming is one of the major reasons that people have been mocking liberals since the dawn of time.

I can't be the only one who would have a hard time imagining Al Gore losing sleep over the prospect of Florida being forever under the sea, can I?

Without celebrities, America is just another collection of fat people who kill foreigners. Not unlike the Mongols in the days of old.

But let's get to Big Al's larger point shall we? Are girls with big tits and mental and legal difficulties a threat to American democracy? Or are they just a fun way to spend a weekend? The answer might shock you!

Back then Americans gave a shit about Hollywood, because they really felt that it was the land of hope and dreams. They believed that it was full to overflowing with beautiful, wonderful people who shared their values and love of Jesus, apple pie and America. This might sound familiar, because Americans used to feel that way about America, too.

Fifty years ago, the phrase "politics is show business for ugly people" was a cute joke. Today, it's an astute observation.

Democracy isn't doomed because the media made people stupid, it's doomed because people stopped caring and consciously chose stupidity.

Answer: Skippy, of Enjoy Every Sandwich. But don't go there if you're offended by graphic images or equally graphic and, er, colorful language!

Immigration Reform

One of my readers wrote to ask why I haven't posted about the immigration reform. Fair question, but I'll warn you: it's complicated.

First of all, I have very little real understanding of what the immigration bill actually says -- and the contents are still very much in flux. Worse, I suspect that none of our Senators and Representatives really understand it either. The thing is hundreds of pages long (you can see it here on N.Z. Bear's wonderful site dedicated to this bill).

What little I do understand about the immigration reform bill, I don't like -- but probably not for the reasons you might guess. What I don't like is that it's basically more of the same stuff we're doing now, which I object to. My underlying thoughts:

• I believe, on principle, than anyone with a desire to become an American should be allowed to come to America to pursue that dream. Many people don't know it, but America had no restrictions at all on immigration until the late 1800s -- and significant restrictions were first put in place in the 1930s. I believe we've lost something important by pursuing the route of immigration control.
  
  
• I believe that immigrants who fail to become good Americans should be deported. By "become a good American", I mean assimilation and permanent residence, learning our common language (English, as some seem not to know), and in general, good behavior. All of these are necessarily subjective assessments, and I believe we should not shrink from making them. In other words, rather than "defend the border", I believe we should cull our prospective citizens to get rid of the bad apples.
  
  
• I believe that immigrants should make it on their own steam, or with the help of their sponsors -- not with government assistance. I believe this is an essential filter mechanism to ensure that America attracts good, productive new citizens -- not welfare recipients.
  
  
• I believe that the notion of "defending the borders" is absurd on first principles. Particularly deceptive is the idea that we must defend the borders to defend against terrorism. The very idea that any conceivable border defense (whether practical or not) would inhibit terrorist attacks on the U.S. is laughable on its face -- the only way we could accomplish that is if we walled ourselves off from the world, and allowed no travelers in or out. Putting up a fence on the Mexican border will simply cause the people who so desperately want to come to the U.S. to come in through some other means -- and there will always be some other means.
  

So there's my slightly radical viewpoint. It seems clear that the immigration reform bill makes no move in this direction, so I do not support it.

Bomb Iran

Norman Podhoretz, writing in the WSJ's OpinionJournal, has a fascinating essay advocating the bombing of Iran. The lead:

Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.

What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.

He goes on to make the case in very convincing fashion, arriving at this point (which I agree with):

In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force--any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.

Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States. Even then, we would probably be unable to get at all the underground facilities, which means that, if Iran were still intent on going nuclear, it would not have to start over again from scratch. But a bombing campaign would without question set back its nuclear program for years to come, and might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs.

The opponents of bombing--not just the usual suspects but many both here and in Israel who have no illusions about the nature and intentions and potential capabilities of the Iranian regime--disagree that it might end in the overthrow of the mullocracy. On the contrary, they are certain that all Iranians, even the democratic dissidents, would be impelled to rally around the flag. And this is only one of the worst-case scenarios they envisage. To wit: Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq. It would attack Israel with missiles armed with nonnuclear warheads but possibly containing biological or chemical weapons. There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a lovefest.

I readily admit that it would be foolish to discount any or all of these scenarios. Each of them is, alas, only too plausible. Nevertheless, there is a good response to them, and it is the one given by John McCain. The only thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has declared, is allowing Iran to get the bomb.

And yet those of us who agree with McCain are left with the question of whether there is still time. If we believe the Iranians, the answer is no. In early April, at Iran's Nuclear Day festivities, Ahmadinejad announced that the point of no return in the nuclearization process had been reached. If this is true, it means that Iran is only a small step away from producing nuclear weapons. But even supposing that Ahmadinejad is bluffing, in order to convince the world that it is already too late to stop him, how long will it take before he actually turns out to have a winning hand?

If we believe the CIA, perhaps as much as 10 years. But CIA estimates have so often been wrong that they are hardly more credible than the boasts of Ahmadinejad. Other estimates by other experts fall within the range of a few months to six years. Which is to say that no one really knows. And because no one really knows, the only prudent--indeed, the only responsible--course is to assume that Ahmadinejad may not be bluffing, or may only be exaggerating a bit, and to strike at him as soon as it is logistically possible.

Finally, he concludes with this:

Much of the world has greeted Ahmadinejad's promise to wipe Israel off the map with something close to insouciance. In fact, it could almost be said of the Europeans that they have been more upset by Ahmadinejad's denial that a Holocaust took place 60 years ago than by his determination to set off one of his own as soon as he acquires the means to do so. In some of European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime, and the European Union only recently endorsed that position. Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the wholesale slaughter of Jews back then, the Europeans seem no readier to lift a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around.

Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this president, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.

I have no idea what Mr. Podhoretz things of the rest of George W. Bush's performance as President. Personally I have been very disappointed by many aspects of his presidency -- but on the question of the war on terror, I rate his performance very highly. As Mr. Podhoretz points out, Mr. Bush has endured just about every indignity one can imagine because of his stance on the war on terror -- and for that resoluteness, on the issue that has the highest priority in the nation (in my book, at least), he has earned my forgiveness for all his other failings. I simply don't care how he does on the rest of his agenda, so long as he pursues our enemies.

This same logic (which I know many would call simplistic, and certainly not nuanced enough) drives my thinking on the candidates for the 2008 presidential election. All I need to know about them is their stance on the war on terror. This immediately causes me to rule out every announced Democratic candidate, along with most of the Republican candidates. I'm left with a tiny pool of Republicans -- Guliani and possibly some others whose position on the war on terror I don't yet understand, such as Fred Thompson (who of course hasn't even announced yet). If there was no war on terror, Guliani wouldn't attract me at all; he stands for much that I disagree with. Like Mr. Bush, however, I'd forgive him all of that just to get his leadership on the war on terror...

Parachutist Dies in Jamul

Update and bump: A new report identifies the victim as 48-year old Forrest Miller.

Original post:

I've only seen this from one news source (FOX 6), who is reporting that an as-yet unnamed parachutist has died at Skydive San Diego (near Otay Lakes):

An investigation is underway into the death of a parachutist in Jamul. The 48-year old jumper died on Monday after his parachute went into an uncontrollable spin around 1000 feet.

He came to a stop when he hit a tree, at 120 miles an hour. Paramedics gave him CPR, but he died on the scene.

Many moons ago, before I was married, I was an avid skydiver. I learned while in the U.S. Navy, stationed at Mare Island, in 1973. Between then and about 1979, I made over 400 jumps at drop zones all over the world -- but mostly at Davis/Dixon, Elsinore, and Otay Lakes here in California. I still get a little shiver when I read of someone being injured or killed pursuing this hobby...

Hee Ah Lee

An inspiring video about Hee Ah Lee, a Korean woman who overcomes challenges that most of us cannot even imagine -- and has become a concert pianist playing to sold-out concert halls.

Read more about Hee Ah Lee here and here.
Thanks, Chrys, for letting me know about this!