Sob Sob the Brave 29

Grief is for parents, but the whole nation seems in sob sob mode just now. "Tsk tsk, isn't it terrible, a terrible tragedy, my how we all suffer. Tsk tsk. This will make it all tsk tsk better. Sob."

It's all fake.

There's only one meaningful emotion toward massacre and that's rage. Rage first at the killer, no one can express enough venom towards that cheap soil of human life; and then rage of another sort, at the 29 cowards at Norris Hall who allowed themselves --and everyone around them!-- to be slaughtered like dumb animals in a pen. These are young people for whom parents might properly grieve, but that should not be the business of the nation. The nation should ask: Why were there 29 such cowards?

There was one brave man out of the entire lot, Prof. Liviu Librescu, an Israeli. He blocked the door to the gunman with his body, and is credited with saving the lives of all the others --who let him there to die!

What marvelous college boys and girls our nation can produce.

So one poor dead courageous Israeli. Were there not five American men in that entire hall who could not have rushed that gunman all at once? For an absolute certainty, had there been five such men the shooting would have stopped right then, hopefully the gun turned on the gunman and that man dead. But there were not five such men. They were children, they hid under desks.

But the poor children are dead so now I must grieve. Sob. Sob sob... Say! That felt good! Sob sob sob sob sob. My, so much better! Sob sob sob. There, I've done my duty I've expressed my grief the nation morns I feel so much better, and now I can go do my other stuff until the next pen of animals is slaughtered. Sob sob sob. Who cares that the nation expects no courage from its citizens?

...................
3:02 AM
This is immensely encouraging. A whole school district training their students to fight back.

Students Trained to Fight School Shooters

(Oct. 18) - The Independent School District of Burleson,Texas, just south of Ft. Worth is the first in the country to adopt a policy of training students to immediately fight back and use their advantage in numbers to take tactical control if a gunman enters their classroom.

"If you have got 15 sixth, seventh and eighth graders, they can be an incredibly effective weapon," Browne said....

Burleson has 14 schools and 8500 students and the independent school district hopes to have every student trained to respond to a gunman by the end of 2007....
"I think the policy is really smart, it is just like 9/11 when they were on the plane," said high school senior Terry Lucas.

The students are instructed to respond the instant they see a threat. "It doesn't give the guy any time to try to collect his thoughts, you just storm him and start hitting him with stuff," said one student.... So far parents, teachers and students support Burleson's take charge policy. But outside of Burleson, Texas safety experts are appalled at the notion of students being trained to storm a person with a weapon....

"Rushing a gunman with scissors or staplers or a book might cause a gunman to shoot that person on the spot," he said....

Browne concedes that his program of fighting back carries risk. He admits that the first student to swarm an attacker may pay with his or her life. However, he believes the risk may be worth it to save other lives.

"He won't be able to shoot the fourth, fifth, eighth, twentieth or thirtieth student," he said.

This warms the cockles of my heart. I'm encouraged. I'm not so angry now.

The Virtue of Humiliation

Humiliation rankles. It stays. Because it has staying power it has transforming power. Britain was humiliated. Can Britain again become manly?

Britain did get back her fifteen service women and Britain seems pleased. I have no idea why. Is it because if they pretend the fifteen were not a humiliation then Britain herself was not humiliated? The modern British military man is now a Britsy Boy. They're dangerous. You want to keep them out of your ranks, out of your area, out of sight, downwind if possible. The modern English military man does not exist.

So who's humiliated? The fifteen exposed themselves in public and feel no shame. Nothing can be done with them. Many in Britain applaud that indecency, or ignore it or excuse it. Nothing can be done with them either. The shameless are just that. But are there those in England now who feel the flesh of their face burn? There have to be such people, and these have to be the people who have to make a difference.

It is Britain who has to make the difference. All America can do is exercise polite distrust.

Humiliation rankles, and so it can transform. But it's only honor that can be humiliated. Without honor there can be no transformation.

The Britsy Boys, By George

Aren't they just adorable, sitting there all lined up for their "news conference", wearing those cute new costumes? These little muppets are darn near unbelievable. They have fully movable joints. You can sit them where ever you want, and they will sit. You can stand them, you can walk them, they can assume any position, and do, and if you pull a string they'll talk. And anybody can pull the string. This makes them international. Everybody loves the Britsy Boy, everybody wants to have a Britsy Boy to play with.

They come in assorted types, by the costume, I mean. Some call these assortments, "military", though I admit the concept is too obscure for consideration just at the moment. But they sure are cute and they're fully malleable and they do look darn near like real men.

As I understand they come from a place called The Kingdom of Little Squat, (or it might be called The Commonwealth of Bitsy Britsy , I'm not sure; it's something like an island). And it is a Kingdom, or was, and this Kingdom also has a Queendom, and the Queendom has a Navie, and this "navy" consists of boats-that-float. If you happen to be a member of The Queen's Royal Boats-That-Float, then you get to dress up; and you get to carry toy guns that don't shoot, and sometimes you get to play with toy armaments, big ones, on boats-that-float... but don't shoot. And you sip tea from tiny cups.

That's about all I know about the little navy from the little kingdom from the little island of little men from somewhere in the great, too-big-for-thee, sea. Somewhere "over there"... I have no idea who buys the make-up.

What Did It Cost?

The sailors have been released. What did it cost us? Probably nothing.

This is my present thinking. There's a lot of speculation we cut a deal, we caved, and when it comes out it will be a terrible embarrassment.

I doubt it. Mullahs are dumb. Conservatives tend to think they're cagey and in "real politic" outclass our own hopelessly innocent leaders. I doubt it. Mullahs only know Mullahdom and absolutely utterly nothing else. I have an idea the sailors were captured just because the Mullahs were peeved and that's what they do. But it didn't turn out well. Other than some propaganda, some humiliation of the sailors, they didn't get much. They could have gotten less, if the sailors had shown spine, but they didn't get much. They didn't get much criticism, but they got no support. From their standpoint, net negative.

I do speculate that they probably did get some private communication. Something in the nature of (to use what I find an appropriate phrase) "You're about to be blown out of the water." If they wanted an "assurance", this they were given, and it may have clarified their cognitive processes; so they staged a last news conference --a silly one, actually, because so out-of-touch with the reality of their comparative weakness-- and whipped, hunkered down, and just now are hoping the bombs don't drop.

Speculation, I admit, but good sense, and in accord with the power we do have, and probably also in accord with our future intent. There was no deal, they caved, and it was because they were given "assurances". Now, who could have given them those "assurances"?

I have a further speculation that Iran may be an effectively functioning democracy before Iraq.

...................
I have to include this, "Pratfall in Damascus" because it's fun. When the Washinton Post can conclude an editorial with these words:

We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

...it's fun. --As I understand, she's also responsible for the release of the British hostages and invented the internet.


In the same vein, this is nice, except it's from John Podhoretz, and so is more what you would expect.

And this is good, from the London Telegraph: They're free, but Britain has been humiliated

Relief at the freeing of the British sailors and Marines in Iran is tempered with dismay at the humiliation to which they and the country they serve have been subjected.....
This bodes badly for the West's relations with Teheran over a number of acutely difficult problems during the coming months....

Good. Very good. Humiliation might sharpen the British cognitive processes.

Day #...? Who Cares?

This has become shameful beyond expression. A violent and inferior nation captures 15 military personnel of a modern nation, and that modern nation does nothing in response. The military personnel did nothing in response, they simply said "We give up." Supposedly they were engaged in a legitimate action sanctioned by the EU and the UN, and the EU and the UN do nothing, and the nation that lost those personnel says "Please, can't we work this out?"

That nation no longer exists.

I would like to be proven wrong. I would like to wake up one morning soon and read that much of Iran has been obliterated... but I fear that's just a dream.

There would be good reasons to do such a thing:

--It would feel good
--It would illustrate that we can destroy a Muslim nation at will and they can do absolutely nothing to stop us
--It would illustrate that we have the Will to do that
--And it would be the right thing to do. It would indicate that there is a moral order in the world and that that order is Western; and it would indicate that we are willing to kill for our beliefs. This is important. In the real world what establishes moral force is not the willingness to die for your beliefs --though that is essential-- but what establishes moral force is the illustration that you are willing to kill for your beliefs. That is conviction, that communicates conviction. One might say it is the first step towards reasonable dialogue.

Jules Writes A Jewel

Just read this by Jules Crittenden, A Little War Goes A Long Way. An absolute delight. Ten times so far today I've been to Drudge hoping to read that the bombs have begun to drop. Hasn't happened, but this is sure in the right spirit.

I have to take a little break now, and settle down my over-excited emotions. Then I'll make a comment.

.............................
I can't quote the whole piece, that would be to go beyond fair use; I could quote the whole piece in that it exactly expresses my own thought.

First, there are pragmatic reasons for war: We can't win in Iraq unless we cleanup the surrounding infection. We should have taken out Iran two weeks after Saddam's statue fell. Syria should be next.

Iran has been meddling with murderous results in Iraq and Lebanon, two countries it prefers to see wracked with war and instable. Iran has declined to cease and desist. Iran wants to force us out of Iraq in the most humiliating way possible. Iran wants to dominate Iraq and Lebanon. It wants to use them as part of its plan to encircle and ultimately destroy Israel. It wants to control as much of the world’s oil supply as it can. It has been working aggressively and criminally toward those ends for decades. Therefore, it is time to take this opportunity to reduce Iran’s capacity to make war. Its nuclear sites, its military facilities. The roads and bridges it uses to transport the materiel and personnel of its demonic foreign policy. It is an opportunity the Iranians are giving us, on a platter. It is not clear to me why we are not taking it.

And there are reasons of spirit that are reasons for war. The Muslim world has no weapon that can stand against us but spirit. By our dilly-dally we strengthen them. If we attack it will mute that ardor. It won't change the personality. What Muslims do is kill people who don't agree with them, and that isn't going to change, but at least it will make them a wet noodle for awhile, and it sure will make me feel good... and millions of millions of others. To feel encouragement is to have strength.

I like this statement:

President Bush can explain it all after he launches the attack.

This is what is called "right on". Nothing succeeds like success. At the present time to discuss an attack before the attack would be an impossibility, America has too many enemies in the United States Congress; but after an attack, which would be devastatingly effective, that party of Defeat and Withdrawal would find most of the public no longer attracted to what then would be meaningless advice.

There is the constant concern with the lives of the British sailors. That's what makes them "hostages".

But this is not really about whether 15 British sailors and marines are freed, or placed on trial or live or die. There are a lot of military men and women being killed these days. Many of them by Iran....

There are those who think the sailors may be harmed if we take forceful action. That may be. Iran needs to be made aware that that would be extremely unwise course of action. But in war, there are sometimes casualties, and the fate of millions of people in wartime cannot be held hostage by concern for a handful of sailors and marines.

In war, you can not have hostages, you can only have warriors, and warriors live in danger; it's the business they're in. To be enraged if, as captives, they are harmed, would be necessary; but to refuse action because they are captive is not to be a nation, it's to be a defeated people. And this very much is the problem: we don't consider victory a matter of pride, one nation against another. Pride is considered small, we're "better than that", we're concerned for each and every life; but if in fact one nation is willing to accept that some of its citizens will die for something called "national pride" or "national interest" or "love of nation" and the other is not, then there is no doubt at all which will finally win.

Well, this is enough. If I keep writing I'll just repeat the whole article. I could close with this, it's Crittenden's response to the fear "But what if we make them mad?"

If Iran chooses to respond in bellicose fashion, that really won't represent much of a change. A conventional response by massed Iranian forces would be entertaining.

Hope this Crittenden post gets a lot of discussion.