in three hours and eighteen minutes from this moment, it will be may 31st on the east coast of the united states. that will mark the seventh anniversary of this blog. it ran for a little over a year as the dattblog, which is still accessible if you follow one of the links on the lower left-hand side of this page. in september, 2003, opaque lucidity opened its wide mouth and i have been here yelling ever since.
until now. the world, my world, has changed a lot since those first heady nights i threw my thoughts out into the ether. very few people read this blog at first, because i only told close friends and a few less-judgmental family members. but through hugh hewitt's discovery of the blogosphere in 2004, my readership grew until maybe 200 people a day were passing by here. those are tiny numbers, but they always meant a great deal to me.
may, 2005 saw the beginning of my foray into podcasting, which continues to this day. much to my surprise, people like my audio ramblings about history exponentially more than my ramblings about my personal life and politics. at one point in 2007, matt's today in history had over 12,000 subscribers. that number is lower now, but it is once again on the rise due to my re-commitment to creating something people can not only enjoy but maybe learn something from. but working on the podcast means that this, as it did before, must suffer. researching and writing for a ten minute audio show is surprisingly hard work and after working at least forty hours a week on top of that, there is simply not enough for a blog.
two other things have changed as well since may, 2002. facebook and twitter have come into many of our lives and i find i touch many more people through those two social networks than i ever did here. there are only about 30 of you who read this blog with any regularity; most of you are on facebook and/or twitter. if you are not, you need to consider it. facebook especially is now attracting people of all ages and interests. jump in the pool---you can always leave if you don't like it.
the other thing that has changed dramatically in past seven years is the political climate in our country. by 2002, the far-left loonies were already calling president bush a fascist and it was fun to point and laugh at them. now, it's not fun anymore because those who used to be on the fringes of liberalism now have positions of real power and we can already see how dangerous they are. they will disassemble this country if given enough time, and the general public seems willing to give them all the time they need. i find that discouraging beyond words.
thanks to those of you who have been reading my ramblings for so long. this blog will stay here as long as my faithful friends who host this site feel the need to leave it up. then everything here will be gone as if it never existed. but i'm still around and hopefully will be for a good long while.
i leave you with the last few paragraphs of 'winter dreams', a short story by f. scott fitzgerald about a young man and a love he lost. i don't know if it's fitting in any way, but it seems like a good way to end things here. thank you.
The dream was gone. Something had been taken from him. In a sort of panic he pushed the palms of his hands into his eyes and tried to bring up a picture of the waters lapping on Sherry Island and the moonlit veranda, and gingham on the golf-links and the dry sun and the gold color of her neck's soft down. And her mouth damp to his kisses and her eyes plaintive with melancholy and her freshness like new fine linen in the morning. Why, these things were no longer in the world! They had existed and they existed no longer.
For the first time in years the tears were streaming down his face. But they were for himself now. He did not care about mouth and eyes and moving hands. He wanted to care, and he could not care. For he had gone away and he could never go back any more. The gates were closed, the sun was gone down, and there was no beauty but the gray beauty of steel that withstands all time. Even the grief he could have borne was left behind in the country of illusion, of youth, of the richness of life, where his winter dreams had flourished.
"Long ago," he said, "long ago, there was something in me, but now that thing is gone. Now that thing is gone, that thing is gone. I cannot cry. I cannot care. That thing will come back no more."
We now know, without a doubt, that North Korea is capable of designing and building a nuclear weapon capable of destroying the center of a large city. The physical size of the device is unknown; when the United States built it's first nuclear weapons, they were huge devices that would not fit on the end of even the most powerful modern ICBM. Even so, a weapon that will fit in the back of a truck is as deadly as one that can fit on the end of a missile with a 2000-mile range.
Our Commander-in-Chief, once again demonstrating that he and his inner circle are in over their heads, said that the nuclear test carried out on Saturday is "a grave concern for all nations". Wonderful. While certainly a true statement, who is actually going to do something about it? Who is actually going to make the tough decisions? Russia? Not a chance; they probably sell North Korea much of the material needed for their nuclear program.
What about China? No way. China is North Korea's largest trading partner and shares a very long border with the hermit kingdom. China understands that action against North Korea, especially military, would lead to a collapse of the government in Pyongyang and a steady stream of starving citizens seeking refuge in Chinese border towns. Beijing simply doesn't want to deal with what could quickly become the largest humanitarian crisis in all of human history.
The European Union? Please. We might as well ask the UN to do something substantial.
That leaves the United States. Some of you are asking yourselves why it matters that North Korea has nuclear weapons. After all, they are not a direct threat to us. They can threaten South Korea and Japan, both staunch allies of ours, but both of those nations have substantial military assets of their own. Once again, you see the US playing world policeman.
The problem is not North Korea having a Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapon. The problem is one of money----North Korea needs it and there are terrorist groups who have lots of it. If Bin Laden and company could get their hands on a nuclear weapon and use it in the United States, do you think they would? Only a lack of availability and hard work on the part of our intelligence services have kept the bad guys from getting a nuke. But North Korea is the only nation in the world that would sell such a weapon to a terrorist organization without considering the consequences. That's why it matters.
Were I in charge, I would make this promise to Kim Jong-Il or whoever is calling the shots now in Pyongyang: test another weapon or launch another missile and the United States, acting alone if necessary, will destroy North Korea's ability to produce anything related to radioactivity. Our Navy now possesses four SSGNs (Nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines) which carry 154 conventional cruise missiles each. These ships alone could remove North Korea from the "nuclear club" for a generation or more. I believe only the threat of their use would cause a re-evaluation of Pyongyang's policies.
Don't expect this to happen. President Obama will rely on the UN to condemn the test and then, to no one's surprise, do nothing. And the threat will grow.
Unless you just got back from Mars, you know the Federal government has given huge sums of money to General Motors and Chrysler. Both are now in bankruptcy and President Obama has appointed a 'car czar' (Ed Montgomery) to figure out how to save the auto industry.
This Keynesian approach to saving corporations has only proved successful on rare occasions, and it will not be successful here. Now, to make things worse, the President has issued stricter fuel economy standards. From this AP article:
"The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards. Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg."
The rules will begin to go into effect in 2012 and must be achieved by 2016. If we're lucky, Obama will be a one term President and we'll get someone in the White House who is serious about saving the auto industry. Tightening fuel economy standards is one of the worst things the government can do right now, which tells me that the move is only being made to satisfy the Earth First crowd. And we're all going to pay for it.
The government needs to get out of the auto industry completely. Let GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy and re-structure their debt. Let them re-negotiate their bloated union contracts. Let them build cars and trucks that Americans actually want to buy. Bankruptcy doesn't mean the doors are going to close; it simply means that the companies are going to have to emerge leaner and meaner. Take a look at the federal government and let me know if you think the auto industry will be leaner and meaner under its guidance.
I'm really too spun up to post anything lengthy or thoughtful right now, so I'll just say this: if you live in the 8th Congressional District of California (that would be most of you in San Francisco), voted for Nancy Pelosi and are NOT embarrassed and ashamed, I pity you. Never have so few stood to ruin so much for so many.
There are many people in our society who are of the belief that each generation needs to re-imagine the myths of the last generation and adapt them for their present needs. As an armchair historian, I question the worth of that, but that’s an issue for another day. The Lovely Kelli and I went to see ‘Star Trek’ Saturday night, a welcome break for both her and me since we don’t get out of the house very often these days. Without a doubt, it is the retelling of a myth but more importantly to me, it is the retelling of a very American story.
If you are a serious Trekker, you have already seen the film. If you have no idea about the Star Trek universe, go see it soon---no prerequisites in this version, unlike previous films centered around the USS Enterprise. The plot of the film involves some time travel, so the writers had some wiggle room in terms of being true to Trek canon. The story itself is fairly simple and is, in my opinion, weak in some areas, but that is secondary to the purpose. The real meat of the story is in the characters and how they interacted in their early days.
Heading up the young characters are Kirk and Spock. Jim Kirk is a punk who borders on genius, a young man capable of great things if he would only stop getting into bar fights and cheating on simulation exams. Spock is the half-human, half-Vulcan who has almost mastered his emotions. He is brilliant, logical and squared away. His early encounters with Kirk are rough, but you soon realize the two make a brilliant pair. That’s when the story turns all-American.
Americans like cowboys and that’s what Jim Kirk is. He shoots first and asks questions later. He breaks the rules if necessary and doesn’t apologize for doing so. But he needs a second, a Tonto, someone to rein him in and make him think about the situation first. How many movies have we seen that involve a pair of characters just like this?
In this case, I believe the re-telling went well. It reminded me that my fellow Americans still appreciate not just the gun-toting cowboy, but the pairing of bravado and logic, two things that have brought us so far as a nation.
You may know by now that Michael Savage has been banned from entering the United Kingdom along with 15 others who are viewed as having “extreme” views and whose words could promote violence in the public space. There are other Americans on the list (the Phelps family and KKK members) as well as a few men of Middle Eastern extraction and Russian skinheads. Keep in mind that almost none of these “least wanted” are being barred from the UK for criminal acts, but for the opinions they express.
Even though his name rarely comes up in media circles, Michael Savage is the third most popular talk show host in the United States in terms of listeners. Compared to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (the first and second-most popular, respectively), Savage’s show is angrier, more rambling and much less friendly to those who are listening for the first time. Savage is a biologist by education, but his show centers on three main topics (borders, language, and culture) with a healthy dose of whatever he finds interesting on a given day. His show runs here on a three-hour delay, so I tend to listen at night after we go to bed. He offends many people on both ends of the political spectrum, but I tend to find him more of an irritable entertainer than anything else, sort of like a W.C. Fields for the 21st century. But don’t let that comparison fool you---the man is brilliant and is often correct in his predictions about the course of western society.
While the reasons for Savage’s banning from the UK are vague (“hate speech” is a phony term made up by weak-willed sisters who are afraid of challenge), I can venture two specific guesses. First, Savage has been harsh in his criticism of Islam; in my opinion, this nation would do well to repeat and magnify this criticism. In the UK, however, where imams and other Muslim leaders preach death and hate in the streets with no fear of consequence, anyone expressing doubt about the “religion of peace” is someone to be censored lest the growing minority of adherents to Islam rise up and threaten the powers that be. Better to keep a lid on the boiling cauldron, I guess. I can almost hear Winston Churchill bellowing from here about negotiating with the crocodile in the hope that he will eat you last.
My second guess is a little more conspiratorial. While Savage may be popular, he has few friends in high places, unlike Limbaugh or Hannity, who count Senators and Supreme Court Justices as close confidants. Thus, he makes an excellent guinea pig for those who wish to really test the free speech waters in the UK and, you guessed it, the United States. Don’t think for a moment that certain members of the Obama administration are not watching these proceedings, interested in just how far they can push the envelope here in the land of the First Amendment. After all, it was liberals in the US who invented the idea of “hate speech”, a hazy phrase which means something different to each group who stoops to use it. The socialists in power now (elected by those of you who can’t properly define the term) would like nothing more than to acquire the power to not just silence dissenters, but to make them out as scofflaws bent on mayhem, rape and murder if only the door is left open for their voices to be heard. If you think I’m carrying this torch a little too far, do a Google search for the following terms: tea party media coverage. What they can not silence outright, they will vilify.
As we get older, I believe most of us begin to see our parents as they truly are---flawed people who, most of the time, did the best they could with the gifts God gave them. Our children, if we have them, will see us the same way. I also view our Founding Fathers in this way, with one difference: they were almost all brilliant men who had a solid grasp of human behavior. They understood that a time would come in our nation when a group, given enough power, would seek to put limits on their opponents’ right of free expression. That’s why the First Amendment came before all the others; the right of free expression is so fundamentally important to the continuance of our society as we know it that all other rights are, and must remain, secondary to it.
In this first decade of the 21st century, the time has come for us to revisit our Founders’ thoughts on free speech. They did not wish to protect delicate, courteous debate between groups of equal stature. Speech of that sort is protected by the very nature of man. Instead, they sought to protect rude, angry and uncomfortable speech, the kind that makes people stay up all night yelling at each other. For they knew that is the kind of speech from which real change springs.
Those now in power in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe are seeking to redefine free speech on a fundamental level to suit their agenda. If they succeed, George Orwell’s vision of an overbearing, all-seeing government will seem Utopian compared to the world our children and grandchildren inherit. Those of you who support odious concepts such as hate speech legislation need to give hard thought to why you believe such a radical departure from the intentions of the Founders is necessary.
President Obama has stated that he will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court by the end of this week. Even though he has "consulted" with Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle, don't expect his choice to be anything but far left of center. He will not, of course, be presented that way in the media since their centerline is so far left as to make John McCain look like a fascist.
When I think about the Supreme Court, I always think of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which legalized abortion nationwide. For the record, I don't believe any court ruling will end abortion in the United States. Instead, it will take a change in society as a whole, a change that causes us to value life more than we do today. There will also need to be a change in the way women are indoctrinated into believing that abortion is some sort of inalienable right instead of a horrendous medical procedure.
But make no mistake: Obama's choice to replace Justice David Souter will have an effect on our nation for at least a generation. It is not unusual for justices to serve twenty or thirty years before retirement. In that time, a liberal judge can legislate all sorts of changes from the bench, something they are very good at. Will of the people? Forget it---go to the court for what you can not win at the ballot box.
Once again, thanks to all of you who voted for Obama without giving the issues more than ten minutes of thought.
Barack Hussein Obama has been holding the office of President of the United States for 100 days now. Those of you who voted for BHO may consider yourselves unique, self-motivated individuals, but I have found that most of you fall into three categories. If you are honest about your beliefs and your reasons for voting, I am willing to bet that at least half of you are in some way disappointed with Comandante en Jefe.
First, there are those of you who are socialists. You may not use that term in describing yourself, but that's what you are. You have no problem with taking money from the "rich" and spreading it around. You believe companies are generally greedy and need to be kept in check via steep taxes and harsh regulation. Despite this, you also believe you are owed a good job with great benefits. If you fall into the socialist category, congratulations---you received the President you've wanted for most of the last 60 years.
Second are those of you who voted not for BHO, but against President Bush. I understand you more than the other two groups, even though I believe you are very misguided. You feared that John McCain would be another Bush in terms of spending and foreign policy despite some evidence to the contrary. But instead of voting for a third party, you instead voted for a man who has all but guaranteed huge increases in federal spending and who has, thus far, shown that his understanding of foreign policy is, for lack of a better term, childish. You voted against Bush and for something much worse. Congratulations---BHO will never be McCain. In fact, he wouldn't make a patch on McCain's flight suit.
Finally, there is the largest group of BHO voters. The members of this group are the people who believed the hype about "change" and thought Obama really represented something different. In fact, you have been sucked into a larger version of the Chicago political machine, the dirtiest political scene in the nation. BHO is a product, just like the Backstreet Boys or The Monkees. But Oprah, who you worship, endorsed this product and you did as well. Why? Because you are a lemming. You voted for BHO despite the fact he does not hold your beliefs because there are "more important issues". You should have stayed home because you know more about reality TV than how the three branches of our government work. But you are the future of this nation, all but ensuring all future Presidents will be Obama-esque: a good, tall voice promising everything, accomplishing little and endangering everyone. Good job.