One has to wonder at the potential effect of Bin Ladin's message on the election.
First, it could be beneficial for Bush. The country knows this guy is still out there, and still somewhat of a menace. They might be able to pick up the somewhat defeatist tone in Bin Ladin's message. They guy is no longer talking about destroying us. He's talking about leaving us alone if he leave him alone. That sounds like a guy who's basically had about all he can take.
Second, it could be beneficial for Kerry. He'll say Bush wasn't able to nail this guy. He'll use all the Democratic talking points that Bin Ladin brings up in the clip, including how Bush's inaction after the first plane hit the towers allowed the other aircraft to reach their destinations. Anyone else get the impression Terry Mcauliffe drafted this thing for Bin Ladin?
Of course, Walter Cronkite says that Karl Rove put Bin Ladin up to this message. No really, he did.
The old guy has lost whatever shred of credibility and sanity he had left.
At any rate, there is no way to predict what the UBL video will do to the election. We shall have to wait until Tuesday to see.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Ode to the .45
Lacking anything else substantive running through my brain, I'll comment on the .45 ACP, perhaps the ultimate combat handgun cartridge.
What's not to like? The round has mild recoil, superb accuracy, and tremendous kinetic energy at impact. The round has seen action in United States military engagements since 1911, and is still in use today. Though supplanted by the 9mm since the late 80's as the primary handgun round, several special forces units still favor the .45 ACP. I will not even comment on the decades of service provided by the .45 Long Colt prior to the ACP round.
The .45 in terms of recoil is pleasant to shoot. It does not seem to kick hard at all. I have shot many .40 caliber pistols which are unpleasant. The .40 caliber seems to have a weird upward kick in most handguns. The same goes for the .357 Sig, another caliber in vogue at the moment. That round really has a nasty crack to it.
I do seem to like the 9mm. The recoil is mild there as well. However, the round loses much in terms of stopping power. This is only what the ballistics data suggests. I pray I never have to observe or test out the relative stopping power of either round. The 9mm used to have the edge in terms of magazine capacity, but double-stacked magazines seem to have lessened the edge somewhat in the last few years. I digress. This was supposed to be about the .45 only.
Almost every major weapons manufacturer makes at least one .45 caliber pistol. Many of them even make a carbine in that caliber. If one favors a Glock, there are at least three models to choose from in .45. If one prefers a double action with a decoker, Sig Sauer makes at least 3 that I am aware of. Should one prefer the double action/single action type of pistol with a safety, H&K, Beretta, Smith and Wesson, Israeli Arms, and CZ make several versions of the .45.
Let us not forget the old warhorse, the Colt 1911. John Browning's design is still as functional as ever. Many police departments issue the 1911 for duty and tactical officers. Manufacturers such as Kimber, Springfield Armory, Colt, and even Smith and Wesson now make 1911's, which are not much different than a WWI-issue Colt. However, the new ones are tricked out. They come from the manufacturer with everything on them that used to be a custom option. This is a good thing. Nobody wants to spend extra money to make sure the gun feeds right, and they should not have to.
This brings me to an interesting point of contention. Most folks who carry the 1911 carry it in "condition one", which means the hammer is drawn back and the safety engaged. This means all one has to do to fire the gun is grip it and disengage the safety.
Some prefer "condition two", meaning a round is in the chamber, but the hammer has been lowered. Most instructors cringe when they hear a 1911 is carried in this style. They argue the potential for accidental discharges are higher lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber. They also argue that the 1911 is a very safe gun to carry "cocked and locked." They say the grip and thumb safeties should be sufficient, as long as one does not grab the gun and put their finger on the trigger, and the gun is kept in a well-designed holster.
I think it boils down to a matter of comfort. Perhaps it is all psychological, but seeing a 1911 with the hammer back strikes me as somewhat dangerous. Most 1911's I have shot have superb, light triggers. If the safety were to become disengaged, and one were to accidentally touch the trigger while holding the gun, it will definitely go boom.
I seem to favor a double-action/single action with a decocker and safety. I like the idea of having a safety that disengages easily. I also like the idea of having a double-action pull. It seems much safer.
I keep coming back to a Smith and Wesson 4513 Tactical. It has roughly the same dimensions as a 1911 in terms of width. It carries 7 rounds fully loaded with one in the chamber. It has the safety and decocker features that I like. Plus, it has a magazine disconnect, which renders the pistol unable to fire if the magazine is not in place.
Some argue that the magazine safety is just one more thing which could mechanically go wrong. There is an element of truth there. So far, the pistol has been 100% reliable on the range. It has never failed to feed, or fire. It is very accurate, seeming to shoot up with a friend's Kimber with no problems. It is easy to carry and conceal. It recoils very nicely, with no nasty kicking noticed. Cleaning and takedown are somewhat of a pain, since the gun has very tight tolerances. It is still easier than a 1911, however.
So I ask you, gentle reader: what is the ultimate .45 caliber handgun, and why?
This is really a test to see if I can get some comments. With three people reading this thing, at least one of you should have a comment about gun stuff.
What's not to like? The round has mild recoil, superb accuracy, and tremendous kinetic energy at impact. The round has seen action in United States military engagements since 1911, and is still in use today. Though supplanted by the 9mm since the late 80's as the primary handgun round, several special forces units still favor the .45 ACP. I will not even comment on the decades of service provided by the .45 Long Colt prior to the ACP round.
The .45 in terms of recoil is pleasant to shoot. It does not seem to kick hard at all. I have shot many .40 caliber pistols which are unpleasant. The .40 caliber seems to have a weird upward kick in most handguns. The same goes for the .357 Sig, another caliber in vogue at the moment. That round really has a nasty crack to it.
I do seem to like the 9mm. The recoil is mild there as well. However, the round loses much in terms of stopping power. This is only what the ballistics data suggests. I pray I never have to observe or test out the relative stopping power of either round. The 9mm used to have the edge in terms of magazine capacity, but double-stacked magazines seem to have lessened the edge somewhat in the last few years. I digress. This was supposed to be about the .45 only.
Almost every major weapons manufacturer makes at least one .45 caliber pistol. Many of them even make a carbine in that caliber. If one favors a Glock, there are at least three models to choose from in .45. If one prefers a double action with a decoker, Sig Sauer makes at least 3 that I am aware of. Should one prefer the double action/single action type of pistol with a safety, H&K, Beretta, Smith and Wesson, Israeli Arms, and CZ make several versions of the .45.
Let us not forget the old warhorse, the Colt 1911. John Browning's design is still as functional as ever. Many police departments issue the 1911 for duty and tactical officers. Manufacturers such as Kimber, Springfield Armory, Colt, and even Smith and Wesson now make 1911's, which are not much different than a WWI-issue Colt. However, the new ones are tricked out. They come from the manufacturer with everything on them that used to be a custom option. This is a good thing. Nobody wants to spend extra money to make sure the gun feeds right, and they should not have to.
This brings me to an interesting point of contention. Most folks who carry the 1911 carry it in "condition one", which means the hammer is drawn back and the safety engaged. This means all one has to do to fire the gun is grip it and disengage the safety.
Some prefer "condition two", meaning a round is in the chamber, but the hammer has been lowered. Most instructors cringe when they hear a 1911 is carried in this style. They argue the potential for accidental discharges are higher lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber. They also argue that the 1911 is a very safe gun to carry "cocked and locked." They say the grip and thumb safeties should be sufficient, as long as one does not grab the gun and put their finger on the trigger, and the gun is kept in a well-designed holster.
I think it boils down to a matter of comfort. Perhaps it is all psychological, but seeing a 1911 with the hammer back strikes me as somewhat dangerous. Most 1911's I have shot have superb, light triggers. If the safety were to become disengaged, and one were to accidentally touch the trigger while holding the gun, it will definitely go boom.
I seem to favor a double-action/single action with a decocker and safety. I like the idea of having a safety that disengages easily. I also like the idea of having a double-action pull. It seems much safer.
I keep coming back to a Smith and Wesson 4513 Tactical. It has roughly the same dimensions as a 1911 in terms of width. It carries 7 rounds fully loaded with one in the chamber. It has the safety and decocker features that I like. Plus, it has a magazine disconnect, which renders the pistol unable to fire if the magazine is not in place.
Some argue that the magazine safety is just one more thing which could mechanically go wrong. There is an element of truth there. So far, the pistol has been 100% reliable on the range. It has never failed to feed, or fire. It is very accurate, seeming to shoot up with a friend's Kimber with no problems. It is easy to carry and conceal. It recoils very nicely, with no nasty kicking noticed. Cleaning and takedown are somewhat of a pain, since the gun has very tight tolerances. It is still easier than a 1911, however.
So I ask you, gentle reader: what is the ultimate .45 caliber handgun, and why?
This is really a test to see if I can get some comments. With three people reading this thing, at least one of you should have a comment about gun stuff.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Kerry Discharge Less Than Honorable--Breaking News
OK folks. The Swift Boat vets have come through again. God bless these men, they have taken a difficult path. Check out their site, be prepared for more news on this.
Link
The Vets report a former Secretary of the Navy stated Kerry's Discharge Less than Honorable.
I found the news via Powerline's blog. God bless the bloggers, because I would bet money you will not hear this via the mainstream media.
www.powerlineblog.com
Link
The Vets report a former Secretary of the Navy stated Kerry's Discharge Less than Honorable.
I found the news via Powerline's blog. God bless the bloggers, because I would bet money you will not hear this via the mainstream media.
www.powerlineblog.com
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Gliders' Electoral College Experiment
In a very scientific study taken moments ago, the sugar gliders definitively picked the next President of the United States. The results have been verified by the blind dog, so I feel very confident about this whole thing.
For those of you unaware, sugar gliders are small marsupials, about the size of hamsters. They are nocturnal, and they can glide several hundred feet if given enough altitude. We have two in the house, one of each gender. The female is named Phoebe. Wicket is the male, and he is scared of Phoebe. Most of the household is.
For those of you unaware, a blind dog is a dog that is blind.
The test was undertaken as follows:
1. Pictures of both major party candidates were placed on a table. We left out the Libertarian candidate to avoid confusion. Plus, we couldn't actually FIND a picture of the Libertarian candidate. Maybe I should have tried HIGH TIMES.
2. A control picture was obtained, to further enhance accuracy. A 1992 Ross Perot campaign button was found, and placed on the table. The gliders took one look at it and fled. I wish they would have been around in 1992. They might have saved us all a lot of trouble.
3. The gliders were corralled, and placed on the table within inches of the candidate's photos.
4. The blind dog came in to provide unbiased analysis.
5. The gliders immediately went to the Kerry photograph and urinated on it.
6. The gliders next sniffed the Bush photograph. They both rubbed on it, much the same way a cat will do when it seeks attention.
7. The blind dog was asked for confirmation. He yawned, and then bumped into a wall. I likened him to a UN election observer in this respect.
So there you have it. The gliders like George W. Bush. They wet on Kerry. They fled from Perot. We would all do well to follow their example.
As will the majority of America, the gliders have selected Bush as President. You can't argue with science like this, folks.
For those of you unaware, sugar gliders are small marsupials, about the size of hamsters. They are nocturnal, and they can glide several hundred feet if given enough altitude. We have two in the house, one of each gender. The female is named Phoebe. Wicket is the male, and he is scared of Phoebe. Most of the household is.
For those of you unaware, a blind dog is a dog that is blind.
The test was undertaken as follows:
1. Pictures of both major party candidates were placed on a table. We left out the Libertarian candidate to avoid confusion. Plus, we couldn't actually FIND a picture of the Libertarian candidate. Maybe I should have tried HIGH TIMES.
2. A control picture was obtained, to further enhance accuracy. A 1992 Ross Perot campaign button was found, and placed on the table. The gliders took one look at it and fled. I wish they would have been around in 1992. They might have saved us all a lot of trouble.
3. The gliders were corralled, and placed on the table within inches of the candidate's photos.
4. The blind dog came in to provide unbiased analysis.
5. The gliders immediately went to the Kerry photograph and urinated on it.
6. The gliders next sniffed the Bush photograph. They both rubbed on it, much the same way a cat will do when it seeks attention.
7. The blind dog was asked for confirmation. He yawned, and then bumped into a wall. I likened him to a UN election observer in this respect.
So there you have it. The gliders like George W. Bush. They wet on Kerry. They fled from Perot. We would all do well to follow their example.
As will the majority of America, the gliders have selected Bush as President. You can't argue with science like this, folks.
Leave My Heroes Alone, Pinkos!
As my devoted readers (all 3 of them) saw from my post last night, I watched THE ALAMO. Again, this was the new version with Billy Bob Thornton as Davey Crockett, Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston, and Jason Patric as Jim Bowie.
To call the movie horrible is probably too much. To call it full of liberal propaganda is probably accurate. I did not enjoy it, for a number of reasons.
I noted last night Davey Crockett was made out to be a forebearer of John Kerry in this movie. If John Wayne comes back to life, somebody is going to get a butt-whipping of heroic proportions.
I will grant you the John Wayne version of THE ALAMO was full of historic inaccuracies. I will grant you the heroes of the Alamo were probably not saints.
I don’t care. We should not focus on the bad things in their lives. We should instead focus on the amazing stand they took, against overwhelming odds.
I think we need heroes in our lives. We need to be able to look back into history, and draw inspiration from what amazingly courageous men did in the past. Some of the lessons we should learn from the Alamo are that courage and conviction can win out over overwhelming odds. Sacrifice is necessary for the greater good. There ARE things worth fighting and dying for. Most importantly, 183 Texans can kick the crap out of almost anybody.
You didn’t get much of that message out of this movie. In fact, when the Alamo is about to fall, Jim Bowie asks Travis, “was it worth it?” There were a couple of other things that hacked me off, but I doubt I have the space to list them all.
What a load of garbage.
Why do we think it necessary to engage in destroying heroes from the past? Why do we think we have to show, or make up, bad things our historical idols may have done? Why can’t Hollywood focus on the incredibly great things these people accomplished?
Jim Bowie may have been a bit rough around the edges. Crockett may have been a failed politician, and a bit of a bumpkin. Travis may have gone to Texas looking for fame and fortune, and may have left a wife behind.
So what? Does Hollywood think the virtues these men ended up exhibiting are worthless? So Jim Bowie was a warrior. Well, we would not be here today if it were not for warriors. Warriors keep us safe even as we speak.
Crockett was a simple man, with simple values. I happen to share those simple values. He may not have been the best-educated man in the world, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes education gets in the way of the way life really works. This is especially true if the education is full of liberal propaganda.
Hollywood turns its nose up at what the average American believes in, anyway. Travis went to seek his fame and fortune. Is it better that he stayed home and did nothing? Is it wrong to oppose a dictator and fight for freedom? Is it wrong to want to carve out a better life from the frontier?
Are these the things that Hollywood wants us to believe? Are the characteristics these men exhibited those that Hollywood wants us to think are evil?
If you watch this movie, you would almost think so.
It may not be historically accurate, but I prefer John Wayne’s version of the Alamo. I like my heroes to be a bit larger than life. I like the fact that those movies glorified these men.
I want to look up to the heroes of the past. I want to draw inspiration from these men. I want their deeds to serve as examples for future generations. I want my country to be led by men who have the same values as the defenders of the Alamo. Those values are the same as most Americans still have, and we still hold them dear.
So give me the romanticized versions of Crockett, Bowie, and Travis. Let me hold onto the legend. The legends do nothing to ruin the amazing feats they accomplished. Likewise, the deconstruction of my heroes does not make me think them any less heroic. To that end, Hollywood failed miserably in its propaganda mission.
Legends inspire us. If we try to live up to the legend, we can accomplish much more than if we trash the legend.
So my message to Hollywood is simple: QUIT TRASHING MY HEROES, YOU PINKO-COMMIES.
We need our heroes. Now more than ever.
To call the movie horrible is probably too much. To call it full of liberal propaganda is probably accurate. I did not enjoy it, for a number of reasons.
I noted last night Davey Crockett was made out to be a forebearer of John Kerry in this movie. If John Wayne comes back to life, somebody is going to get a butt-whipping of heroic proportions.
I will grant you the John Wayne version of THE ALAMO was full of historic inaccuracies. I will grant you the heroes of the Alamo were probably not saints.
I don’t care. We should not focus on the bad things in their lives. We should instead focus on the amazing stand they took, against overwhelming odds.
I think we need heroes in our lives. We need to be able to look back into history, and draw inspiration from what amazingly courageous men did in the past. Some of the lessons we should learn from the Alamo are that courage and conviction can win out over overwhelming odds. Sacrifice is necessary for the greater good. There ARE things worth fighting and dying for. Most importantly, 183 Texans can kick the crap out of almost anybody.
You didn’t get much of that message out of this movie. In fact, when the Alamo is about to fall, Jim Bowie asks Travis, “was it worth it?” There were a couple of other things that hacked me off, but I doubt I have the space to list them all.
What a load of garbage.
Why do we think it necessary to engage in destroying heroes from the past? Why do we think we have to show, or make up, bad things our historical idols may have done? Why can’t Hollywood focus on the incredibly great things these people accomplished?
Jim Bowie may have been a bit rough around the edges. Crockett may have been a failed politician, and a bit of a bumpkin. Travis may have gone to Texas looking for fame and fortune, and may have left a wife behind.
So what? Does Hollywood think the virtues these men ended up exhibiting are worthless? So Jim Bowie was a warrior. Well, we would not be here today if it were not for warriors. Warriors keep us safe even as we speak.
Crockett was a simple man, with simple values. I happen to share those simple values. He may not have been the best-educated man in the world, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes education gets in the way of the way life really works. This is especially true if the education is full of liberal propaganda.
Hollywood turns its nose up at what the average American believes in, anyway. Travis went to seek his fame and fortune. Is it better that he stayed home and did nothing? Is it wrong to oppose a dictator and fight for freedom? Is it wrong to want to carve out a better life from the frontier?
Are these the things that Hollywood wants us to believe? Are the characteristics these men exhibited those that Hollywood wants us to think are evil?
If you watch this movie, you would almost think so.
It may not be historically accurate, but I prefer John Wayne’s version of the Alamo. I like my heroes to be a bit larger than life. I like the fact that those movies glorified these men.
I want to look up to the heroes of the past. I want to draw inspiration from these men. I want their deeds to serve as examples for future generations. I want my country to be led by men who have the same values as the defenders of the Alamo. Those values are the same as most Americans still have, and we still hold them dear.
So give me the romanticized versions of Crockett, Bowie, and Travis. Let me hold onto the legend. The legends do nothing to ruin the amazing feats they accomplished. Likewise, the deconstruction of my heroes does not make me think them any less heroic. To that end, Hollywood failed miserably in its propaganda mission.
Legends inspire us. If we try to live up to the legend, we can accomplish much more than if we trash the legend.
So my message to Hollywood is simple: QUIT TRASHING MY HEROES, YOU PINKO-COMMIES.
We need our heroes. Now more than ever.
The Alamo and John Kerry
It never ceases to amaze me how Hollywood and the liberals can paint American virtue in the worst light possible. I hate to admit it, but I actually have to take my hat off to the Hollywood writers. They can take a subject that just exudes patriotism from every pore, and manage to throw anti-Americanism into it somewhere. It takes a lot of talent to figure out how to make patriotism look bad. Hollywood consistently pulls it off, though.
I watched THE ALAMO tonight, and I find myself amazed once again. This is the Disney version that came out last year, and was in the theaters for about 24 hours or so. It had Billy Bob Thornton, Dennis Quaid, and Jason Patric. It lacked John Wayne, and he was really needed. No doubt he is rolling in his grave, trying to get up and kick the snot out of the turkeys who wrote this movie.
In the annals of US history, there are not many more inspiring stories than that of the Alamo. 183 men held an army at bay for thirteen days. Their sacrifice enabled Sam Houston to assemble an army of Texans, which eventually won Texas its independence from Mexico.
The defenders of the Alamo are legendary. Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Barrett Travis are names which most Texans consider saints. They are a breed of man we rarely see anymore. Their courage and conviction seem nowadays to be portrayed as foolish and bigoted. In fact, it was men like them who made this country what it is today.
One scene particularly drew my ire. The defenders of the Alamo are sitting around a campfire, listening to Davey spin a yarn or two. One of the boys asks Crockett about all the great battles he fought. Crockett confesses he took part only in one. Crockett gets all misty eyed, and tells a story from his Indian fighting days. He mentions a bunch of Indians slaughtered a bunch of white settlers. The settlers band together, and go out to deal with the hostiles.
The settlers find the tribe of Indians, and a fierce fight ensues. The militia tracks the Indians to their village, and every member of the village fights them. Crockett admits they trapped the remaining Indians in a cabin and burned them. The settlers’ militia finds a store of potatoes under the burned cabin, which have been cooked in the rendered lard of the burned Indians. In the movie, Crockett said that he could never eat potatoes again.
Let us take this one apart, shall we?
First, the scene seems to suggest Crockett now has a dim view of killing Indians. He seems apologetic for taking part in a military action to deal with an attack on his people. How horrible is it to exercise self-defense? Hollywood seems to be saying that a people are not justified in taking action against attackers.
That one sounds a bit familiar, does it not?
Second, Crockett now admits to committing atrocities by slaughtering those Indians. He and his men slaughtered the poor Indians, “in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.” Well, I threw that one in myself. Anyway, Crockett tells this happy little story to a band of men who are facing incredible odds, fighting for the birth and survival of their nation. He tells this story in the face of impending battle with an army led by a brutal dictator.
That DEFINITELY sounds familiar.
I cannot imagine anything more demoralizing to a group of idealistic fighters than to hear a man they look up to confess to murdering people, and no longer having the stomach for battle. They hear a man from whom they draw inspiration paint soldiers as murderers.
That says a lot about what sort of man Hollywood really looks up to.
Davey Crockett was a hero before he walked through the gates of the Alamo. His presence alone no doubt inspired men to fight harder in the face of impossible odds. In other words, he was a leader. I doubt Crockett would have told his men a demoralizing story on the eve of battle. For a leader to do such a thing is criminal, and utterly stupid. It undercuts both the men’s faith in their leader, as well as the cause for which they fight. One cannot expect to win a battle under those circumstances.
Such things only happen in the movies, though.
John Kerry commanded a swift boat, albeit for four months. Kerry came back to America, and testifies before Congress that he and his fellow soldiers committed atrocities, and were fighting a senseless, unjustified war. Worse yet, while still serving in the US military, he went to Paris to meet with the Viet Cong.
Kerry’s testimony was broadcast to the US prisoners of war in Vietnam. Their captors used Kerry to shake the prisoner’s faith in their cause and in their country. Kerry also became a poster child for a Fifth Column here in America, which did everything possible to undercut the war effort.
Kerry disparaged the fight against Communism 30+ years ago.
Let us not even mention the man’s record on the war on terror today. He has consistently called it, “the wrong war at the wrong time.” I won’t go into the rest of it.
Basically, Kerry sounds like a man who deserves to be the leader of the free world, doesn’t he?
Hollywood did its best to ruin my image of a great American hero. It did its best to cast heroism itself into a bad light.
I will have no part of it. John Wayne will always be Davey Crockett. Those 183 men will always be heroes. The Alamo will always be a source of inspiration to me.
Hollywood cannot change what the men at the Alamo did, and what their sacrifice accomplished. It cannot change the facts about what John Kerry did, either. Hollywood cannot change virtue into vice, no matter how much the liberals want it.
I watched THE ALAMO tonight, and I find myself amazed once again. This is the Disney version that came out last year, and was in the theaters for about 24 hours or so. It had Billy Bob Thornton, Dennis Quaid, and Jason Patric. It lacked John Wayne, and he was really needed. No doubt he is rolling in his grave, trying to get up and kick the snot out of the turkeys who wrote this movie.
In the annals of US history, there are not many more inspiring stories than that of the Alamo. 183 men held an army at bay for thirteen days. Their sacrifice enabled Sam Houston to assemble an army of Texans, which eventually won Texas its independence from Mexico.
The defenders of the Alamo are legendary. Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Barrett Travis are names which most Texans consider saints. They are a breed of man we rarely see anymore. Their courage and conviction seem nowadays to be portrayed as foolish and bigoted. In fact, it was men like them who made this country what it is today.
One scene particularly drew my ire. The defenders of the Alamo are sitting around a campfire, listening to Davey spin a yarn or two. One of the boys asks Crockett about all the great battles he fought. Crockett confesses he took part only in one. Crockett gets all misty eyed, and tells a story from his Indian fighting days. He mentions a bunch of Indians slaughtered a bunch of white settlers. The settlers band together, and go out to deal with the hostiles.
The settlers find the tribe of Indians, and a fierce fight ensues. The militia tracks the Indians to their village, and every member of the village fights them. Crockett admits they trapped the remaining Indians in a cabin and burned them. The settlers’ militia finds a store of potatoes under the burned cabin, which have been cooked in the rendered lard of the burned Indians. In the movie, Crockett said that he could never eat potatoes again.
Let us take this one apart, shall we?
First, the scene seems to suggest Crockett now has a dim view of killing Indians. He seems apologetic for taking part in a military action to deal with an attack on his people. How horrible is it to exercise self-defense? Hollywood seems to be saying that a people are not justified in taking action against attackers.
That one sounds a bit familiar, does it not?
Second, Crockett now admits to committing atrocities by slaughtering those Indians. He and his men slaughtered the poor Indians, “in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.” Well, I threw that one in myself. Anyway, Crockett tells this happy little story to a band of men who are facing incredible odds, fighting for the birth and survival of their nation. He tells this story in the face of impending battle with an army led by a brutal dictator.
That DEFINITELY sounds familiar.
I cannot imagine anything more demoralizing to a group of idealistic fighters than to hear a man they look up to confess to murdering people, and no longer having the stomach for battle. They hear a man from whom they draw inspiration paint soldiers as murderers.
That says a lot about what sort of man Hollywood really looks up to.
Davey Crockett was a hero before he walked through the gates of the Alamo. His presence alone no doubt inspired men to fight harder in the face of impossible odds. In other words, he was a leader. I doubt Crockett would have told his men a demoralizing story on the eve of battle. For a leader to do such a thing is criminal, and utterly stupid. It undercuts both the men’s faith in their leader, as well as the cause for which they fight. One cannot expect to win a battle under those circumstances.
Such things only happen in the movies, though.
John Kerry commanded a swift boat, albeit for four months. Kerry came back to America, and testifies before Congress that he and his fellow soldiers committed atrocities, and were fighting a senseless, unjustified war. Worse yet, while still serving in the US military, he went to Paris to meet with the Viet Cong.
Kerry’s testimony was broadcast to the US prisoners of war in Vietnam. Their captors used Kerry to shake the prisoner’s faith in their cause and in their country. Kerry also became a poster child for a Fifth Column here in America, which did everything possible to undercut the war effort.
Kerry disparaged the fight against Communism 30+ years ago.
Let us not even mention the man’s record on the war on terror today. He has consistently called it, “the wrong war at the wrong time.” I won’t go into the rest of it.
Basically, Kerry sounds like a man who deserves to be the leader of the free world, doesn’t he?
Hollywood did its best to ruin my image of a great American hero. It did its best to cast heroism itself into a bad light.
I will have no part of it. John Wayne will always be Davey Crockett. Those 183 men will always be heroes. The Alamo will always be a source of inspiration to me.
Hollywood cannot change what the men at the Alamo did, and what their sacrifice accomplished. It cannot change the facts about what John Kerry did, either. Hollywood cannot change virtue into vice, no matter how much the liberals want it.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Good And Evil, Part II
I firmly believe there is good and evil in the world. Since I accept that, I also have to believe there are two diametrically opposed forces in the world. Good=god and evil=Satan. I re-read MERE CHRISTIANITY, by C.S. Lewis, recently. This entry is purely inspired by him. I'll note page numbers from the 1996 Touchstone edition of MERE CHRISTIANITY. I would recommend it to anyone. It's a great book, which has definitely provoked all sorts of thought.
Lewis says that any morality (a convention of what is good and evil) held by anyone is held up to judgment (p.25). So if you say one moral standard is better than another, you are holding both standards up to something else to judge them by (P.25). That something else is a honest to goodness universal standard of good (p.25). Lewis uses the example of Nazism versus anything else (p.25). If Nazism is wrong compared to some other way of life, both of them are evaluated by a third, objective standard which is better than both the compared items (P. 25). It is the ideal standard that all others are judged by.
For instance, let's look at stealing.
Lewis mentions the argument that social convention dictates what is right and wrong (P. 24). Stealing is considered evil only because of social convention. One cannot steal because it creates disharmony within a social group.
Not necessarily. A social group comes together because they have common interests, and probably common values. In other words, a society comes together with like-minded individuals. They share the same values. One of those values that everyone recognizes in that society is that stealing is wrong. Take away the society, and stealing would still be wrong.
Granted, stealing is wrong only in the proper context. Lewis also points out that for every human urge, there is a time and place for it (P. 24). There are times when stealing is probably justified. Stealing food from an enemy in war is justified, for instance.
The point is, each act is judged as right or wrong by some outside, objective standard that the act is held up to.
It stands to reason, then, there is something out there which creates a universal perception of right and wrong. If right and wrong is not a social convention, then something in the universe decrees it.
That something would be God, would it not?
Lewis says that any morality (a convention of what is good and evil) held by anyone is held up to judgment (p.25). So if you say one moral standard is better than another, you are holding both standards up to something else to judge them by (P.25). That something else is a honest to goodness universal standard of good (p.25). Lewis uses the example of Nazism versus anything else (p.25). If Nazism is wrong compared to some other way of life, both of them are evaluated by a third, objective standard which is better than both the compared items (P. 25). It is the ideal standard that all others are judged by.
For instance, let's look at stealing.
Lewis mentions the argument that social convention dictates what is right and wrong (P. 24). Stealing is considered evil only because of social convention. One cannot steal because it creates disharmony within a social group.
Not necessarily. A social group comes together because they have common interests, and probably common values. In other words, a society comes together with like-minded individuals. They share the same values. One of those values that everyone recognizes in that society is that stealing is wrong. Take away the society, and stealing would still be wrong.
Granted, stealing is wrong only in the proper context. Lewis also points out that for every human urge, there is a time and place for it (P. 24). There are times when stealing is probably justified. Stealing food from an enemy in war is justified, for instance.
The point is, each act is judged as right or wrong by some outside, objective standard that the act is held up to.
It stands to reason, then, there is something out there which creates a universal perception of right and wrong. If right and wrong is not a social convention, then something in the universe decrees it.
That something would be God, would it not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)