I have supported Mr. Rumsfeld a long time, and never saw a clear summary of the other side of the story.  General Zais' story below resonates with me from my Vietnam experience as a minor player under a really incapable SECDEF, Rob't "Yo-Yo" MacNamara. Zais says its the Pentagon civilians who want the expensive techno-toys, but I'd say "No way!"  It's the Air Force and Navy brass who have nothing better to do than push civilian appointees around - remember Jack Nicholson's line in "A Few Good Men"?

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!  I would rather you just said, "Thank you," and went on your way. 

US Strategy in Iraq

Mitchell Zais, Ph.D.

BGEN, USA (Ret.)

Honors Convocation

Newberry College

9 November 2006

 Many of our faculty and staff have asked me my views about the current situation in Iraq.  A few students have also asked.  So I thought I would take this opportunity, two days before Veterans' Day, to provide you with some insights as seen from the perspective of a combat veteran who served as the Commanding General of US and allied forces in Kuwait.  I also served as Chief of War Plans in the Pentagon and have spent considerable time studying national security affairs, including a fellowship at the National Defense University.  So while it's true that everyone has opinions about Iraq, I would argue that not all of those opinions are equally well-informed.

 This talk will address our strategy in Iraq.  I won't talk about what the next steps should be, what the long-term prospects for peace in Iraq are, or how we can best get out of the quagmire we are in.  Those might be other talks.  For today I'm going to focus on strategy

 Let me begin by saying that most of our problems in Iraq stem from a flawed strategy that has been in place since the beginning of the war.

 It's important that you understand what strategy is.  In military terminology there is a distinction between strategy, operations, tactics, and techniques.

 Strategy pertains to national decision-making at the highest level. For example, our strategy in World War II was to mobilize the nation, then defeat the Nazi regime while conducting a holding action in the Pacific, then shift our forces to destroy the Japanese Empire.  Afterwards, our strategy was to rebuild both defeated nations into capitalistic democracies in order to make them future allies.

 An example of an operational decision from World War II would be the decision to invade North Africa and then Italy and Southern France before moving directly for the heart of Germany by coming ashore in Northern France or Belgium.

Tactics characterize a scheme of maneuver that integrates the different capabilities of, for example, infantry, armor, and artillery.

 A technique might describe a way of employing machine guns with overlapping fields of fire or of setting up a roadblock.

 Our strategy in Iraq has been:

1. fight the war on the cheap;

2. ask the ground forces to perform missions that are more suitably performed by other branches of the American government;

3. inconvenience the American people as little as possible, and

4. continue to fund the Air Force and Navy at the same levels that they have been funded at for the last 30 years while shortchanging the Army and Marines who are doing all of the fighting.

No wonder the war is not going well.

 Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.

From Orson Card - a quote from an emotional and heart-felt piece:

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.

Read the whole thing.

Our Yankee blog supports Joe. Like the hedgehog, he knows about one big thing (and is wrong about the rest).

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

Coulter thinks we are overdoing it with the moral purity thing:

Or as the New York Times wrote in the original weasel talking points earlier this summer: "The Geneva Conventions protect Americans. If this country changes the rules, it's changing the rules for Americans taken prisoner abroad. That is far too high a price to pay so this administration can hang on to its misbegotten policies."

There hasn't been this much railing about the mistreatment of a hostage since Monica Lewinsky was served canapes at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton Hotel while being detained by the FBI.

The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won't die. It's worse than the idea that paying welfare recipients benefits won't discourage them from working. (Some tiny minority might still seek work.) It's worse than the idea that taxes can be raised endlessly without reducing tax receipts. (As the Laffer Curve illustrates, at some point -- a point this country will never reach -- taxes could theoretically be cut so much that tax revenues would decline.)

But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese -- enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

Whole thing at Human Events online. 

29 August 2006: Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv spoke with FOX Fan Central about what Americans can do to protect themselves in case of a terror attack. "Juval Aviv is a former Israeli Counterterrorism Intelligence Officer and President and CEO of Interfor, Inc. Mr. Aviv has also served as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress on issues of terrorism and security and is the author of 'Staying Safe : The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business."

Do you believe another terrorist attack is likely on American soil?

I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most.

What advice do you have for individuals that have the misfortune of finding themselves in the middle of a terror attack?

Since mass transportation is the next attack, when you travel to work have with you, a bottle of water, a small towel and a flashlight. What happened in London is exactly a point to look at. Those people who were close to the bombs died, then others were injured or died from inhaling the toxic fumes or getting trampled. The reason you take a bottle of water and a towel is that if you wet the towel and put it over your face, you can protect yourself against the fumes and get yourself out of there.

Don't be bashful. If your gut feeling tells you when you walk onto a bus there is something unusual or suspicious, get out and walk away. You may do it 10 times for no reason, but there will be one time that saves your life. Let your sixth sense direct you.

Try to break your routine. If you travel during rush hour every day, try to get up a little earlier and drive to work or take the train when it’s still not full. Don’t find yourself every day in the midst of rush hour. Terrorists are not going to waste a bomb on a half-empty train.

What portion of the American infrastructure do you believe is at the greatest risk for a terror attack?

We have put all of our emphasis, right or wrong, on the aviation area. What has happened, in the last two to three years, based on information we have, is the terrorists have realized that they cannot hijack a plane in America soon because the passengers are going to fight back. So they realize what they have been very successful with over the last 50 years in Madrid, London, Iraq, Israel: demoralizing the public when they go to work and when they come back from work.

What they’re going to do is hit six, seven or eight cities simultaneously to show sophistication and really hit the public. This time, which is the message of the day, it will not only be big cities. They’re going to try to hit rural America. They want to send a message to rural America: 'You’re not protected. If you figured out that if you just move out of New York and move to Montana or to Pittsburgh, you’re not immune. We’re going [to] get you wherever we can and it’s easier there than in New York.'

(Which is probably why DHS spread its funding around to smaller urban areas earlier this year)

What more do you think the government can do to protect the public?

Number one, and this is the beef I’ve had with Homeland Security for the last four years, is educating the public on how to deal with those types of events. There’s no education. We’re raising the color code alert and that means nothing to anyone. Whether it’s green, yellow, pink, no one ever educated the public how to identify suspicious items or people. In Israel, so many of them [terrorists] have been apprehended just because people have phoned in. We don’t have that training on campuses, schools or kindergarten.

In Israel, it’s very popular right now [amongst terrorists] to put one device to explode and time another one for five minutes later when it’s all calm, people are getting up and the rescue teams have responded. You need to know all those things and think about those things. The government must pursue that. Law enforcement will never have enough people on the street to detect things. We don’t have that kind of manpower. That’s why the government must enlist the public.

 

This automobile-carrier is in deep trouble off Alaska.

Gwynnie asks whether GM has any submarines available.

Everyone on board should hike out to starboard.

 Speech by Marine Maj Gen Michael R Lehnert, commanding general of Marine Corps Installations-West, Camp Pendleton, CA, to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Advisory Council, 26 June 2006.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen,

Eight days ago, I was present in the audience when Tom Brokaw addressed the 2006 Stanford graduating class. After the initial pleasantries and one-liners, Mr. Brokaw said something unexpected. He told the class that they were the children of privilege, fortunate to be attending one of the finest educational institutions in the country, the anointed because they had both the test scores for admittance and parents who were able to afford their tuition. He noted that they could likely expect rapid advancement in almost any endeavor they choose and that they were destined to lead the most powerful country in the world.

The class was beaming.

And then Brokaw reminded them that the liberties and freedoms they enjoyed were being defended by young people their age that did not have their advantages. That at this time thousands of men and women were fighting, dying and suffering debilitating injury to ensure that the rest of us could live the American dream.

There was an uncomfortable shifting in the seats, followed by slow but growing applause from the audience. When we sent my son to Stanford four years ago, we filled out a form asking for demographic information. One of the questions for the parents said, what is your profession? After it was a list of about thirty professions including doctor, lawyer, congressman, educator, architect. Military was not listed so I filled in "other."

Read the rest, below.

There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.

Thomas Sowell
(thanks to Right Wing News for quote)

We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount... The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.

Gen.Omar Bradley

This piece came in over the transom:

The following report is from this week's Stratfor Geopolitical Report at Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

Break Point, by George Friedman

A government has been formed in Iraq. It is a defective government, in the sense that it does not yet have a defense or interior minister. It is an ineffective government, insofar as the ability to govern directly is at this point limited institutionally, politically and functionally. Ultimately, what exists now is less a government than a political arrangement between major elements of Iraq's three main ethnic groups. And that is what makes this agreement of potentially decisive importance: If it holds, it represents the political foundation of a regime.

If it holds.

If it holds, the rest is almost easy. If it doesn't hold, the rest is impossible. Therefore, the fate of this political arrangement will define the future of Iraq and, with that, the future of the region -- and in some ways, the future of the American position in the region. It is not hyperbole to say that everything depends on this deal.

The deal that has been shaped is about two things: power and money. First, it addresses the composition of power in Iraq -- defining the Shia as the dominant group, based on demographics, the Kurds next and the Sunnis as the smallest group. At the same time, it provides institutional and political guarantees to the Sunnis that their interests will not simply be ignored and that they will not be crushed by the Shia and Kurds. In terms of money, we are talking about oil. Iraq's oil fields are in the south, unquestionably in Shiite country, and in the north, in the borderland between Kurd and Sunni territory. One of the points of this arrangement is to assure that oil revenues will not be controlled on a simply regional basis, but will be at least partially controlled by the central government. Therefore, at least some of that money will go to the Sunnis, regardless of what arrangements are made on the ground with the Kurds.

During World War II, the Japs developed a way to try to demoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work. They gave the script to their famous female broadcasters generically termed "Tokyo Rose" by GIs, and every day they would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.
 
What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:
1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.
 
Does this sound familiar? Is it because Tokyo Reid, Tokyo Kennedy, Tokyo Pelosi, Tokyo Feingold, Tokyo Murtha, Tokyo Kerry and their ilk, have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC  ... directly to our military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told our soldiers, sailors and marines she was on their side, too!

Why do they want this effort of liberation to fail? Is it purely political? Or worse? 

Image: One of the best-known of the Tokyo Roses (Iva Toguri d'Aquino) in prison. She was the seventh American - yes, she was an American - to be convicted of treason. She was ultimately pardoned by Pres. Ford as his last act in office.

Peter Wehner in the WSJ on May 23:

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations -- the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so -- and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:

Read the rest of his essential piece here. Despite its accuracy, the article will be largely ignored, because the erroneous talking points have been repeated so many times that it seems too late for correction - and the White House hasn't done a good job refuting them.

Bill Clinton's comments on Iraq, Dec. 16, 1998 (entire speech on continuation page). It began thus:

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

A note to all new visitors to Maggie's Farm from all over: Welcome to the Farm! Read us - we are eclectic and informative, and like to surprise our readers. Friendly, too. Bookmark us and show us some love.

This is the response from a retired Delta pilot in response to questions about whether he was planning to see United 93:

I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I intend to when I get the chance. Retirement has made me busier than ever, and I haven't had the chance to see many movies lately.

As a Delta B-767 captain myself at the time of the attacks on 9/11 I was in crew rest in Orlando that morning. I had just turned on the TV in my hotel room only to see the WTC tower on fire, then saw the second airplane hit the other tower. My immediate reaction was "Terrorists...we're at war", followed by the realization that we airline crewmembers had all dodged a bullet; it could have been any one of us flying those planes. As soon as the news stations flashed the first pictures of the terrorists I knew just how close and personal the bullet I dodged was. There, on the screen for all to see, was a man who had sat in my jumpseat the previous July.

His name was Mohammad Atta, the leader of the terrorist hijackers. Atta had boarded my flight from Baltimore to Atlanta on July 26, 2001 wearing an American Airlines first officer uniform. He had the corresponding AA company ID identifying him as a pilot, not to mention the required FAA pilot license and medical certificate that he was required to show me as proof of his aircrew status for access to my jumpseat. An airline pilot riding a cockpit jumpseat is a long established protocol among the airlines of the world, a courtesy extended by the management and captains of one airline to pilots and flight attendants of other airlines in recognition of their aircrew status. My admission of Mohammad Atta to my cockpit jumpseat that day was merely a routine exercise of this protocol.

Something seemed a bit different about this jumpseat rider, though, because in my usual course of conversation with him as we reached cruise altitude he avoided all my questions about his personal life and focused very intently upon the cockpit instruments and our operation of the aircraft. I asked him what he flew at American and he said, "These", but he asked incessant questions about how we did this or why we did that. I said, "This is a 767. They all operate the same way." But he said, "No, we operate them differently at American." That seemed very strange, because I knew better. I asked him about his background, and he admitted he was from Saudi Arabia. I asked him when he came over to this country and he said "A couple of years ago.", to which I asked, "Are you a US citizen?" He said no. I also found that very strange because I know that in order to have an Airline Transport Pilot rating, the rating required to be an airline captain, one has to be a US citizen, and knowing the US airlines and their hiring processes as I do, I found it hard to believe that American Airlines would hire a non-US citizen who couldn't upgrade to captain when the time came. He said, "The rules have changed.", which I also knew to be untrue. Besides, he was just, shall I say, "Creepy"? My copilot and I were both glad to get rid of this guy when we got to Atlanta.

There was nothing to indicate, though, that he was anything other than who or what he said he was, because he had the documentation to prove who he was. In retrospect, we now know his uniform was stolen and his documents were forged. Information later came to light as to how this was done.

It seems that Mohammad Atta and his cronies had possibly stolen pilot uniforms and credentials from hotel rooms during the previous year. We had many security alerts at the airline to watch out for our personal items in hotel rooms because these were mysteriously disappearing, but nobody knew why. Atta and his men used these to make dry runs prior to their actual hijackings on 9/11. How do I know? I called the FBI as soon as I saw his face on the TV that day, and the agent on the other end of the line took my information and told me I'd hear back from them when all the dust settled. A few weeks later I got a letter from the Bureau saying that my call was one of at least half a dozen calls that day from other pilots who had had the same experience. Flights were being selected at random to make test runs for accessing the cockpit. It seems we had all dodged bullets.

Over the years my attitude towards the War Against Terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been known to be on the red neck, warmongering, rah-rah-shoot-em-up side of things. I've been known to lose my patience with those who say the war in Iraq or anywhere else in the Muslim world is wrong, or who say we shouldn't become involved in that area of the world for political correctness reasons. Maybe it's because I dodged the bullet so closely back in 2001 that I feel this way. I have very little patience for political rhetoric or debate against this war because for a couple of hours back in July 2001, when I was engaged in conversation with a major perpetrator in this war, I came so close to being one of its victims that I can think in no other terms.

I don't mind admitting that one of the reasons I retired early from Delta last May, other than to protect my disappearing company retirement, was because it became harder and harder for me to go to work every day knowing that the war wasn't being taken seriously by the general public. The worst offenders were the Liberal detractors to the present administration, and right or wrong, this administration is at least taking the bull by the horns and fighting our enemies, which is something concrete that I can appreciate. Nobody was taking this war seriously, and it seems everyone found fault with the US government rather than with those who attacked us. I found that incomprehensible.

I also found myself being scrutinized by TSA screeners more and more every day when I went to work, and suffered the humiliating indignity of being identified about half the time for body searches in front of the general flying public who looked at the entire process as being ludicrous. "They don't even trust their own pilots!" accompanied by an unbelieving snicker was the usual response. Here I was, a retired USAF officer who had been entrusted to fly nuclear weapons around the world, who had been granted a Top Secret clearance and had been on missions over the course of 21 years in the military that I still can't talk about without fear of prosecution by the DoD, who was being scanned by a flunkie TSA screener looking for any sign of a pen knife or nail file on my person.

It wasn't until six months after my retirement when my wife and I flew to Key West, FL last November that I was finally able to rid myself of the visage of Mohammad Atta sitting behind me on my jumpseat, watching my every action in the cockpit and willing to slit my throat at the slightest provocation. I missed being a headline by a mere 47 days, and could very well have been among the aircrew casualties on 9/11 had one of my flights on my monthly schedule been a transcontinental flight from Boston or New York to the west coast on the 11th of September. Very few people know that, while only four airliners crashed that day, four more were targeted, and two of them were Delta flights. The only reason these four weren't involved is because they either had minor maintenance problems which delayed them at the gate or they were scheduled to depart after the FAA decided to ground all flights. Theirs are the pilots and flight attendants who REALLY dodged the bullet that day, and my faith in a higher power is restored as a result.

I will see United 93 when I get the chance, and I will probably enjoy the movie for its realness and historical significance, but forgive me if I do not embrace the Muslim world for the rest of my life. The Islamic world is no friend of the West, and although we may be able to get along with their governments in the future, the stated goal of Islam is world conquest through Jihad and it is the extremist Jihadists, backed and funded by "friendly" Moslem governments, whom we have to fear the most. We must have a presence in the Middle East, and we must have friends in the Middle East, even if we have to fight wars to get them. Only someone who has dodged a bullet can fully appreciate that fact.

Best to all,

Pat Gilmore

Editor's Note: For some reason which is beyond me, some people do not want to believe this. Perhaps they do not want to believe that Jihadist terrorism actually exists, because it someone doesn't believe it yet, they never will. Capt. Gilmore himself posted this comment, in our comments below, but I will put it here for all to see:

I assure you this letter is true. As to the fact that I wrote that a holder of an Airline Transport Pilot rating (ATP) must be a US citizen, I admit that I was mistaken here. I had always assumed so, because that's what I had heard, so I looked up the requrements for an ATP just now. There is nothing that says that US citizenship is required. Okay, I'll bite the bullet on that one. I recieved my ATP back in 1975 and now that I think of it I do not remember having to prove my citizenship. However, the rest of the story is true.

As for my airline career, I worked for Western Airlines (who merged with Delta in 1987), Jet America Airlines (who was bought by Alaska Airlines in 1988), and Delta Airlines, as well as a few "fly by night" cargo airlines during my furlough period from Western from 1981-1985. I also flew in Vietnam as a transport pilot and retired from the USAF Reserve in 1991 after the Gulf War. I have 21,500+ flight hours in T-41, T-37, T-38, C-141/L-300, CE-500, CV-440, MD-80/82, B-727, B-737, B-757, and B-767 aircraft, all logged between 1970 and 2005 when I retired from Delta.

Trust me, folks, this was real. I must admit I am quite surprised that my letter made it this far on the internet. The letter was nothing more than am innocent reply to a group of friends, one of whom sent me a similar letter from another Delta pilot who had been flying the morning of 9/11 and who had experienced the flying that day for himself. His letter had detailed his thoughts as he viewed the movie "United 93", and he also told in detail how he had been diverted to Knoxville when the FAA shut down the airspace. My friend had asked me if I had known of any other similar experiences, so I wrote him what I had encountered myself a few months before. This was my letter to him.

Another retired Delta captain contacted me yesterday after reading this blog and related an experience his wife had on a flight from Portland, OR to Atlanta in August 2001, just a week or so after my experience with Atta. She was riding on a company pass and seated in First Class. A person of "Middle Eastern" descent had sought permission to sit on the cockpit jump seat, but was denied access by the captain because he did not have an FAA Medical certificate. She said he ranted and raved because he couldn't ride the cockpit jump seat, even though there were three empty seats in First Class, which the captain offered him. What pilot in his right mind would refuse a First Class seat over a cramped cockpit jump seat? He stormed off the aircraft and they left him at the gate. You see? Mine wasn't the only experience leading up to 9/11.

Delta Airlines Corporate Security even contacted me a few days ago to ask if I had, indeed, written this letter. I wrote them back that I had. They were worried that someone was using my name without my knowledge. I assured them I was the author.

Keep the faith, and don't let the bastards get you down.

Pat Gilmore

6/5/06 Editor's Note:  Late this afternoon, we will post a new thought about this subject - go to top of the blog - click header - and see if it's there yet.

We had a plague of cottontails here in Connecticut, but it has abated. Gwynnie reports that as we took our walk tonight, the hoo-h-h-h-h-hoo h-h-h-hoo! of the Great Horned Owl was very near, and thinks there's a logical connection.We agree.  There's more:  Burt, a bull terrier who lives north of Redding, reported to his family (who we know) the presence of a couger in his back yard, and the state DEP confirmed it from the scat.  Felis concolor, Mountain Lion, Puma, Catamount, the real thing.

Fred, a nice dog in Weston, was nearly taken part by a wolf - no, not a big coyote.

Gee, isn't this great!  Audubon and the Friends of the Earth must be thrilled at the return of the balance of nature, compensating for Connecticut's massive deer herd - nearly ten times the maximum sustainable population.  Just great.But -- but -- when the population of predators gets the deer in check, and their numbers diminish accordingly, what do the tree-huggers think the famished predators will have to start eating?  Gwynnie thinks they will eat anything that isn't a danger to themselves: cats, dogs, kids, unarmed joggers, schoolbus queues, and the like.In California, the penalty for killing a lion is greater than that for killing a man.  Granolafornia will learn, someday, that this might not have been wise."They were here first" is most often heard -- listen for it.  Wonder.  "They" are probably (individually) 3-6 years old; "they" haven't been here for 200 years.  If you are a real "They were here first" liberal, please -- remove your house from the desecrated earth beneath it, and go back to the Old Country where your ancestors lived the last 20,000 years.  "They (the beasts) were there first" too, but maybe it was longer than you can relate to. (Save the sabre-toothed tiger)! 

With your house recycled into mulch, I can get a better field of fire at the larger predators lurking in the bush.

Note from Editor:   They were here first - not that that matters. So were dinos. But I hear these beautiful, majestic animals prefer vegetarians and liberals for meals. It's a wierd thing, but the wild animals like to eat those who surrender easily to danger. There is less effort involved.  I guess it's a Darwinian thing. And I do not believe that there are pumas in the Northeast. Bobcat scat, I suspect. Or am I in denial?

"Everything comes from
love, all is ordained for
the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."  

St. Catherine 

St. Catherine's birthday was last week, April 29.

A quote from David Warren's piece:

Today is the 626th anniversary of the death of St Catherine of Siena, at age 33. (It is also my birthday, so I’ll write what I want to.) This Catherine is a figure not only in hagiography, but also in world history. She changed its course by persuading a weak pope to return from Avignon to Rome, in defiance of a French king and the entire papal curia, to face greater dangers. She was the decisive influence in stopping a civil war, forging unexpected and fruitful alliances between Italian city states. By such means, she helped restore a papacy that had all but disintegrated, and put it back on what the Marxists call, “the right side of history”.

It was a moment, in the 14th century, when Europe might have ceased to be Catholic. There have been several such moments; and in remembering them, we might even find hope today -- supposing we ourselves are on the right side of history.

She was no mere Helen of Troy, inspiring events limply. Catherine of Siena forged them by her own command. Or rather, as she insisted, by the command of God, through the vehicle of her own strange, otherworldly person. As a small child, she began having visions, and consecrated her virginity to Christ. She died so young, probably from the cumulative effects of her austerities and mortifications.

Image is Pompeo Batoni's 1787 The Ecstasy of St. Catherine