You Have to Wake Up Early. . .

. . . To Beat A Capitalist. Profit is a great motivator of creativity.

Legal Loophole

Britain's sweeping new anti-smoking law will virtually eliminate smoking inside public places on July 1.

But the London Daily Mail reports the landlord at one Southampton pub thinks he's found a loophole — he's had his bar declared the official consulate of the tiny Caribbean island of Redonda.

He thinks his could be the only pub in all of Britain to welcome smokers — and he'd get a break on alcohol taxes to boot.

Britain's health department concedes that embassies are exempt from the rule. But the foreign office says Redonda is a territory of Antigua and Barbuda and not entitled to its own embassy.

What is this, "Surge"?

In yesterday's post, I summarized some of the metrics from the newly initiated "Operational Surge". In this post, David Kilcullen, Gen. Petraeus' Australian Chief Advisor for Counterinsurgency, provides a summary of the theory/thinking behind the "Surge" which should be proclaimed from every media outlet in the country. It deserves to be studied and dissected.

No one can read this explanation without realizing that the word "Surge" is entirely insufficient to define this strategy's complete separation from strategies of the past.

Here are a few key excerpts:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"The enemy needs the people to act in certain ways (sympathy, acquiescence, silence, reaction to provocation) in order to survive and further his strategy. Unless the population acts in these ways, both insurgents and terrorists will wither, and the cycle of provocation and backlash that drives the sectarian conflict in Iraq will fail."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"But chasing enemy cells around the countryside is not only a waste of time, it is precisely the sort of action he wants to provoke us into. That’s why AQ cells leaving an area are not the main game—they are a distraction. We played the enemy’s game for too long: not any more. Now it is time for him to play our game."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"The enemy may not be identifiable, but the population is. In any given area in Iraq, there are multiple threat groups but only one, or sometimes two main local population groups."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"casualties are up in absolute terms, but down as a proportion of troops deployed (in the fourth quarter of 2006 we had about 100,000 troops in country and casualties averaged 90 deaths a month; now we have almost 160,000 troops in country but deaths are under 120 per month, much less than a proportionate increase, which would have been around 150 a month). And last year we patrolled rarely, mainly in vehicles, and got hit almost every time we went out. Now we patrol all the time, on foot, by day and night with Iraqi units normally present as partners, and the chances of getting hit are much lower on each patrol. We are finally coming out of the "defensive crouch" with which we used to approach the environment, and it is starting to pay off."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"It will be a long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come, and things could still go either way. But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm so glad to have this Aussie standing with our troops!

On Principle,

CBass

Iraq Lost

I'm a contrarian at heart.

I pull for underdogs. I loved Revenge of the Nerds (hits close to home). And I see a lot of encouragement coming out of Iraq.

As you've probably heard, or read, all of the troops which form the much derided "surge" have just arrived in Iraq in the last couple of weeks. What you probably haven't heard, or read, as much is how this arrival marks the start - yes, the START of the actual surge. General Odierno refers to what has preceded as the "force buildup" and what has begun in the last week as the "offensive operations".

(I think I'll now call these phases the "Troop Surge" and the "Offensive Surge".)

In the last week, everything has changed. And what are the results? Bill Roggio, whom I highly recommend as a daily read, provides this summary of the first week in actual, operational surge:

Operation Phantom Thunder: Joint Coalition-Iraq Offensive in Baghdad Belts (Initiated June 16th)

Operation Arrowhead Ripper: Joint Coalition-Iraq Offensive in Diyala province (part of Op. Phantom Thunder)

• 59 Al Qaeda killed
• 40 Al Qaeda captured
• 28 Roadside bombs destroyed
• 12 Booby-trapped buildings secured
• 16 Weapons caches uncovered and recovered

In Mosul:

• 32 Insurgents captured
• 1 VBIED factory uncovered and secured (Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device)
• 1 IED factory uncovered and secured
• 1 storage facility for VBIED & IED bomb making materials

In Taji:

• 500-man neighborhood watch established (with reporting/alignment links to Iraqi government & forces)

Northwest of Baghdad:

• 13 Al Qaeda killed
• 15 Al Qaeda Captured

Against Sadr's Mahdi Army:

• 4 Terrorists Captured (Including 1 "leader" who is "responsible for coordinating and conducting kidnappings, death squad killings and improvised explosive device attacks".)

Grand Total:

• 72 Killed
• 91 Captured
• 28 Bombs & 12 Booby-trapped buildings deactivated
• 16 Weapon Caches secured
• 2 Bomb factories closed

American Losses: about 30.

Iraqi Civilian Losses: I don't have the data yet.

So, the war's lost Mr. Reid????

Important Note: I don't relish the thought on anyone dieing or want to fixate upon gratuitous, unnecessary violence. Of course, I also don't see this operation as being "unnecessary". I certainly don't see these Al Qaeda, insurgent and terrorist enemies as being open to verbal persuasion, olive branches of friendship or any other non-violent restraint short of supernaturally changed hearts.

And this doesn't even begin to address the absolute inhumanity these beasts are ravaging upon the Iraqi populace. Included in the week's findings, a house used for torture - complete with drills, knives and a blood-drenched floor.

On Principle,

CBass

With Friends Like These

I'm a realist. The Iranian government, like the US government has a responsibility to seek the legitimate interests of its nation. To the extent they do this, let's chat it up. When those legitimate interests violently cross ours, however, it may be time for other activities under heaven .

A quick look at the "legitimate" interests of Iran:

• Caught Red Handed Aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan
• Caught Red Handed Aiding Insurgents in Iraq

• Caught Red Handed Smuggling Nuclear Materials Across Europe
  

• Planning, Funding and Directing Special Forces-styled Attacks Against US Troops
• Repetitive Attack and Kidnapping of Other Armed Forces
  
• Funding Hezbollah in the Oppression of Lebanon
  
• Funding Hamas in Fomenting Palestinian Civil War
  

In earlier posts, I lamented the the execution of post-war Iraq and the larger continued degradation of our military strength. It's hard to miss that Iran makes a perfect example of the dangers of discounting the need for a strong military option - in the appropriate sphere of context.


In this context, let's consider the drumbeat of support for the findings of the Iraq Study Group which has started anew. Among the much trumpeted findings was the recommendation for the US to engage Iran and Syria in "talks" regarding Iraq - Iran, a rational regime with only the best interests of it's neighbors at heart.




Ok, stopped laughing? Go ahead, take your time.


Look, I'm willing to pretty much talk to anyone, but not with the end expectation that a regime like Iran will magically drop its ambitions, hold our hands and sing songs of peace for the united and prosperous Iraqi people.


Its seems I must march to a different drummer on this song.


On Principle,
CBass

Death, Deterrents and Dignity

As a logical being, meaning as a Constitutional conservative, I'm a bit incredulous toward anyone purporting to disavow the deterrent nature of the Death Penalty - fairly, quickly and predictably applied. Addressing the "quick" and "predictable" aspects of this equation require a comprehensive review & reform of the American legal system. Addressing the question of "fairness" in the Death Penalty, however, is another mater.

There are two root reasons for implementing and supporting the death as a "fair" penalty for murder:

1. Deterrence
2. Dignity

Deterrence:

Most opponents to the Death Penalty with whom I've spoken (ok, argued) claim that the Death Penalty can't act as an effective deterrence because would be murders either commit their crimes in the heat of a passionate moment or through the type of conniving common only among those who don't think they'll get caught. In either case, they argue, the Death Penalty can't pose an onerous, logical impediment - no matter how quickly and predictably applied. Those who aren't thinking or don't think they'll get caught equally won't be deterred by a dispassionate legal framework.

The error of this reasoning, in my mind, is pretty self-apparent. First, the Death Penalty is not a punishment meted out simply for murder. The Death Penalty is a separate jury consideration AFTER someone has been found guilty of murder. It is the ultimate punishment only for crimes uniquely deserving. Thus, run of the mill, crime of passion murders don't normally merit this verdict. Second, there is nothing unfair about giving punishment to someone too so arrogant to both assume they should take human life AND that their cleverness is beyond comprehension.

Third, these two arguments lead to the absurd claim that there can be NO deterrence from punishment for someone who either isn't thinking or who thinks they won't fall under judgment. As I said, this is simply absurd. We punish offenders because to not punish would be unfair to the victims. If there must be unfairness, I would rather it be against a convicted offender, not an innocent victim.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

We also punish offenders because common sense informs us that the specter of punishment does deter some crime. The obviousness of this can be seen in the following example:

Understanding that isolated crimes of passion rarely face Death Penalty treatment, the example to consider is the diabolically thoughtful murder. Such a murder is someone full of angst enough to be consumed by hate. This person could take their own life or they can lash out to take that of someone else. Why don't they just kill themselves to surely end it all? Obviously, they either value their own life, their own death is a matter of fear or they perversely thrill on the adrenalin rush. In these cases, the Death Penalty is a fair deterrent and equal punishment.

Dignity:

The above perspective is entirely conditioned upon this much deeper principle: Through death, a murderer commits the ultimate offense against human dignity and by extension, against the dignity of human society as a whole. If we value human life as being of ultimate value, then to snuff out that life is an ultimate offense. Ultimate offenses demand ultimate punishment. Ending the offender's life is that punishment. In our system, this punishment is leveraged through a double finding of guilt and is administered with layered measures to seek painlessness and dignity for the guilty. We do this because just as the victim's life is of dignity, so to is that of the offender. That's why our system doesn't bow to the fringe elements fomenting for pain and torture to be executed upon the guiltily as payment for their ultimate offense.

The beauty and dignity of every human is the seeming trump card in this debate.

Yes, the "seeming" trump card.

For, just as I'm a Constitutional Conservative, I am also someone who wants to pursue the path of Christ. In this, I am unnerved by the stream of investigations, reports and lobbying efforts which are uncovering and freeing numerous folks who were formerly convicted of murder, found deserving of the Death Penalty and later determined to be innocent. If the Death Penalty is "fair" because of the way it honors and balances the dignity of humanity, what do we say when it unjustly, and unfairly takes innocent life?

I don't know.

Is there a way to honor the dignity of the victim, protect the dignity of society through deterrence and still honor the dignity of the accused inn light of a court system which largely gets it right, but sometimes does mistakenly condemn the innocent along indignant lines of class, race or even looks?

More thoughts to come. . .

On Principle,

CBass

A Left Leaning Lilt?

(Click on the above picture to enlarge it)

Notice how one editor simply states the facts:
Who: "President" (his formal title) "Bush" (His given name)
What: "Vetoes" "Bill"

The other editor:
Who: "Bush" (Formal, respectful title is eschewed)
What: "Vetoes" "Popular" "Bill" (By cutting respectful title, space is gained for editorial perspective)

I found this perfect juxtaposition of two headlines (see above) in my personalized iGoogle homepage. I think it perfectly depicts an example of how a liberal bent in the editorial room almost unknowingly influences media. Multiply this by hundreds of stories a day being heralded through a myriad of media sources and suddenly we are happily carried along by the buoying drumbeat of a liberal cadence.


I'm not one to find a "Liberal Bias" behind every bush. But to torture an old saying: that doesn't mean there isn't some liberal bias behind some bushes - especially if that bush is President Bush.


I'm not a Bush fan on all fronts (Where's the fence?, So, still sticking by that war strategy?, You actually signed McCain-Fiengold???). But he is President, he was freely elected (TWICE), was elected with more votes than any other President in US history, was the first President in decades to be elected with a majority of popular votes at all, has executed his office with dignity. Perhaps he is due just a modicum of respect prior to potshotting him with a hidden agenda and headlined opinion.

On Principle,
CBass

Savanna Update

And here's the long awaited update on Savanna:

We took her to Children's Hospital on Monday for a full complement of Barium tests. Upon arriving, the nurse warned us that Savanna would absolutely cry, scream and holler during the Barium intake and initial fluoroscope tests.

Nope.

Savanna loved the Barium (she asked for more during one of the breaks in testing), laid still and was obedient during the tests (3 hrs of testing total, though with numerous breaks) and absolutely LOVED the purple hospital gown (a beautiful purple number with open back - I'm sure we can get you one too).

In fact, the only tears came when we cruelly forced her to separate from the gown for the trip home. . .

The results have been researched and . . .

there are no narrowing or "kinks" in her intestinal track. This is WONDERFUL news, but it does leave the Dr's in a continued state of puzzlement.

At this point, we will leave her on a reduced dose of laxative to ensure no further blockages set in. We will stuff her full of high calorie foods and see the Docs again in one month. If she gains weight and shows some other positive signs, we will continue on this regimen for the indefinite future (possibly the next few years). If she doesn't gain weight, it may be time to escalate to a pediatric gastroenterologist for more testing (probably invasive testing).

We can't thank you enough for your prayers, love, support and shows of concern. We are encouraged by our current state and look forward to more positive reports in the future. If you feel so led during this next month, please keep Savanna in your prayers.

Many, many thanks!

The Basses

. . . Could Save Your Life. . .

Can you believe how long this process takes??? The best suggestion here is to not eat for the first 3 days. . . Oh the valuable, valuable things you can learn online.

Just wait, you're gonna thank me one day (:-0)

How to Test if a Plant Is Edible

Drastic times call for drastic measures. If you ever find yourself stranded in the wilderness for several days without food, you're going to have to figure out how to feed yourself. If you're well prepared and knowledgeable about the area, you should have no problem finding edible plants, but in the worst case scenario, in which you can't otherwise positively identify a safe plant to eat, follow these guidelines to test for edibility.

Can you believe how long this process takes??? The best suggestion here is to not eat for the first 3 days. . .

Steps

1. Avoid ever having to use this method with careful planning. Some plants can be deadly, and even if you follow these guidelines perfectly, there is always a chance that a plant will make you seriously ill. Prepare yourself for wilderness outings by learning about the local flora and fauna, and carry a guidebook or taxonomic key to help you identify plants. Even if you are unprepared and cannot find food you know to be safe remember that, depending on your activity level, the human body can go for days without food, and you're better off being hungry than being poisoned.
2. Find a plant that is plentiful. You don't want to go through the rigorous process of testing a plant if there's not a lot of it to eat.
3. Abstain from eating or drinking anything but purified water for 8 hours before the test. If you have to use this method, this step will probably be unavoidable.
4. Separate a plant into parts. Some plants have edible parts and poisonous parts. In order to test if a plant is edible, you actually just want to check if one part (leaf, stem, or root) of one kind of plant is edible. After you have separated the plant into parts, inspect each part you are preparing for parasites. If you encounter worms or small insects inside the plant, discontinue the test with that sample and consider seeking a different sample of the same plant. Evidence of worms, parasites or insects indicates that the plant is rotten, especially if the organism has vacated the plant. Many parts of plants are only edible during certain seasons (for example, acorns collected after the fall are usually rotten). If you find grubs inside the plant, the plant is rotting, but the grubs are edible and contain high amounts of protein (although they taste sour and are gritty).
5. Find out if the plant is contact-poisonous. A contact-poisonous plant is one that causes a reaction merely by touching your skin. Rub the selected plant part on the inside of your elbow or wrist. Crush it so that the sap touches your skin, and hold it there for 15 minutes. If the plant causes a reaction in the next 8 hours, do not continue testing that part of that plant.
6. Prepare a small portion of the plant part. Some plants are poisonous only when raw, so it's a good idea to cook the plant part you are testing if possible. If you can't cook the plant or if you don't anticipate that you will be able to cook it in the future, just test it raw.
7. Hold a small portion of the prepared plant part against a lip for 3 minutes. Do not put the plant in your mouth. If you notice any burning, tingling, or other reaction, discontinue testing.
8. Place another small portion of the plant part on your tongue. Hold the plant on your tongue without chewing for 15 minutes. Discontinue testing if you notice any reaction.
9. Chew the plant and hold it in your mouth for 15 minutes. Chew the plant well, and do not swallow. Discontinue testing if you notice any reaction.
10. Swallow the small portion of plant.
11. Wait 8 hours. Do not eat or drink anything during this period except purified water. If you feel sick, immediately induce vomiting and drink plenty of water. If activated charcoal is available, take that with the water. Discontinue testing if you experience any adverse reaction.
12. Eat 1/4 cup of the same kind of plant part prepared the same way. It is critical that you use exactly the same part of exactly the same kind of plant, and that you prepare it in exactly the same way as you did the initial sample.
13. Wait 8 hours. Abstain from any other food except purified water. Induce vomiting immediately as above if you should feel ill. If no reaction has occurred, you may assume only that that particular part of the plant is safe to eat, and only as prepared during the test.
14. Begin a new test if the plant part you have chosen fails any of the tests. If the first plant part you choose appears contact-poisonous, you may immediately test a new plant on your other arm or behind your knee. If the plant causes a reaction before you have swallowed it, wait until the symptoms have disappeared before testing a new plant. If you have an adverse reaction after you've swallowed the plant, wait until symptoms have disappeared and start a new test. Although there may be edible parts of the plant you initially chose, it is preferable to move on to a different plant for subsequent tests.

Thompson in England

I haven't found the audio yet, but the text of this speech is truly great.


Update: Found a link to some of the Video


Update: Some of my favorite excerpts - without comments believe it or not. . .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The United States and the United Kingdom have learned this lesson both ways – in great evils ignored, and in great evils averted. We learned it from a World War that happened and, in the decades afterward, from the World War that didn’t happen.

We must conclude that the greatest test of leadership – in your country or mine, in this time or any other – can be simply stated. We must shape events, and not be left at their mercy. And in all things, to protect ourselves and to assure the peace, the great democracies of the world must stick together. We must be willing to make tough decisions today in order to avert bigger problems tomorrow. We must be prepared to meet threats before threats become tragedies.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We must be prepared to make our case not just privately, but to the people of Europe and the world in order to build political support for cooperation. The world is not stronger if America is weaker – or is perceived to be weaker. The same is true of Britain and truer still of our NATO alliance. And we must be capable of making that case.

In return, it is fair to expect that our allies will not put their trade and commercial interests above world security. It is also fair to ask that Europeans consider the consequences if they are wrong about the threat to the Western world.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Of course political realism is back in the ascendancy since the difficulties in Iraq. It’s true that we have learned that geography, history, and ethnicity are important factors to consider in making decisions regarding today’s enemies.

We’ve also been reminded of the importance of preparation, of alliances, and the continuing support of our people.

But that does not change the fact that we sometimes must address events in far-away places that endanger our people. Or that we believe in universal values that do not allow us to ignore wholesale human suffering.

Realism? Yes. But also idealism, which is what makes us different from our enemies.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,


On Principle,
CBass

War on Terrorism II

In my last post on the "War on Terrorism" I float the concept as to the nature of our nation's current "Long War" and what means are appropriately brought to bear on which targets through a simple equation:

1. Terror Tactics = Internal fortitude of heart
2. Terror Groups = Policing Operations
   
3. State Sponsored Terror Groups = Overwhelming military force.

In reviewing this list, there are two questions which may come to your mind which need further explication:

1. Overburdened Military:

Isn't our military stretched too thin to wage a "Long War" against additional state sponsors of terrorism (such as North Korea, Syria and Iran)? Yes. It seems to me that this is the case (now, please keep in mind, that I am not exactly one of our nation's great military minds).

In the first Quadrennial Defense Review of the Bush Administration, Secretary Rumsfeld's team made a dramatic shift in America's military sizing to reduce the number of "capital cities" our forces would be able to "occupy" while increasing the number of fronts on which we could fight. I was a solid supporter of this approach. In light of the last few years of mired conflict in Iraq, the approach still seems attractive, but let's face it - reality has caught up with and overtaken theory.

In times like these, the appropriate response is to change course. It is time for the military to beef up its size in terms of personnel and budget in terms of value driven development of weapons, logistics, intelligence platforms and defensive capabilities. I've been frustrated for a few years now that our government seems slow to embrace this change. (I'll flesh out the reasoning behind these thoughts in a future post).

At the same time, four items must be noted:

1. Our lack of size doesn't change the right course of action. State sponsors of terrorism have demonstrated a determined effort to disrupt the world's apple cart, killing untold innocents, through their dedicated investment of cultural support, legal protection and national resources. The right course of action against these states is military in nature. Our lack of sufficiently building our military doesn't change this equation.

2. If we can't do it now, let's start building for the day when we can. State sponsors of terrorism are not likely to disengage from these actions short of military pressure. Notice, I said, not likely. The blessing of being overstretched in terms of military might is that it forces our nation to truly pursue every other non-military end. If time allows, I FULLY support other approaches (see below). But in the meantime, we need to martial our resources in a way we simply having in the last 20 years to rebuild our military capabilities.

3. The US is not the only Nation which can conduct military operations. We are certainly the largest and most capable of sustained operations, but we are decidedly not the only (or in the some cases even the best equipped) to engage in the appropriate military operations. (Again, in a following post I'll explore this concept in terms of the "Coalition" forces at some point in the future).

4. Not all military operations must involve the "occupation" of "capital cities". Senator Lieberman made this point in terms of Iran in a recent Sunday morning interview. Here's an excerpt:

I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike into--over the border into Iran where I--we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

Notice his main point. Aggressive military action does not always mandate "occupation" forces. As I state above, such limited actions may be best performed by other nations and may buy us the time to build our military and, most importantly, to pursue diplomacy by "other means".

2. The Prince of Peace:

As a believer in Christ, doesn't it bother you to focus so much on the military? No. (Ok, yes it does, but only within a certain context.)

1. Government and Government Might are Constituted by God: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) affirm God's hand in appointing governments. Not His direct will in how each government acts toward its people and other nations, but the authority and role of government in general. In this affirmation, it is clear that government has the power of the "sword" to enforce peace on a world which is in rebellion against the "rule of love". State sponsored terrorism is a poster child for this rebellion.

2. Turning the Other Cheek: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) have a lot to say about the virtue of embracing personal humiliation instead of fighting for self-rights. I wholeheartedly affirm this as being central to the way of Christ. At the same time, none of these teachings are provided in a context of forcing others to do the same. They are to arise from individual's heart response to God's forgiveness AND God's vindication of the wrongly attacked. Government is not in the position to mandate this sort of extremely personal moral response in the face of terrorism. To do so would mirror the fascism of radical Islam. The role of government, as constituted by God, is to beat back such threats such that individuals have the freedom to make self-sacrificing choices of love, service, humility, intercession, forgiveness, etc.

3. The Ultimate Victory Comes from Changed Hearts, Not Charred Homes: There is no lasting honor or peace from military action. It has a moral role, but that role is extremely limited. If deployed (hopefully as a last resort) it must be deployed wholeheartedly. Once completed, another wave of soldiers are needed. This second wave must bind the broken hearted, rebuild the desolate inheritances, set the oppressed free, etc. Only when sufficient quantities of folks lay down their lives in service to the citizens of a combatant state will a lasting peace be established. Yes, it would certainly be better to see this happed PRIOR to bombing. But the whole purpose of this concept is to answer the question of what to do when it hasn't happened and innocent lives are being placed in jeopardy as a result.

This 1-2 punch of force and service has demonstrated its effectiveness time and time again. When was the last time our fellow citizens faced threats from England, Spain, Germany, Italy or Japan? All of these nations were our enemies in battle at one time.

Yes, I favor peace through redeemed lives filled with existential hope, but I will support the use of national force as needed to provide those hearts ample opportunity to hear the words of those who cry in the wilderness.

On Principle,

CBass

Update on Savanna

Hi everyone, this is Amy writing. Christian waxes more eloquently but I wanted to personally thank all of our friends and family for their prayers, thoughts, emails and words of encouragement. It has been incredible knowing that we have so much support. As a mother, it's never easy to see your kids go through things, but I must say that because of the support of my incredible husband and my family, I'm actually doing well. I also feel so blessed to have been directed to these particular specialists. The way they have treated Savanna and related with us has been a true blessing.

The last time Christian updated his blog we had visited the hospital to have a repeat x-ray and a sweat test for Cystic Fibrosis.

I'm pleased to announce that the sweat test came back negative. Thank the Lord she does not have CF.

We were quite confident that she didn't but the doctors wanted to rule it out as some of her symptoms did fall under this disease. The x-ray, which last time had shown excess stool in her system, is still showing moderate stool. This was a little baffling to me knowing how much laundry and how many diapers we have changed over the last couple weeks. Because of the excess stool as well as gas in the belly, they would like to run an upper-GI x-ray on Monday. This will require her drinking barium so that they can get a detailed picture of her intestine. The Dr's best speculation is that there may be a narrowing somewhere in the intestine which may be causing the problems.

Christian and I are encouraged that they are getting to the bottom of it and grateful that the doctors are staying on top of it. We would appreciate your prayers for Monday. My prayer is that this test will solve the mysteries and that the Lord will either heal or lead the doctors directly to the problem so that it can be solved and we can move on. Although the test is considered noninvasive I would specifically ask for prayers that I wouldn't be too anxious and that Savanna would be at peace. The radiology staff has been very wonderful with Savanna but it's still so hard to see a little fear in her eyes as she's not quite sure what's going on. Having Christian there is always so reassuring for both Savanna and I and we're grateful that his work schedule has made it possible for him to be at all of the hospital visits.

We'll keep you posted as soon as we have more information. We love you and cannot thank you enough for all of your support. I am so confident that the Lord's hand is on this situation and even though I have moments of anxiousness, I'm actually at peace and know that Savanna is in the Lord's hands. She's the most happy, bubbly little person and the frequent hospital visits have done nothing to alter her happy little self and we pray that it remains so.

Full of gratitude,
Amy

Prayer Request & Update

Friends and Family,

Wasn't that the name of the old "MCI" calling plan? Does anyone remember MCI anymore?? Well, that's just a memory lane down which we don't need to go.

This update is primarily a request for prayer, but, heck, I'll never pass an opportunity to brag on my family either.

Prayer Request:

Our middle daughter, Savanna, (now 21 months) is just on of the cutest little people you'll ever meet. The issue is that she's just that, one of the littlest people for her age you'll ever meet. In fact, on the percentage weight charts she registers an official NULL for her age. Until a few months ago, she was holding a steady parallel progression to the chart, though way below the bottom ranking. Our Dr's felt this at least indicated she was growing in healthy, proportional manner, even if inexplicably small. Around teething time, her weight dropped. The drop wasn't significant, about 1 - 2 pounds, but when you are 18 months and 16 lbs (average kids are 20 lbs at 12 months), the Dr's wanted some specialists to get involved.

After numerous trips to Children's Hospital and even more numerous lab tests the growth specialists (Dr's specializing in pediatric growth for over 20 years) were completely stumped - until the x-ray. She eats larger portions than does her 3.5 yr old sister, is constantly happy and complains of no stomach aches. So we and the specialists were very surprised to learn that our little Savanna has quite a large back up in her bowel track. We've had her on a mild, and very common, child laxative for 6 months or more. But due to her complete lack of the normal symptoms, no one suspected anything. The current theory is that the back-up is causing stool to harden - which is prohibiting her body from absorbing nutrients - which is stunting her physical growth.

So, big deal right? Why the prayer request? Well, now that we've engaged in an intensive spike in laxative and laundry, the attention turns to find out the reason for the back-up. These reasons run the gambit from serious to benign and are too numerous to get into at this time. For example, in addition to some x-ray work today Savanna will also underwent a non-invasive Cystic Fibrosis test.

So, we ask for your prayers along the following lines:

1. We are deeply convinced that Savanna, as with all children, was purposefully formed and placed on this Earth by a loving God who knows her and loves her better and more perfectly than Amy or I can or do.

2. Her possible health problems, if any indeed turn up, are not the end of the world - or the end of God's goodness. There's just way too much we don't know about this world. But what we do know is that our passage on this Earth is very short in the grand scheme of Eternity. We also know that our perspective of pain, of health and of joy - indeed, even our deepest perceptions of Heaven or judgment - are drastically short-sided from the perspective of this God who formed and loves Savanna.

3. Our faith (and our personal experience) informs us that God is very much at work in this world and in our lives. Pain, suffering, disappointment and physical limitations simply don't change this core fact - they just highlight there's a lot we don’t know or understand (see #2) above. At the same time, we know that God has invited us to participate with Him in the process of our coming to understand His will and, perhaps, to see His hand move in physical healing. Perhaps He won't. But perhaps He will. (2 Samuel 12:15-23)

I've experienced extremely sad circumstances when God didn't respond according to our requests and I've witnessed honest, medically proven miracles of healing. Both in response to the same prayers. Both were eventually recognized to be victories. In both cases, God was sought after, the veneer of our daily lives was ripped away and we all faced truer questions of life, meaning and eternity - and we were all better for it.

Thanks for allowing me this surface, theological ramble. :)

In short, Amy and I would be very thankful if you could take just a few minutes to join us in prayer for Savanna's health.

Family Update:

In other news:

1. Alexa (3.5) is in swimming lessons. True to her last name, the girl is a little fish. Her teachers at the community center are amazed at her lack of fear of the water - not always a good thing I'm quick to remind everyone. She loves her newest word - this thing we call "Summertime".
2. Savanna (21 months) the above prayer request not withstanding, is developing very quickly in verbal skills and comprehension. She is stringing together short sentences and plays the part of the absolute ham in the family.
3. Alayna (a whopping 2.5 months) is growing great (25th percentile for weight - right where we like'em), sleeps through the night and goes on and on about those quadratic equations.
4. Amy (she can share if she likes) has just done a wonderful job with this little clan and is quite busy holding our orbits together.

We love you all and miss you most of the time. Many, many thanks for your prayers and support.

Much love and gratitude,

The Basses (Alayna, Savanna, Alexa, Amy & Christian)

Surprise Winner in New Hampshire?

New Poll from NBC (and here - 6/8/07) on the NH primary shows good news for Huckabee, Romney and McCain and some bad signs for Giuliani.


A few thoughts:


1. 5.3% error margin???? Jeepers! We just can't live by or make too much of these polls' discrete findings. There will be innumerable swings and contradictions between any specific poll. The absurdity of making too much of these polls is the 5.3% error margin. According to this:

• Romney and McCain at a "tie" (a "victory" for McCain to be tied in Romney's backyard - AFTER the immigration revolt???).

• Giuliani as being tied with Huckabee (would this make the "news of the week" that Huckabee is "tied" in New Hampshire with the national front runner?)

2. The only item of value to be gained by this incessant polling is a rough feeling for each candidate's relative placement vis-a-vis the others and an idea for the size of their backing. From this very surface analysis we can determine a few winners and losers for this round:

• Huckabee - Surprise of surprises, Huckabee is the top winner from these findings. He has no money, little press and no organization to speak of and yet he's actually within some sort of striking distance of the 2nd placers.

• Romney - With ALL his money, major press coverage and intense organization focus in NH, he has to win, but the good news is that he is winning there - by any measure. Good for him.

• McCain - Another gaping surprise. Despite disappointing money, a hemorrhaging organization and negative press, he's about equal with Giuliani - the national leader.

• Giuliani - NH is in his home region. He's the national front runner. He has solid resources and 5 years on organizing. Yet, he's about even with the base's nemesis (John McCain) and is well behind Romney.

Without living and dieing by these exact & shifting poll data, its easy to see why primary prognostications can't be made the easy way by looking only at broad national polls. Each state is a new race and each candidate has a to live or die by the realities of that market place.


On Principle,
CBass

War on Terrorism

Now that we are deeply mired in the campaign season for Presidential Primaries, our current engagement in and conduct of the "War on Terror" is oft questioned by pundits and waxed a little less than eloquently by brave campaigners.

It amazes me that 6 years into our realization that this battle was launched upon us, we still don't, as a collective people, have a better grasp as to the nature of our warfare. With all the pomp, circumstance and inflated self-importance which is so integral to blogging, I will here attempt to set the record straight.

Misnomer #1: War on Terror

We are not waging a war on "terror". Terror is an internal, emotional reaction to a frightening or dramatic event. Sir Winston Churchill could be said to have waged a war on terror, in this sense, during battle of London in WWII. Through his example, decisiveness and stirring rhetoric, he sought to confront the reactive terror which gripped the hearts of his citizens. While this sort of reinforcement of the American psyche would be an advised addition to the Administration's battle plan, an addition badly lacking of late, it simply is not core to the "long war".

Misnomer #2: War Against Terrorists

CAUTION: Liberal content warning!!!!

Battling Terrorists, as an end goal, is not, primarily, a job for our military in its full weight and stunning lethality. Terrorists, folks who try to invoke terror in innocents for self-selected purposes, are thugs and criminals. Confronting them is largely, in most (no, not all) cases, a job for law enforcement. What? Isn't this sacrilegious for a deeply committed conservative? No, as a conservative, I deploy the full force, fury and frustrating bureaucracy of my government on an extremely limited basis. And I have some examples to back up this point:

1. The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. Both were terrorists, both were confronted by law enforcement.
2. The mob / mafia. Organized terrorist families, clans, cells ranging from Prohibition Bootleggers to today's highly structured, multi-state Latino gangs. All of whom have been effectively confronted by law enforcement.
3. Iraqi Police. Its seems as though many of us have taken for granted that when America talks of training up Iraqi "security forces" some of the major focus of this work is on raising competent, non-compromised Iraqi police - often to a greater degree than the Iraqi armed forces.

Conservative readers, you can come back now.

Before moving on I should note that surgical strikes by small groups of highly trained and well armed Special Forces units may be one very appropriate tactic in battling terrorists, but when conducted on foreign soil absent a larger military campaign, these raids are probably far more effective in the long term when coordinated with that country's law enforcement. Conservatives do like to uphold the integrity of national borders of nation states - our own apparently excluded from this otherwise truism.

Misnomer #3: We Can't Declare War on an Idea or Tactic

Ok, admittedly, it did take the Administration far too long after 9/11 to craft some definition around the sort of terrorism against which we would battle. But please don't miss the point, this has been done and the selected definition correctly aligns with who we are as a people both historically and in the modern world. Our long war is not against the idea of terror or terrorism as a tactic. Our long war is specifically against "state-sponsored, international terrorism".

What does this mean? Let's start with what it doesn't mean. This doesn't mean that we have declared direct war on remnants of the Irish Republican Army, Colombia's FARC, Spain's ETA or Aum Shinrikyo of Japan. They all invoke terror (see Misnomer #1 above), but they are all best confronted by the law enforcement efforts of each country. The US may support these efforts through military aid, US military hardware, etc, but we are correct to NOT confront these terrorists (see Misnomer #2 above) through Shock & Awe.

War on Terrorism: What It Means

Our war is against organized groups (things against which we can really declare war) which utilize the legal safety, cultural support and enormous resources of nation states to mobilize terrorists in waging terror tactics against innocents, often in other nations, to secure the self-selected purposes in which they find value. I find it difficult to believe anyone can't grasp this difference between the tactic of terror, the rather limited resources and reach of "local" groups of terrorists and well structured, well funded, well trained, well armed, well coordinated, internationally structured, far-reaching state-sponsored terrorism.

Since history has a whimsical way of smacking us on the collective rear when we ignore it's lessons, I highly recommend the short article "Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates" by Christopher Hitchens. Much of what today defines us as "Americans" was born out of our nation's first officially declared war oversees - a war against, gasp!, the idea, nay - the tactic, of piracy.

Gotcha! Not so!

Our Congress declared war and our President Jefferson executed war against state-sponsored piracy. The difference is very, very important. Since the piracy was not some independent group of thugs to be policed, but a coordinated attack of terror upon innocent people (entire cities were raided and possibly 1.5 million Westerners were taken captive as slaves) coordinated from, funded by and under the protection of the nation states of northern Africa. As such, we wage war against the physical arms (slave ships), soldiers (funded pirates) AND the sponsoring homelands of the pirates. By stemming the flow from the state-sponsor, Islamo-piracy eventually receded to irrelevance for centuries - courtesy of a good 'ol butt kicking.

As the T-shirt says: "WAR NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING: Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism"

Hitchen's alludes to much of what is "apple pie" America as having arisen from the fight against state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Our grievances against England as captured in the original draft of the declaration of independence - for his support of the "slave trade" which mirrored the tactics of state-sponsored piracy.

2. The only mention of Armed forces in our Constitution - a Navy for battling the state-sponsors of the Barbary Pirates.

3. The original stanza's of what would later become our national anthem

4. The Marine Corps anthem

5. The liberal tradition of appeasement - John Adam's stance that we should bribe the Muslim states to the sum of 10% of our National Treasury.

Ok, But What Exactly Does It Mean:

Our Constitutional structure arose out of, in part, a struggle similar to ours today. It was designed to support the following principles when battling state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Unite domestically to raise a fearsome military to end the ability of enemy states to sponsor terrorism.
2. Encourage development of friendly governments (since terrorism is also feed through the defacto "state" of culture - ie the KKK in the post-Reconstruction South).
3. Support the local law enforcement efforts of these newly constituted governments to confront the now de-funded and orphaned terrorists.
4. Return home to enjoy the 2 centuries of peace which can only be won through such displays of strength - at least in this fallen world.

One last question.

If you buy into any of the arguments above, what would be the appropriate response to Iran, Syria and the defacto autonomous regions of Pakistan? The answer is obvious, but it would require the same efforts as were required of our Nation's founders - raise an armed force, sufficiently capable of executing the task at hand with sufficient lethality and provide a demonstration of nation will through Congressional declaration.

Then, let's remember, this is a "long war".

Of course, we may learn a lesson from other wars as well:

1. Sometimes we need to commit the same level of resources to rebuilding what we utterly destroy.
2. Sometimes we need to flood defeated foes with the best Ambassadors we have to offer, hundreds of individuals carrying and demonstrating the Love of God for the populace shaken free of terrorist sponsors.

Proud American,
Christian

Google's All That

Well, maybe not.

At a sizable risk of getting injured in a stand against prevailing currents of pop-culture, I have discovered a flaw in the much vaunted Google Earth service. In fact, I find this discovery to be somewhat reminiscent of the lone scale missing from Tolkien's mythical dragon, Smog, in The Hobbit. Yes, with only one scale missing, the powerful dragon was brought low throw a single arrow. And yes, what I'm about to share is one missing scale in Google's all-pervasive power - it's all-seeing eye.

First, to set the stage. Perhaps you've heard of Google's new "Street Level View". In concept, the idea is quite cool. Google has sent specially equipped trucks to drive through the streets of a few pilot cities, collecting 360 degree images as they drove. Google then, somehow seamlessly, blended these "street level" images with it's Google Earth satellite images. Through Google Maps, you can type in an address on one of the streets so filmed for the pilot launch, zoom out to see the entire city or region or zoom in on a particular address and then open a window to show the "street level view".

One webizen was able to see his cat perched in the window of his 2nd floor apartment. Other's are quite dismayed by the "ickiness" of "spying" on unsuspecting folks just living their normal lives. But everyone admits that having instant, integrated access to this odd assortment of average folks, living average lives is truly spectacular. Imagine the muscle-flexing bragging rights this level of pervasive coverage of the world, "at your finger tips", Google has earned? If they can do this, what else are they working on?

Want to invest?

Now, for that dragon killing flaw in Google's armor. For Google, it's dominance is just that, its dominance. Through Google Search, it seemed to have virtually captured every piece of online data, categorized it and made it amazingly available when relevant to your needs or whims. Through Google Earth and Google Maps, the media giant seemed to have acquired mind-numbing quantities of data on the entire world and, again, made them available for productive use - and relevant advertising. Now, through Street Level View, Google seems to be flexing its muscle to show that it can capture and maintain images of every major address in every city and integrate it with Search and Maps such that any location on Earth can be searched, seen and integrated with limitless depths of relevant information (oh yeah, and advertising). Total dominance. And dominance means coolness, "buzz", street creds (oh yeah, and advertising $'s). Without total dominance and presumed relevance, Google Street Level View is just an odd peep show.

With this in mind, I "Googled" my house. Disclaimer: I live in a fairly new neighborhood in a fairly new house. By "fairly new" I mean 2 years and 1 year old, respectively. Remember when I included that Google must "capture and maintain" images. It seems this is a harder task than even Google would have us believe. I live in Smog's missing scale, the chink in Google's armor. If their technology is just a reactive response to natural disaster or war, who cares. Time, CNN and Fox News give us that. With commentary to boot! If it is to be "in Google we trust", then we want total coverage of the subject with updated relevance. Not native pasture land where developers and we greedy consumers have long ago (2 years is a long time on line) scraped the land, laid concrete and generally made things better.

On Principle,
Christian