Ground State

Troops improvise to reduce their carbon footprint.

















From the Natural Family Blog via The Jawa Report.

A long time ago I led a team developing a radio for the services. We were in trouble. We had significant unresolved issues. A management review was scheduled, and one of the über-managers came to check our progress. As I was passing out our briefing material he gave us his first big directive: "Don't print so many copies of the briefing, it wastes paper"

I've never forgotten it. I was transfixed by the irrelevance. Wow. Thanks.

I am an anglophile. I have no British ancestors, but I have what all English-speaking peoples should have, a resevoir of good-will and gratitude to England for a propsperous and free western world, for the rule of law, for Churchill. I want to respect Prince Charles because of the office he holds and the history he represents. But I cannot - I am transfixed by his irrelevance. Ban the Big Mac. Wow - thanks Charlie. Now get back on your bicycle and pedal home before it gets dark.

From LGF. A kindergarten in Germany. If you are a Jew in Europe - it is really, really, time to go.

I first read this book too many years ago, and had never read Brave New World Revisited, a non-fictional summary of how the author saw some of the trends identified in the novel unfolding as time has passed. I got this copy in part because I wanted to read Christopher Hitchen's forward - and I would recommend it to you - but I would read it afterward. For me, I find the style critique from Hitchens affects how I read the book - whereas, reading the story first, one can take it as a whole without the distraction of identifying candidate passages for Hitchen's comments.

The Brave New World Revisited is the second, non-fictional volume in this edition, first published in 1958. The New York Times Book Review quoted on the back cover says "It is a frightening experience... to discover how much of his satirical prediction of a distant future became a reality in so short a time." Personally I was more thunderstruck by the novel itself, how keenly it pinned where we are going on families and on the meaning of life. The novel was first published in 1932, before WWII. In our accelerated world, that is quite a distance to throw touchdowns from. Taking the 50's as family-centered and optimistic, it is astonishing how Huxley picked out threads still tightly-woven in that fabric to predict the cultural war against the family we live with today.

Some 75 years on, it appears that the industrialized-man theme is overdone, or at least out of phase. The factory-whistle driven portion of the economy has peaked. Rather than being inimical to the family it was perhaps supportive of it. The free-agent economy we're moving to is neutral in this regard. If one wants to dedicate time and energy to a family it allows for it with unprecedented freedom. If one wants to pursue distractions at all costs, it allows for this as well.

The Huxley model of totalitarianism is I think untenable. The totalitarian societies today remain ruled by violence and fear of it, as always. Huxley's version is less frontally brutal; literally and figuratively doping the herd. The Soviet and Chinese experiences argue that liberalization must accompany economic sustainability, just as the North Korean experience indicates how bad things get when you don't.

Given the economic freedom to consider the meaning of life; many do not want to be posed with the question. Huxley's heroine's words,

"Was and will make me ill," she quoted, "I take a gramme and only am".

Surely this is us.

Huxley poses a society who's rulers find it necessary to remove all meaning from life. Tragically, it appears that much of the free-world has adopted the policy without coercion. Their demographic suicide is their answer to Frankl's question. I only am.

GroundState Exclusive FLASH: Presidential candidate John Edwards claims he's the true father of Anna Nicole's baby. He's shaved his head and checked into rehab. Good Luck Silky Pony!

You should see this Hot Air report.

Jamal Miftah is a brave American.

Islam in the United States is not peaceful, it is getting ready.

".. but if there is no right and wrong it's usually the right that is depicted as wrong."

from Dennis Prager's Feb. 12 show - available from Townhall.com Talkradio podcasts.

Check out this news-site and blog, the Victory Caucus - Dean Barnett, Austin Bay, Hugh Hewitt. Here's their beliefs (I signed up immediately).

We support victory in the war against radical Islamists. We supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and we believe victory is necessary in both countries for America's self-defense.

We believe that the radical regime in Iran, while not representative of the Iranian people, is a menace and that it cannot be allowed to obtain or build nuclear weapons.

We believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that has killed hundreds of Americans and which waged war against Israel in violation of every law of war this past summer, and will do so again in the future.

We believe Israel is our ally and friend and deserves the full assistance of the United States in its battle with radical Islamists. We believe that Israel has repeatedly shown its willingness to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but that its enemies do not want peace, but the destruction of Israel.

We believe that the American military is the finest in the world and indeed in history, well led and superbly trained, and populated at every level by America's best and brightest.

We support the troops, and those organizations which assist the wounded in their recoveries and support the families of those who sacrificed everything.

We support leaders who support victory.

George W. Bush will have historical stature far, far higher than he holds in much of the mainstream press around the world today. George Bush and Tony Blair will draw comparisons to Churchill in their steadfast commitment to preserving civilization in the face of great evil while most would rather turn their head and pretend we can manage it without sacrifice. Each has paid a tremendous personal price, and are held-up as reprehensible war-mongers by many of their citizens. Churchill would sympathize.

Where the historians will not compare our President favorably with Churchill is his ability to speak, to make his case, and to rally people to the cause he so clearly understands. Tony Blair is better at it, but his country is not what it once was - they despise him - and themselves.

Islam and individual liberty are not compatible. We in the West have a choice, we can submit, we can face the conflict in front of us, or we can turn our heads and hope it doesn't get to our neighborhood before we pass on. Then it's the kid's problem. Most of the world will bury their heads until its time to submit. The Netherlands has already announced they are ready and waiting for their Imams. France will submit of course, as will Spain and Italy. The US will not, Australia will not. We're going to have a big donnybrook.

No one of political stature in America is better at making the case for the defense of civilization and individual liberty than Rudy Giuliani. This is the most important thing we need from the next President.

It is often pundited that Rudy Giuliani cannot be nominated by the Republican party because of his positions on gay marriage and abortion. Really. If the most important thing to you is that there be no gay marriages and no abortions, submit to Islam now and elect Muslim candidates for office, your utopia will soon be here. What constitutes reasonable positions for a free society to take on gay marriage and abortion can only be worked out in a free society. The purpose of the executive branch of government is not to create law. If the country is ready for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, we'll have it. If that is the law, a President Giuliana will enforce it.

The purpose of the executive branch of the Federal government is to secure our nation and enforce our laws. To do that, the President must be able to lead from the podium, and he must be able to lead the gargantuan buearacracy. Giuliani has done both. There is no comparable figure on the stage.

Rudy 2008

This is a re-post from September of 2006. I wanted to post it again because of the recent announcement by the Mayor that he is, in fact, running. I also want to apologize to many who have commented on this and other posts. Blogger upgraded it's service, and in the process of transitioning to the new service I disconnected from HaloScan - where the comments were kept. No one's comment's were intentionally deleted.

Update Feb. 12 - World Politics Watch reports firsthand on the failure of the poppy eradication program in Afghanistan here.


The Telegraph reports on an inteview with a Taliban commander:

A Taliban commander has told The Daily Telegraph of his plans to sabotage a British-backed operation to eradicate the poppy crop in southern Afghanistan due to start this weekend.

In a rare interview with a military leader of the Islamist group, conducted as Nato warplanes hovered overhead, Haji Aghar Mohammad claimed that he intends to defend the poppy fields of Helmand province to exploit dissatisfaction among locals over the eradication programme.

"We are obeying the orders of our leaders who have told us to defend the farmers," he said, surrounded by armed fighters. "The Taliban will support the local people, because the people's support will make it impossible for the government and foreign forces to defeat us."

The poppy is the only cash crop in Afghanistan. As I've written about before, we cannot win over the people to capitalism and democracy by destroying their cash crop. The government in Afghanistan cannot stand if 90% of the country's exports are illegal because the aid nations demand it be so. That makes the country prima facia ungovernable. We have to abandon poppy prohibition to succeed in standing-up a country in place of a dysfunctional host for Islamic facism. Ecomomic transformation to other crops and a successful state can take place if we can ensure security and the rule of law. We can do neither while attempting to eradicate poppy cultivation, an exercise we will fail at as surely as we have demonstrably done in Bolivia and Columbia.

Poppy cultivation is not something we want to encourage, but we cannot eliminate it now. We have the cart before the horse - and we are handing the country back to the Taliban this way.

EU Referendum is an excellent blog and one of my daily reads, if you haven't seen it you should - they're in the links on the left and here. One of their proficiencies is parsing the BS out of British MoD news releases. They take a look at some serious set-backs in Afghanistan here. It is a stunning summary, in that they conclude the British forces have given up fixed-bases to wander in the desert because they cannot hold them in the face of Taliban attack. That is not good. That makes the British the insurgents in Taliban country.

This is a remarkable piece by Sgt. Eddie Jeffers serving in Ramadi, Iraq (HT: LGF).

Democrats and peace activists like to toss the word "quagmire" around and compare this war to Vietnam. In a way they are right, this war is becoming like Vietnam. Not the actual war, but in the isolation of country and military. America is not a nation at war; they are a nation with its military at war. Like it or not, we are here, some of us for our second, or third times; some even for their fourth and so on. Americans are so concerned now with politics, that it is interfering with our war.

Terrorists cut the heads off of American citizens on the internet...and there is no outrage, but an American soldier kills an Iraqi in the midst of battle, and there are investigations, and sometimes soldiers are even jailed...for doing their job.

It is absolutely sickening to me to think our country has come to this. Why are we so obsessed with the bad news? Why will people stop at nothing to be against this war, no matter how much evidence of the good we've done is thrown in their face? When is the last time CNN or MSNBC or CBS reported the opening of schools and hospitals in Iraq? Or the leaders of terror cells being detained or killed? It's all happening, but people will not let up their hatred of President Bush. They will ignore the good news, because it just might show people that Bush was right.

You should read the whole thing. Sgt. Jeffers has his life on the line for us.

From the Daily Mail today:

Yet earlier this week, a survey revealed that nearly four in ten young British Muslims aged 18-24 would prefer to live under Sharia law than British law. The study, commissioned by the Right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange, identified significant support for wearing the veil in public, Islamic schools and even punishment by death for Muslims who convert to another religion.

Most worryingly, 13 per cent of young Muslims said they "admired" organisations such as Al Qaeda which are prepared to "fight the West".

Keep in mind - when the Muslims in England are talking about fighting the West - they're not talking about some faraway land - they're talking about the Westerners who have the gall to still live in England. If you want to know what England will look like in 20 years - Mark Steyn has described it in four words: Somalia with Chip Shops. What a sad end to the empire that brought civilization to the world. I'm glad Winston passed-on before he had to watch this.

Update Feb. 28
The author has claimed the article in the comments, accordingly - the actual credit goes to: Paul Marek here.

Update Feb. 2: This post on Right Minds Forum appears to have been taken verbatim from this FrontPageMag article. Apologies to FrontPageMag and author "Debris Trail", and thanks to GroundState reader Robert for pointing out the FPM article. It may be that "debris trail" is a pseudonym for William Haynes - but I'll change the links here to point to the FPM version.

While I'm on the subject of FrontPageMag - check out this video from David Horowitz - FPM Editor in Chief.

From William Haynes at the Right Minds Forum, (HT: Israel Matzav).

Wow - what a post.

I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous.

You can read the rest here.

Dick Morris in the Jewish World Review:

But there is a risk that our struggle against Iran will come to be seen by the American people as a subset of the war in Iraq, a bit like Cambodia was a subset of the War in Vietnam. If challenging Iran comes to symbolize an escalation of the war in Iraq, it will soon lose public support and become tainted with the tar which smears our work in Iraq. But to characterize Iran as part of our war in Iraq is like calling Russia part of our battle against Serbia in the '90s. Certainly, Iran is trying to exercise massive influence in Iraq and the toppling of the Sunni regime in Baghdad doubtless opened the door for its attempt. But the danger Iran poses goes far beyond its threat to our troops in Iraq.