Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Experts warn about repeated brain blows in football

Monday, June 28, 2010
By Chuck Finder, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/?m=1

The brain of the late Cincinnati Bengals pass receiver Chris Henry contained so many signs of chronic disease -- sludge, tangles and threads associated with late-in-life dementia or Alzheimer's -- that it shows a football player can sustain life-altering head trauma without ever being diagnosed with a concussion.

The brain damage may have contributed to Mr. Henry's troubled behavior and, ultimately, his death in December at age 26.


Ernest Coleman/Cincinnati Enquirer
Chris Henry


These conclusions, among others following tissue study by scientists affiliated with West Virginia University, make Mr. Henry the first active National Football League player to be discovered suffering from the progressive generative disease known as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTE.

Julian Bailes and Bennet Omalu, with the Brain Injury Research Institute in Morgantown, W.Va., have examined 10 other retired players, among them ex-Steelers Mike Webster, Terry Long and Justin Strzelzcyk. The researchers found frightful similarities between those brains and that of Mr. Henry. Those men were older than Mr. Henry and had taken thousands of blows to the helmet during long football careers.

Finding CTE in a current pro football player wouldn't surprise Robert Cantu, whose Boston University research group has received funding from the NFL.

"It also wouldn't surprise me that somebody as young as 26 would have it, either," Dr. Cantu said of Mr. Henry. "What would be a big surprise is if the amount of Tau protein. ... would be as excessive as it is in people who had much more lengthy careers and died at a much later age."

Mr. Henry never missed a game because of a concussion with either the Bengals or WVU, where he played in college.

"It didn't look like the brain of a 26-year-old," said Dr. Omalu, a former Allegheny County pathologist who first found CTE in an autopsy of Mr. Long in September 2005.

"This is not something to celebrate. It is not something to be joyful about. It is something that is very humbling, very introspective. It is a call to action.

"I'm not calling for the eradication of football; no, I'm asking for full disclosure to the players. Like the surgeon general considers smoking to be dangerous to your health, repeated impacts of the brain are dangerous to your health and will affect you later in life. Period. The players need to know this.

"I think it's an epidemic. It's beneath the radar. We simply didn't identify it [early and properly]. The more I encounter NFL players, the more I realize ... it is much more prevalent than we had identified."

Added Dr. Bailes, who serves on the NFL Players Association brain-trauma committee: "Is it an epidemic? I don't know. But it was pretty alarming, that study."

Among the Henry study's findings, scheduled to be announced today at a news conference in Morgantown:

• The single, highlight-video concussive blow isn't the most dangerous part of the game. Rather, it is the constant thumping of the helmet and the brain inside the skull that causes long-term harm. The scientists found in Mr. Henry's tissue "chronic changes that have been there for several years," Dr. Bailes said. "And these are not all NFL-caused," meaning they stem from youth, high school and college football, as well.

• A gene that is a precursor -- an identifying factor for susceptibility to CTE -- has been found in 70 percent of the late athletes researched by Dr. Bailes and Dr. Omalu at the institute, among them former professional wrestler Chris Benoit, who killed his wife and 7-year-old son before committing suicide in 2007. An autopsy found steroids in his system.

The gene identified in Mr. Benoit is Apolipoprotein E, known as APOE, and is found in roughly 25 percent of the general population.

"Maybe what our research will lead to is the realization that, maybe in the future, genetic testing would be important for these athletes to know," Dr. Bailes said.

• Multiple or repetitive brain impacts appear to be the leading cause in an athlete's behavioral changes, akin to the onset of dementia, though it is an area that scientists agree remains open for more study.

Mr. Henry died Dec. 17 from a fractured skull and other head injuries sustained when he fell from a moving pickup truck in the driveway of his fiancee's family home near Charlotte, N.C. Those injuries were visibly separate from Mr. Henry's chronic condition caused by football, both doctors said.

"This is not a picture of acute brain swelling and edema. This is not an X-ray. This is a piece of tissue taken out of his brain," Dr. Bailes said. "This is chronic and long-standing."


In a microscopic view of tissue from the brain of the late Cincinnati Bengals receiver Chris Henry, the brown spots are Tau protein stains that surround and damage the brain cells. "It's blue normally," said Julian Bailes, a brain injury researcher. "I look at it like sludge. [The brain] tries to clear it, and it can't." The wispy lines are neuritic threads, dead and leftover connections between cells. "You shouldn't see any of this, ordinarily," Dr. Bailes said.

Mr. Henry played in 55 games, including 12 starts, in his five-year Bengals career, one that included five arrests in a 28-month span and three suspensions totaling 14 games. He was once suspended at West Virginia by then-coach Rich Rodriguez, who called Mr. Henry an embarrassment to himself and the program. CTE and his chronic brain trauma could well have played a role, the scientists contend.

"The circumstances of somebody jumping onto a moving truck ... ," Dr. Omalu began.

He noted how a witness to the accident reported that Mr. Henry's last words were to his fiancee, Loleini Tonga, who was behind the wheel: "If you take off, I'm going to jump off the truck and kill myself."

"From what I know about his manifestations, I think there was ... neural-behavioral syndrome," Dr. Bailes added.

Bengals officials declined comment, as did NFL officials without knowing the specifics of the findings. But NFL spokesman Greg Aiello added in an e-mail: "We have invested $1 million in CTE research with the Boston University group. CTE was an important part of the agenda at our recent medical conference on brain injuries in Washington. We will continue to proactively address the issue through the medical experts."

Kevin Guskiewicz, a Latrobe native and former Steelers graduate-assistant trainer, is the research director at the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of Retired Athletes. He added in an e-mail: "There is still much to learn about CTE. We do not yet know the cause, but there is increasing speculation that a contributor might be the hundreds of subconcussive -- non-injurious -- head impacts sustained over the course of a player's career."

As for those who wonder whether steroid use is linked to head trauma, Dr. Bailes said his previous research found that anabolic steroids do not appear to increase a player's chances of brain injuries from concussive blows.

Dr. Bailes, once a Steelers team doctor and currently the neurosurgeon for WVU athletic teams, maintains that this study is not advocating radical changes to the NFL or other levels of football.

But he reiterated a stance that he and other experts heralded most recently at a brain injury seminar at Duquesne University in March: Take the head out of the game to make it safer.

This research got its start in September 2005, when then-Allegheny County coroner Cyril Wecht announced that Mr. Long had died the June before as a result of traumatic brain injuries sustained during his Steelers career. The cause of death was later amended to suicide, but the discovery of CTE by Dr. Omalu, in the coroner's office, became part of football's mainstream discussion for the next half-decade and more.

The disease was previously restricted to the "punch-drunk" syndrome known to afflict boxers since the 1920s. Dr. Omalu opened the door to football; he and later Dr. Bailes studied tissue samples from a handful of NFL veterans. Since then, deceased football players as young as age 18 studied by a Boston University group and the Morgantown researchers were found to have Tau-protein stains and other signs of the disease.

The Brain Injury Research Institute was started three years ago by Dr. Bailes, the West Virginia School of Medicine's chairman of neurosurgery; Dr. Omalu and Wheeling-based attorney Bob Fitzsimmons. (Mr. Fitzsimmons represents two Post-Gazette reporters in a pair of lawsuits not related to sports.)

Dr. Omalu, now medical examiner for San Joaquin County, Calif., studied the donated Henry samples first.

"I think it was the fourth slide. I stopped. I was like, 'Whoa.' I was saddened by it, really," he said.

"This is not a mild case," added Dr. Bailes. Under a microscope, Mr. Henry's slides showed the same number of Tau-stained brown spots normal for "an 80- or 90-year-old."

The doctors said they hope the Henry case will prompt players and officials at all levels of football to take notice, if not action. Practices without helmets? Standing up linemen from a three-point stance? There are, to them, questions deeper than how many games to sideline a concussion sufferer.

"The NFL wants us to believe that documented concussions are the issue. I've always believed that it's not about documented concussions. It's about repeated impacts to the head ... sub-concussions," Dr. Omalu said. "Concussions are the extreme [end] of the spectrum. The issue is repeated impact, repeated blows to the head.

"We need to be more proactive. This is an issue of health risk. It is a public-health issue. Chris Benoit exhibited violent behavior. Many of them have died broke, without jobs. There's a societal implication. And also an issue of public safety. We need to take it more seriously."


Chuck Finder: cfinder@post-gazette.com.

Monday, June 28, 2010

A Moving Sidewalk for Terrorists

Muslim extremists have penetrated our southern border.

by Deroy Murdock
http://www.nationalreview.com
06/28/2010


NEW YORK — While Americans march against Arizona’s new restrictions on unlawful immigration, hundreds of illegal aliens from countries awash in Muslim terrorists tiptoe across the US/Mexican frontier.

According to the federal Enforcement Integrated Database, 125 individuals were apprehended along the US/Mexican border from Fiscal Year 2009 through April 20, 2010. These deportable aliens included two Syrians, seven Sudanese, and 17 Iranians, all nationals from the three Islamic countries that the US government officially classifies as state sponsors of terrorism.

Federal authorities also track “Special Interest Countries” from which terrorism could be directed against America. Over the aforementioned period, 99 of those nations’ citizens also were nabbed on the border. They were: two Afghans, five Algerians, 13 Iraqis, 10 Lebanese, 22 Nigerians, 28 Pakistanis, two Saudis, 14 Somalis, and three Yemenis. During FY 2007 and FY 2008, federal officials seized 319 people from these same countries traversing America’s southwest border.

Some such characters were confined in Arizona, which recently adopted a controversial law that lets cops ask the citizenship status of those they suspect of other possible violations. Atlanta’s WSB-TV recently publicized an April 15, 2010 “population breakdown” of immigrants detained at a Florence, Arizona facility. While 198 of the 395 males behind bars there were Mexican, 18 hailed from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. [1]

Perhaps these gentlemen simply want to pursue the American dream. Worrisome signs suggest, however, that some may have arrived via blistering, cactus-adorned deserts so that they could blow Americans to smithereens.

Besides Iranian currency and Islamic prayer rugs, Texas Border Patrol agents discovered an Arabic clothing patch that reads “martyr” and “way to immortality.” Another shows a jet flying into a skyscraper.

“Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered the United States across our southwest border,” declares A Line in the Sand, a 2006 report by the House Homeland Security Investigations Subcommittee, then-chaired by Rep. Michael McCaul (R – Texas). [2]

“The same disturbing problem we identified four years ago still exists today,” Rep. McCaul tells me. “The number of undocumented aliens coming across our Southwest border from special interest countries that have ties to terrorism continues to increase, and unless we get serious about securing our borders, the terrorists will exploit this region as a way to slip into our country undetected so they can network, radicalize, and plot against us.”

Rep. Sue Myrick (R – North Carolina) wrote Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on June 23 and urged her to launch a task force to focus on Hezbollah’s activities in and around the US/Mexican border. [3]

Myrick’s letter makes for rather chilling reading:

Across states in the Southwest, well trained officials are beginning to notice the tattoos of gang members in prisons are being written in Farsi. We have typically seen tattoos in Arabic, but Farsi implies a Persian influence that can likely be traced back to Iran and its proxy army, Hezbollah. . . .

Former intelligence officials have pointed to the terrain that makes up our border, especially in the San Diego border sector, as a reason why drug cartels have been partnering with Hezbollah. This terrain is very much like the areas around Israel’s borders. As we well know, Hezbollah is extremely skilled in the construction of tunnels. Israel has time and again found Hezbollah tunnels leading into Israel, some of which are large enough to accommodate trucks. Likewise, these intelligence officials say that the drug cartels, in an effort to dig larger and more effective tunnels are employing the expertise of Hezbollah. . . .

Experts believe Iranian agents and members of Hezbollah are going to Venezuela to learn Spanish. When somewhat fluent, they obtain false documents in hopes of crossing the US border as Hispanics. If stopped by border agents when trying to cross, they try to pass off as Mexican. Only well trained border agents can detect that their Spanish accent is Venezuelan, not Mexican. If this is not detected they are merely sent back into Mexico where they try to cross into the US again, rather than being detained for more questioning. . . .

One high ranking Mexican Army officer, who asked not to be named for security reasons, states they believe Hezbollah may be training the Mexican drug cartels’ enforcers in the art of bomb making. This might lead to Israel-like car bombings of Mexican/USA border personnel or National Guard units in the border regions. This militant threat could be exacerbated by the current tensions between the US and Iran, since Iran directs Hezbollah.


Also disturbing are the uninvited terrorists and terror suspects who were arrested after entering America through our permeable underbelly.

•Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty in March 2005 to providing material support to terrorists. First, Kourani secured a visa by bribing a Mexican diplomat in Beirut. He and another Middle Easterner then hired a Mexican guide to escort them into America. Finally, Kourani settled into Dearborn, Michigan’s Lebanese-immigrant community and raised cash for Hezbollah. [4]

•Miguel Alfonso Salinas was picked up in New Mexico near the international border in 2006. As Sara A. Carter reported in the June 8 Washington Examiner, one week of FBI interrogation exposed Salinas as an Egyptian named Ayman Sulmane Kamal. Evidently, he remains in federal custody. [5]

•Then-National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said that in FY 2006 and FY 2007, at least 30 potentially dangerous Iraqis were found trying to penetrate America via Mexico. As McConnell told the El Paso Times: “There are numerous situations where people are alive today because we caught them.” [6]

•The Department of Homeland Security issued an April 14, 2010 “Intelligence Alert” regarding a possible border-crossing attempt by a Somali named Mohamed Ali. He is a suspected member of Al-Shabaab, a Somali-based al-Qaeda ally tied to the deadly attack on American GIs in 1993’s notorious “Blackhawk Down” incident in Mogadishu.

•Captured in Brownsville, Texas, Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, 24, pleaded not guilty in San Antonio on May 14 to federal charges that he “ran a large-scale smuggling enterprise” designed to sneak East Africans through Mexico into Texas, including “several AIAI-affiliated Somalis into the United States.” Al-Ittihad Al-Islami is yet another Muslim-extremist organization. [7]

•Daniel Joseph Maldonado, a convert to Islam, also has Somali ties. Maldonado, AKA Daniel Aljughaifi, was picked up in Kenya in 2007 after fleeing a Somali camp where he received terrorist training. According to a February 13m 2007 criminal complaint signed by FBI Special Agent Jeremiah George, Maldonado — AKA Abu Mohammed — had “no problem” with the September 11 attacks. Maldonado was returned to Houston for prosecution and is serving a 10-year federal prison sentence. As Rice University’s Joan Neuhas Schaan told KHOU-TV: “They had plans for him to come back to the United States and recruit female suicide bombers.” [8]

All this involves only the bad guys who the authorities nailed. Those who have stayed undetected after crossing the U.S./Mexican border to murder Americans remain — by definition — invisible.


Mr. Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Links:

[1] http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436558.pdf

[2] http://www.house.gov/sites/members/tx10_mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf

[3] http://myrick.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=22&parentid=21§iontree=21,22&itemid=558

[4] http://article.nationalreview.com/319821/if-they-can-make-it-through-the-border/deroy-murdock

[5] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Drug-cartels-smuggling-illegals-create-security-risk_-officials-say-95815904.html

[6] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=43177

[7] http://gantdaily.com/2010/05/28/texas-receives-terror-alert-from-somali-goverment/

[8] http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Maldonado_Complaint.pdf

Jordan is Palestine

By Melanie Phillips
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
21 June 2010

The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has hit the bullseye [1]:

‘Jordan is Palestine,’ said Wilders, who heads the third-largest party in Holland. ‘Changing its name to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland...There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.’ Wilders also called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Wilders has spoken the big inconvenient truth. As a result, it is inevitably being dismissed as merely what ‘the right’ regularly says. So of course it's untrue, on the grounds that, by definition, everything ‘the right’ says is untrue. Yadda yadda.

But it is not untrue. It is correct. Anyone familiar with the history knows it is correct. Immediately after World War One, Palestine consisted of what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The great powers dividing up the region decided that Britain should be given a mandate to administer Palestine and restore within it the historic Jewish national home. Within a couple of years, however, Winston Churchill, for reasons of realpolitik, gave away three quarters of Palestine to the Hashemite dynasty to found (Trans)Jordan (leaving all the rest to be settled by the Jews; but that’s another story).

So Jordan is indeed Palestine. As Camie Davis [2] points out, the Arabs themselves repeatedly said so:

Jordanians, for decades, were avid proponents of the ‘Jordan is Palestine’ position. They used that position as justification for the annexation of the West Bank, arguing that Palestine was one single, indivisible unit, and that Jordan was the legitimate governing body of Palestine...

‘We are the government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine.’ - Prime Minister of Jordan, Hazza' al-Majali, 23 August 1959

‘Palestine and Transjordan are one.’ - King Abdullah, Arab League meeting in Cairo, 12 April 1948

‘Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate.’ - Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2 February 1970

‘Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine, but rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations.’ - Jordanian Minister of Agriculture, 24 September 1980

'The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.' - King Hussein 1981


Indeed, until 1970 the Palestine Liberation Organisation conducted terrorist operations against Jordan on the grounds that it was Palestine and the Hashemite minority was ruling the Palestinian majority. It was only after Jordan killed thousands of Palestinians in 'Black September' (and who in the west ever cared about that??) that Israel suddenly became the sole historic homeland’ of the Palestinians and Jordan was airbrushed out of the picture -- and the fabrication of ‘Palestinianism’ became the accepted truth.

But as 'Palestinian' politician Zouhair Moussein told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977 (tip of the hat to http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/):

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.


It is the west’s refusal to acknowledge this connection, and wholly to misrepresent instead both the history of the region and the causes of the conflict in the Middle East, which is one of the principal reasons why that murderous impasse continues to this day.

There can be no peace without justice; and there can be no justice without truth. Wilders has told the truth. With the west’s collective brain twisted beyond reason by lies, he will of course be vilified and dismissed for doing so. The bigger the truth, the greater the vilification and the more ‘right-wing’ the truth-teller becomes in order to neutralise his challenge to the lies.

That’s why the bad guys are winning.

Links:

[1] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3907722,00.html

[2] http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/geert_wilders_and_king_hussein.html

The Return of William F. Buckley Jr.

Posted By George Shadroui on June 28, 2010
http://www.frontpagemag.com/


For over three decades, from the early 1950s to the 1980s, William F. Buckley Jr. commanded the conservative intellectual universe.

He was articulate, charming, witty and ubiquitous. He founded the most influential conservative magazine, National Review, wrote a (thrice) weekly column, hosted arguably the most riveting television political talk show in history, Firing Line, and made thousands of media appearances and speeches. Along the way, he published over 50 books that included collections of essays, political and sailing memoirs, memoirs of great leaders or events, novels and, just for the fun of it, a children’s book and a play.

He was diminished finally (and only marginally) in the 1980s by the emergence of an intellectual and political progeny that he himself sired, all of them — including Reagan, Will and Limbaugh — oriented to one degree or another in the direction of the great man of Stamford.

What, then, does Bill Buckley have left to teach us?

Quite a lot, it happens. Roger Kimball, an editor of the New Criterion, and Linda Bridges, Buckley’s long-time editor and assistant, have brought to fruition a new book, Athwart History: Half A Century of Polemics, Animadversions, and Illuminations. Kimball informs readers in the introduction that half of the pieces gathered in this substantive collection have never appeared in book form previously — which is remarkable given that Buckley published at least ten collections of his nonfiction work, including essays, speeches, correspondence and appreciations.

Athwart History, then, is an impressive enterprise. It provides readers a glimpse of Buckley performing as the virtuoso man of political letters. We see Buckley the ideologue, the anti-communist, the free enterprise crusader; we also see Buckley the man of faith, the devoted friend, the logician, the keen observer of events, all ideology and political allegiances aside.

This is the most impressive book by Buckley since his speeches were collected a decade ago in Let Us Talk of Many Things. Both remind us that conservative ideas thoughtfully presented are compelling because they appeal to eternal verities — faith, hope, liberty.

The editors spent a year culling through Buckley’s gargantuan collection of papers and writings, a daunting undertaking. Consider that his son Christopher, at Buckley’s memorial service, suggested that Buckley’s Yale papers– if stacked — would reach as high as the St. Patrick’s Cathedral spire, a fitting observation if one recalls Buckley’s heavenly aspirations.

Kimball and Bridges have done an admirable job of including an eclectic array of work here: excerpts from previously published books, well known essays and appreciations, and columns otherwise lost to the archives. But even here they have chosen a slightly unorthodox approach. Take the excerpt from Up from Liberalism. The most famous words from this book, and perhaps the most important, are Buckley’s summation of the conservative manifesto of his time – that he would not willingly cede more power to the state, to big corporations or to any other form of collectivity. But Kimball and Bridges have chosen a different section to present, one that is perhaps less eloquent, but more analytical as Buckley dissects the failed logic of the modern worldview.

Conservatism must insist that while the will of man is limited in what it can do, it can do enough to make over the face of the world; and that the question that must always be before us is: What shape should the world take, given modern realities? How can technology hope to invalidate conservatism? Freedom, individuality, the sense of community, the sanctity of the family, the supremacy of the conscience, the spiritual view of life—can these verities be transmuted by the advent of tractors and adding machines? These have had a smashing social effect upon us, to be sure. They have created a vortex into which we are being drawn as if irresistibly; but that, surely, is because the principles by which we might have made anchor have not been used, not because of their insufficiency or proven inadaptability.

Buckley’s anti-communist writings are powerful, for he rarely appeals to crude polemics or hyperventilating rhetoric. Buckley is an idealist, and he is motivated by a compelling vision — that the individual has worth and that any state system that crushes the individual crushes, ultimately, a child of God. Communism crushed people with as great an efficiency as any political system in history — including fascism. Hitler’s reign, destructive and nasty as it was, would last just over a decade. The communist reign of terror — from its heartland of Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe to Africa and Asia lasted much longer and consumed, with nary a protest from much of the left-wing intellectual community, tens of millions of individuals.

Buckley found this appalling and he convinced others that it was appalling at a time when the killing fields went barely noticed by many of our most respected and esteemed intellectuals and public figures. Buckley did notice and he refused to be silent:

Karl Marx was a genius, an uncannily resourceful manipulator of world history who shoved everything he knew, thought, and devised into a Ouija board from whose movements he decocted universal laws. He had his following, during the late phases of the Industrial Revolution. But he was discredited by historical experience longer ago than the Wizard of Oz: and still, great grown people sit around, declare themselves to be Marxists, and make excuses for Gulag and Afghanistan.

Anti-communism and anti-materialism are just two of the themes to emerge from the collection. We are also reminded that Buckley was a forceful opponent of the state and those of us who remember his emergence as an elder statesman might forget the fury with which he could dismiss the statist enterprise. Most people are not drawn to public service by high ideals, he suggested, but by power.

“Power. That is the great aphrodisiac,” he wrote. And he concluded, in a 1993 column, “our governments are, for the most part, the enemy. The government, John Adams wrote, `turns every contingency into an excuse for enhancing power in itself.’ That was almost two hundred years ago. How right he was. Our enemy, the state.”

This is strong stuff that might make even a tea party advocate blush, but it is a reminder in the age of Obama that to choose conservatism is stand athwart history as it has unfolded, to choose the prerogatives of the individual over the gravitational pull of a collective mindset, a mindset that inevitably narrows the corridors of freedom and opportunity by aggregating disproportionate power to the state.

This being said, one cannot take this column in isolation. Buckley also directed his ire toward the private sphere as well, and this is equally relevant given the excesses to which Wall Street and Corporate America have been prone in recent years. In his publisher’s statement upon the launch of National Review, Buckley reminded readers that:

Radical conservatives in this country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed or mutilated by the liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great many of those of the well-fed Right, whose ignorance and amorality have never been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.

This is a vast collection – some 600 pages with a table of contents seemingly as long as some books. Much of the content focuses on the issues of the given day – presidential elections, political or cultural events, glosses on this or that personality or friend. We revisit Buckley’s tributes to Grace Kelly, Malcolm Muggeridge, Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer and John Dos Passos, not to mention his long-time adversary and friend John Kenneth Galbraith and his wife, whose death left Buckley so bereft. There are other efforts worth noting – his skewering of the leftists who sought to kill National Review in the cradle, Reflections on the Failure of National Review to Live Up to Liberal Expectations, his attempts to defend his faith in an age of secular cynicism, and his love of classical music and sailing.

Indeed, this “omnibus,” to use the editors’ phrase, is a larger than any collection Buckley himself ever put into print. Which leads me to my one criticism — I would not have minded a few less of his workmanlike columns, and the inclusion of a few more of his most memorable pieces – essays on Whittaker Chambers, Lourdes, Gore Vidal and Murray Kempton come to mind.

But, one must concede there is methodology behind this choice: think of Athwart History not as a reader, but the third in a series that includes Miles Gone By, a collection of personal essays and remembrances, and speeches. It is evident that the editors wanted to memorialize work that might otherwise disappear from view – and to reprint only his best writings would have been an act of repetition, so much of this work having already appeared in earlier books. And so Kimball and Bridges sought to balance objectives, I suspect, wanting to unearth some of Buckley’s less remembered but still highly readable pieces while also doing justice to his style and history by including a few of his trenchant and memorable essays.

Whatever the merits of this approach, this collection announces what is obvious to any student of modern politics: Buckley made conservatism a formidable political and intellectual force in part through intellect and in large measure through sheer force of personality and faith. This comes through in his writings, of course, but to read Buckley profitably requires a committed and thoughtful mind — of which, I fear, there are fewer and fewer in our superficial age of television and instant communication.

But if a picture is worth a few hundred thousand words, let us turn, then, finally, to the beginning of the book, the cover, to see the man in full. The photo selected is perfect – Chairman Bill on his sailboat, an individual fully alive and undaunted by all the variations and challenges of life. Even those unfamiliar with Buckley or the movement he mobilized and inspired will be curious, I suspect, about the man behind the smile, for the face and smile alone tell us profound things: that the individual lives, that living joyfully and faithfully carries rewards greater than all the academic and policy tomes of our time. Ideas can and should be discussed with respect and awe for our intellectual patrimony, but dour pessimism will never inspire anyone to turn back those forces ever gnawing at the independent mind and the individual soul.

Bill Buckley served this nation with unique distinction, honor and grace for over a half century. He is sorely missed for reasons both personal and public. But any thoughtful person committed to high ideas and the serious purposes to which discourse can be put should confer with him by reading Athwart History or any other of his substantial collections. You can also look for a brief biography by Lee Edwards, William F. Buckley Jr., The Maker of a Movement, and a collection of interviews recently compiled by William Meehan, which confirm the staying power of the causes for which Bill Buckley labored.

Buckley wrote more than 50 years ago in an article that gave this book its title:

“…we offer, besides ourselves, a position that has not grown old under the weight of a gigantic, parisitic bureaucracy, a position untempered by the doctoral dissertations of a generation of Ph.D.s in social architecture, unattenuated by a thousand vulgar promises to a thousand different pressure groups, uncorroded by a cynical contempt for human freedom. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaves us just about the hottest thing in town.”

Buckley has been gone several years now, and the void is noticeable; for many conservatives, he still remains the hottest thing in town.

- George Shadroui is the author of Crossing Swords: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Left.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Golly, Beav, We’re Historic

By NEIL GENZLINGER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
June 27, 2010

TELEVISION was still relatively young when, on Oct. 4, 1957, CBS broadcast the perfect sitcom scene:

A second grader known as the Beaver and his older brother, Wally, ordered by their mother to take baths before going to bed, are kneeling beside a tub they have just filled. Already in their pajamas, they are fiddling in the water with their hands to make it sound as if bathing were taking place, dampening washcloths and towels to create a trail of supporting evidence. As this goes on, the Beaver, who earlier that day was given a note by his teacher to take home to his parents but has been too afraid to deliver it, asks Wally for advice: Should he open the note, to see whether he’s in trouble?

“ ’Course not; that’d be dishonest,” says Wally, who then grabs a handful of dirt and tosses it into the draining bathtub. Why the dirt? “It’ll leave a ring,” he explains to the Beaver as the boys go off to bed, unwashed.

There have perhaps been funnier sitcom scenes since, and certainly much louder, more frenetic ones. But has the craftsmanship — wonderfully believable brotherly chat as a foundation; sly incongruity laid on top — ever been bested? Doubtful.

Wally and the Beaver, of course, were the focus of “Leave It to Beaver,” and that bathtub scene was in Episode 1 of Season 1: “Beaver Gets ‘Spelled.’ ” There would be 233 more episodes during the show’s six-season run, from 1957 to 1963, and they are full of small, knowing moments. A boxed set out this week from the Shout! Factory collects the entire series, with assorted extras and annotated booklets for each season. The discs are a technical upgrade over previous releases, but the real prize is being able to immerse yourself in the entire body of work, a time capsule from that brief moment between the end of the Korean War and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, when American life — at least as it is often now mythologized — stood blissfully still.

“Jokes get in the way,” Tony Dow, who played Wally, said in a telephone interview, talking about the “Beaver” writers’ reliance on more placid, observational humor. “They get in the way of your concentration when you’re trying to get at a story. We would throw jokes out at the table reading.”

That is what hits you first when you sit down with a box of “Beaver”: television comedy was a much slower animal back then. You have to detox mentally to watch these shows, to lay aside your caffeine and BlackBerry addictions and be prepared to wait for your rewards. That bathtub scene takes almost three and a half minutes to unspool. In that time Hannah Montana could have traded six insults with her father, tripped over a couch, lost her wig, dumped two boyfriends and had a crisis involving shoes.

Not that “Leave It to Beaver” was above using sight gags. Four of the show’s stars, all now in their 60s, had no trouble selecting a “most humiliating thing ever done to my character.”

Frank Bank, who played Wally’s friend Lumpy Rutherford, recalled taking a quart of melted ice cream (which, he confessed in an interview, was actually yogurt) over the head in “Wally’s Weekend Job” (Season 5, Episode 6). Ken Osmond — the slick, weaselly Eddie Haskell, one of the most memorable characters television has ever seen — spoke of receiving a faceful of differential fluid in “Wally’s Practical Joke” (Season 6, Episode 35). Jerry Mathers, the Beaver, still cringes at “Beaver, the Bunny” (Season 5, Episode 16), in which he ended up in a ridiculous rabbit suit for a school pageant. (The episode gave Lumpy the opportunity to utter the memorable line: “Beaver in a bunny suit. The only thing that would be funnier would be a bunny in a beaver suit.”) And Mr. Dow cited “Wally, the Lifeguard” (Season 4, Episode 4), in which Wally thinks he has been hired as a lifeguard but finds himself hawking hot dogs instead. “They put a goofy-looking hat on me,” Mr. Dow recalled. Yes, Wally is still saying “goofy.”

It seems like a perfect instance of brotherly rivalry that, when asked to choose his favorite episode, Mr. Mathers picked the show that Mr. Dow named as his most humiliating. But that’s an illusion; Mr. Mathers said his selection was based on the memory of the down time between scenes, when he outfished Mr. Dow in what is now called Jaws Lake on Universal’s back lot.

Mr. Dow named as his favorite “Happy Weekend” (Season 2, Episode 13), a wise, wistful tale in which the boys’ father, Ward (Hugh Beaumont), drags them against their will to the cabin where he used to vacation as a child. Like so many of the series’s best installments, that one was written by the show’s creators, Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher, men apparently obsessed with bathing. The subject comes up seemingly in every episode, including “Happy Weekend.” “Hot dog, Beaver!” Wally says as the boys are looking over the cabin. “There’s no bathtub!”

Maybe the cleanliness fixation was a manifestation of the way Mr. Connelly and Mr. Mosher ran their operation: protectively, Mr. Dow said, with an eye out for the negative influences that have derailed so many child stars since. “There were drugs and alcohol when we grew up, but we had this tremendous core of support, first from our families, but also from the writers and others who worked on the show,” Mr. Dow said. “I remember there was this crewman who said ‘dammit’ or something once. Never saw him again.”

Mr. Dow went on to have success as a television director (“Coach,” “Babylon 5”). Mr. Mathers — despite having been killed in Vietnam, according to a false rumor that floated around for years — graduated from Berkeley and for a time went into banking, though he continued to act (including in “Hairspray” on Broadway, a job he’s particularly proud of). Mr. Bank became a financial consultant, and Mr. Osmond was for years a Los Angeles police officer. (In one of the discs’ bonus features, he gives a matter-of-fact account of the time he was shot in the line of duty.)

In the 1980s the four, along with Barbara Billingsley, who played June Cleaver, Wally and the Beav’s mom, reunited for more than 100 episodes of “The New Leave It to Beaver.” And thus the “Beaver” franchise was, as Mr. Bank put it, “probably one of the most evolutionary shows of our time”: at first, it was the world as seen through the Beaver’s eyes; increasingly in later seasons it was taken over by Wally and his friends; then, years later, it revisited the characters in adulthood.

That’s the main pleasure waiting in a box of “Beaver”: the first six years of that evolution. Think of it as a 234-episode history lesson, of a family, a country, a medium. Each installment has a few pearls worthy of that necklace June is always wearing (even while doing housework). Consider, for instance, what “Ward’s Baseball,” Season 3, Episode 28, can teach us:

EVERYTHING WAS NEW ONCE June has just been grocery shopping, and Ward, wandering by the kitchen, helps her unload the bags. “What’s this?” he asks, indicating one particular purchase. And June says: “Frozen waffles. You just heat them and serve them.” That’s right: she has to explain to him what frozen waffles are.

OUR RELAXING SKILLS HAVE IMPROVED CONSIDERABLY It’s the weekend, and Ward is chilling in a chair when the doorbell rings. “It’s probably Fred Rutherford,” Lumpy’s father, he tells June, showing mild annoyance at having his laid-back Saturday interrupted. “I don’t know anyone else who would drop in on Saturday without phoning first.” Thing is, Ward has been doing his Saturday relaxing while wearing a coat and tie. When he opens the door, Fred too is wearing a coat and tie.

THESE SHOWS CONTAIN THE ROOTS OF ALL FAMILY AND TEENAGE COMEDY “Ward’s Baseball” involves a valuable autographed baseball that the Beaver accidentally wrecks. See “Hannah Montana,” Season 2, Episode 21: “Bye Bye Ball” (Miley Cyrus’s character wrecks her brother’s valuable autographed baseball).

These “Beavers” are constantly doing that: reminding you of a scene or plotline in some subsequent show or movie. When Eddie got that faceful of fluid in “Wally’s Practical Joke,” it’s because he was under Lumpy’s car, repairing the damage from a practical joke gone awry: he and Wally had chained the car to a tree, and when Lumpy drove forward, the back axle was yanked off. “American Graffiti,” anyone?

Cheating on homework, being mortified by clothes or haircuts, running away from home, discovering the cruelties of the working world, feeling the stirrings of interest in the opposite sex: “Beaver” covered those and dozens of other topics that later turned up in “Family Affair,” “The Wonder Years,” “The Bernie Mac Show,” “Hannah Montana” and everywhere else, and will turn up again in whatever family series comes next. You might have thought kids, with their electronic devices and their early maturation, had changed too much for half-century-old stories to still resonate.

“Nah,” Mr. Osmond said. “Kids are still the same as they were in 1810.”


Related

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/beav.pdf

Seeking Asylum, Anti-Terrorist Hero May Be Deported

In a PJM exclusive, the co-author of Son of Hamas writes that Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of the founder of Hamas, is indeed a security threat ... to radical Islam.

June 27, 2010 - by Ron Brackin
http://pajamasmedia.com/

For ten years, Yousef, the eldest son of Hamas founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, was a spy for the Shin Bet (Israeli version of the FBI). In March, he became a bestselling author with the release of his autobiography, Son of Hamas.

By the Shin Bet’s own admission, Mosab (pictured at right) was the most valuable agent it ever had or ever hoped to have. He exposed countless cells, operations, and plots and was a key player in filling Israeli prisons with bomb-makers and terrorists.

“So many people owe him their life and don’t even know it,” said Gonem Ben-Yitzhak, Mosab’s Shin Bet handler [1]. “People who did a lot less were awarded the Israel Security Prize.”

When Mosab left the Shin Bet several years ago, he came to the U.S. and appealed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for political asylum. That’s when things got really screwy.

They turned him down.

And now they’re even trying to deport him. In terrorist-speak, that is a death sentence. If some Muslim zealot doesn’t cut his throat for collaborating with Israel, Mosab will be killed because he renounced Islam and became a Christian.

And why did DHS deny him asylum?

In her May pre-hearing statement, Homeland Security attorney Kerri Calcador cited a portion of a Son of Hamas manuscript draft, provided as evidence by Mosab and his attorney, in which “a member of Shin Bet shows the respondent a list of suspects implicated in a March 2001 suicide bombing and asks the respondent whether he knows the individuals. The respondent indicates that he does know five of the people on the list and states that he previously drove them to safe houses.”

“At bare minimum,” Ms. Calcador concludes [2], “evidence of the respondent’s transport of Hamas members to safe houses … indicates that the respondent provided material support to a [Tier 1] terrorist organization.” And that makes him a security threat to the United States.

Out of 251 pages in which a slew of edgy undercover missions are described in detail, all DHS could come up with as evidence of terrorist activities is that he gave five guys a ride home from prison. And the attorney didn’t even notice that the ride and lots more all took place while he was serving Israeli intelligence and fighting terrorism. Using this kind of logic, I guess James Bond, Ethan Hunt, and Jason Bourne are terrorists too

“My view is that the decision to deny him political refugee status was incredibly idiotic,” former CIA director James Woolsey told reporters at a recent Capitol Hill dinner to honor Mosab, Gonem, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), Representatives Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Brad Sherman (D-CA), and Iranian-American pro-democracy activist Amil Imani. “It’s hard to think of a worse immigration decision in history. It’s fundamentally nuts.”

The Israeli Knesset seems to agree.

Before flying to Washington, Mosab received [3] a commendation letter from the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, acknowledging his extraordinary service to the state of Israel.

Nevertheless, on Wednesday morning, at a DHS detention facility on the Mexican border, a judge will decide the future of Mosab Hassan Yousef.

Personally, I side with Woolsey.

Before we started writing Son of Hamas, Mosab and I sat in my home, and I listened for more than 20 hours as he shared his entire story for the first time. I was frequently overwhelmed by his intensity and refreshed by his wonderful political incorrectness. Of course, living through a couple of intifadas, three imprisonments, torture, military incursions, and the minute-by-minute pressure of being a double agent will do that to a guy.

After living together for a week and collaborating every day for the next four months, I sent the final manuscript to Tyndale House, fully convinced that Mosab Hassan Yousef is indeed a security threat — but to radical Islam, not to America. He is fully committed to exposing its deceptions and seductions, even if it costs him his life. He has already lost his family, his country, and everything else he holds dear.

For more information, visit http://www.sonofhamas.com/ or follow him on facebook at www.facebook.com/mosab.yousef.

- The writer of Son of Hamas, Ron Brackin has traveled extensively in the Middle East as an investigative journalist. Visit his website at: http://www.ronbrackin.com/

Related

[1] http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-exclusive-hamas-founder-s-son-worked-for-shin-bet-for-years-1.266204

[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282412942302170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[3] http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/knesset-thanks-hamas-leader-s-son-for-contribution-to-israel-1.298473

The Unengaged President

Obama’s lack of interest in the world is evident in his handling of the oil spill and the Afghan War.

By Mark Steyn
http://www.nationalreview.com/
June 26, 2010 7:01 A.M.

What do General McChrystal and British Petroleum have in common? Aside from the fact that they’re both Democratic-party supporters.

Or they were. Stanley McChrystal is a liberal who voted for Obama and banned Fox News from his HQ TV. Which may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone: They’ll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades. The executives of BP were unable to vote for Obama, being, as we now know, the most sinister duplicitous bunch of shifty Brits to pitch up offshore since the War of 1812. But, in their “Beyond Petroleum” marketing and beyond, they signed on to every modish nostrum of the eco-Left. Their recently retired chairman, Lord Browne, was one of the most prominent promoters of cap-and-trade. BP was the Democrats’ favorite oil company. They were to Obama what Total Fina Elf was to Saddam.

But what do McChrystal’s and BP’s defenestration tell us about the president of the United States? Barack Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain’s Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was “a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year.” If finding Obama “not engaged” is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?

Only the other day, Sen. George Lemieux of Florida attempted to rouse the president to jump-start America’s overpaid, over-manned, and oversleeping federal bureaucracy and get it to do something on the oil debacle. There are 2,000 oil skimmers in the United States: Weeks after the spill, only 20 of them are off the coast of Florida. Seventeen friendly nations with great expertise in the field have offered their own skimmers; the Dutch volunteered their “super-skimmers”: Obama turned them all down. Raising the problem, Senator Lemieux found the president unengaged and uninformed. “He doesn’t seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers,” reported the senator.

He doesn’t seem to know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t care. “It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy is no heart at all,” wrote Richard Cohen in the Washington Post last week. “For instance, it’s not clear that Obama is appalled by China’s appalling human rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia. . . . The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much.

“This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?”

Gee, if only your newspaper had thought to ask those fascinating questions oh, say, a month before the Iowa caucuses.

And even today Cohen is still giving President Who-Is-This-Guy a pass. After all, whatever he feels about “China’s appalling human rights record” or “continued repression in Russia,” Obama is not directly responsible for it. Whereas the U.S. and allied deaths in Afghanistan are happening on his watch — and the border villagers killed by unmanned drones are being killed at his behest. Cohen calls the president “above all, a pragmatist,” but with the best will in the world you can’t stretch the definition of “pragmatism” to mean “lack of interest.”

“The ugly truth,” wrote Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, “is that no one in the Obama White House wanted this Afghan surge. The only reason they proceeded was because no one knew how to get out of it.”

Well, that’s certainly ugly, but is it the truth? Afghanistan, you’ll recall, was supposed to be the Democrats’ war, the one they supported, the one the neocons’ Iraq adventure was an unnecessary distraction from. Granted the Dems’ usual shell game — to avoid looking soft on national security, it helps to be in favor of some war other than the one you’re opposing — Candidate Obama was an especially ripe promoter. In one of the livelier moments of his campaign, he chugged down half a bottle of Geopolitical Viagra and claimed he was hot for invading Pakistan.

Then he found himself in the Oval Office, and the dime-store opportunism was no longer helpful. But, as Friedman puts it, “no one knew how to get out of it.” The “pragmatist” settled for “nuance”: He announced a semi-surge plus a date for withdrawal of troops to begin. It’s not “victory,” it’s not “defeat,” but rather a more sophisticated mélange of these two outmoded absolutes: If you need a word, “quagmire” would seem to cover it.

Hamid Karzai, the Taliban, and the Pakistanis, on the one hand, and Britain and the other American allies heading for the check-out, on the other, all seem to have grasped the essentials of the message, even if Friedman and the other media Obammyboppers never quite did. Karzai is now talking to Islamabad about an accommodation that would see the most viscerally anti-American elements of the Taliban back in Kabul as part of a power-sharing regime. At the height of the shrillest shrieking about the Iraqi “quagmire,” was there ever any talk of hard-core Saddamite Baathists returning to government in Baghdad?

To return to Cohen’s question: “Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?” Well, he’s a guy who was wafted ever upward from the Harvard Law Review to state legislator to United States senator without ever lingering long enough to accomplish anything. “Who is this guy?” Well, when a guy becomes a credible presidential candidate by his mid-forties with no accomplishments other than a couple of memoirs, he evidently has an extraordinary talent for self-promotion, if nothing else. “What are his core beliefs?” It would seem likely that his core belief is in himself. It’s the “nothing else” that the likes of Cohen are belatedly noticing.

Wasn’t he kind of unengaged by the health-care debate? That’s why, for all his speeches, he could never quite articulate a rationale for it. In the end, he was happy to leave it to the Democrat Congress and, when his powers of persuasion failed, let them ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.

Likewise, on Afghanistan, his attitude seems to be “I don’t want to hear about it.” Unmanned drones take care of a lot of that, for a while. So do his courtiers in the media: Did all those hopey-changers realize that Obama’s war would be run by Bush’s defense secretary and Bush’s general?

Hey, never mind: Moveon.org have quietly disappeared their celebrated “General Betray Us” ad from their website. Cindy Sheehan, the supposed conscience of the nation when she was railing against Bush from the front pages, is an irrelevant kook unworthy of coverage when she protests Obama. Why, a cynic might almost think the “anti-war” movement was really an anti-Bush movement, and that they really don’t care about dead foreigners after all. Plus ça change you can believe in, plus c’est la même chose.

Except in one respect. There is a big hole where our strategy should be.

It’s hard to fight a war without war aims, and in the end they can come only from the top. It took the oil spill to alert Americans to the unengaged president. From Moscow to Tehran to the caves of Waziristan, our enemies got the message a lot earlier — and long ago figured out the rules of unengagement.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2010 Mark Steyn.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Soccer: The Perfect Socialist Sport

By C. Edmund Wright
http://www.americanthinker.com/
June 23, 2010

The world's most popular sport? Puh-leeze. This is like saying that dirt is more popular than gold simply because there is more of it. Last time I checked, soccer was very popular where starvation, archery, and badminton were the alternative activities. Where soccer has to compete with the NFL, college football, and basketball -- not to mention WWE, the X Games, cheerleading contests, and cage-fighting -- not so much.

And no, I am not some redneck soccer newbie who has never been exposed to the sport. Actually, I attended the prep school that brought the sport to the Research Triangle area of North Carolina -- one of the first soccer hotspots in the country. We are talking multiple decades ago. And frankly, I rather enjoyed playing it in one of the southeast's first little league soccer organizations and in high school PE class.

But watching it? Oh my God. The only thing more predictable than Barack Obama blaming George W. Bush and BP is that when you flip over to World Cup coverage, the score will be 0-0. I don't care who is playing or where you are in the game...er, match. It will be 0-0. And for those who think watching the grass grow is more exciting, I think these matches are so long they do have to mow the pitch at halftime. (Hey -- I know they call it a pitch, not a field. Told you I was not a redneck newbie.)

At its heart, soccer is the perfect socialist sport. That's why it will never catch on among Americans the way football or basketball has -- regardless of how hard ESPN or ESPN Deportes tries to force feed it to us. Soccer is a redistributive dreamer's delight, with most of the potential risk-reward strategy of the sport removed by rule. It is a self-esteem cornucopia, where a blistering rout of, say, 2-0 seems so close in the score book. No one's feelings get hurt at 2-0. And on and on the socialist feel goes.

A liberal's only complaint with soccer is that it entails such low scoring that there's no point trying to have a youth league where no one keeps score. It's 0-0. We all know that already. You can't even pretend not to know the score. Then again, 0-0 is the perfect score for a "no score" league, I guess.

Consider other ways in which it is the quintessential socialist sport:

Soccer is biggest where the "national teams" are the main sports focus of a nation. Hey, you can't get much more socialist than that. And everyone on every street and in every town pulls for the same team. Wow. Isn't that exciting? Whom do you pull for? Oh yeah, the national team.

And let's not forget the off-sides rule. Without getting buried in minutiae, suffice it to say that off-sides in soccer is like making the bomb illegal in football or the fast break illegal in basketball. This is a socialist sport. We can't be having any risk-reward equations here. You see, in soccer, it's not fair that you might take a chance to weaken your defense in order to spring a man deep downfield behind the defense. That would be unfair in a free-market, venture-capital-type way. No, no, no! You must let the defense be behind you. You cannot beat them downfield until you have the ball. That would be unfair and, no doubt, mean-spirited.

So ingrained is this into the soccer psyche that many of the world's best defenses employ what they call "the off-sides trap." In other words, they use the socialist rules to the hilt. Here, a defenseman gets beaten downfield on purpose to get a call against his opponent.

It's a lot like using high tax rates and the IRS to keep everyone's financial strata the same.

This leads to the another socialist issue, which is the low scoring and the self-esteem protection involved in that. In international soccer, 2-0 is a rout and 3-0 an absolute blowout. And yet, it seems so close. Hey, we only lost by three.

In reality, it's like losing by 21 in football -- or worse, actually, given the paucity of scoring. It's a total destruction, but it sounds so innocent at three-nil.

Another way soccer is the perfect socialist sport is the power vested in the nameless bureaucrats and their ability to never have to answer for their screw ups. This sounds like big government to me for sure.

Consider "stoppage time." In soccer, the official clock does not stop for out of bounds or other play stoppages. No, it rolls on, I guess to keep the carbon footprint of the clock operations low. You see, like socialists, the bureaucrats don't actually want to trust the real movers and shakers with information like, well, how much time is left. It's kind of like not knowing how much longer you can keep your current health plan if you like it.

The little bureaucrats on the field -- the referees, kind of like lawyers -- keep the time to themselves. No one else knows. It's the perfect case of untalented bureaucrats having power over the real talented people who make things happen (such that anything ever happens in soccer).

And no liberal or socialist sport would be complete without a generous dose of self-importance, arrogance, and snobbery among its followers. I mean, it's bad enough that we have to see the kids running around in almost soft-porn thigh-highs and sandals every Saturday as they pile out of mini-vans at every Shoney's, Applebee's, and Hampton Inn everywhere. But it's the "yeah, but it's the worlds most popular sport" attitude that really gets to me.

No it isn't! See the perfect dirt and gold analogy in paragraph one, please. Where people have a choice, soccer is not the most popular sport.

And it really gets bad every four months -- or is it four years -- when the World Cup rolls around. That's where the arrogance of soccer folks meets up with the one-world feeling and the can't-we-all-just-get-along crowd and all sorts of international bodies that want to treat the U.S. like just another country like Cuba or Iran. It's nauseating.

And what's so deliciously ironic is that when push comes to shove, the international referees will always manage to screw the United States, even as our PC crowd does all it can to convince the planet that we can love soccer, too.

No, we can't. Not as spectators. Hey, I am all for the fitness involved in soccer or any sport that involves that much cardio activity. But please don't make me watch it -- and please stop insulting my intelligence with the "most popular sport in the world" stuff.

Now, back to the game. It's nil-nil. Still.

Obama vs. the U.S. Army

by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.humanevents.com/
06/24/2010

In confiding to Rolling Stone their unflattering opinions of the military acumen of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, Dick Holbrooke and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff were guilty of colossal stupidity.

And President Obama had cause to cashier them. Yet his decision to fire McChrystal may prove both unwise and costly.

For McChrystal, unlike Gen. MacArthur, never challenged the war policy -- he is carrying it out -- and Barack Obama is no Harry Truman.

Moreover, the war strategy Obama is pursuing is the McChrystal Plan, devised by the general and being implemented by the general in Marja and Kandahar, perhaps the decisive campaign of the war.

Should that plan now fail, full responsibility falls on Obama.

He has made the Afghan war his war in a way it never was before.

If the McChrystal strategy fails, critics will charge Obama with causing the defeat by firing the best fighting general in the Army out of pique over some officers-club remarks that bruised the egos of West Wing warriors.

And though those remarks never should have appeared in print, they may well reflect the sentiments of not a few soldiers and Marine officers on third and fourth tours of duty in the Afghan theater.

Had Obama, instead of firing McChrystal, told him to shut up, can the interviews and go back to fighting the war until the December review of strategy, he could have shown those soldiers he is a bigger man than they or McChrystal's team give him credit for.

And if success in Afghanistan is the highest goal, how does it help to fire the best fighting general? Do you relieve Gen. Patton during combat because he vents his prejudices or opinions?

This city may draw the parallel, but the Obama-McChrystal clash does not remotely rise to the historic level of the collision between MacArthur and Truman.

Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ordered the airlift that broke the Berlin blockade, and produced the Marshall Plan and NATO. He had won election in his own right with a legendary comeback in 1948.

Obama has nothing like Truman's credibility as a war leader.

And MacArthur was the most famous U.S. soldier since Gen. Grant. No. 1 at West Point, he was a legendary commander in France in 1918, leading troops out of the trenches with a swagger stick.

Driven out of the Philippines in 1942, he had declared, "I shall return," and led the liberation of the islands in 1944. He conducted the famous island-hopping campaign up the archipelagos of the South Pacific and took Japan's surrender on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

As military proconsul, he presided over the reconstruction of Japan, wrote her constitution and converted her into an ally.

When North Korea invaded the South and drove the U.S. Army into the Pusan perimeter, MacArthur landed Marines far behind enemy lines at Inchon in a flanking maneuver that destroyed the North Korean army and will be studied at military academies for centuries to come.

In late 1950, MacArthur was stunned by the intervention in Korea of the armies of Mao Zedong, lately victorious in China's four-year civil war.

MacArthur's clash with Truman was not over something so trivial as a gossipy article in Rolling Stone. MacArthur's hands had been tied by Truman.

He was not allowed to bomb the Yalu bridges over which Chinese troops were pouring into Korea. He was not allowed to bomb Chinese troop concentrations and munitions dumps in Manchuria. He was not allowed to use Chiang Kai-shek's armies on Taiwan. He was not allowed hot pursuit of enemy aircraft into Chinese or Russian airspace.

MacArthur was being restricted to fighting the war Mao wanted to fight, a war of attrition against the world's most populous nation, and largest army, while China was allowed to remain a privileged sanctuary, off-limits to U.S. bombers like those that smashed Germany and Japan.

In his address to Congress, after his firing by Truman, MacArthur put it this way: "'Why,' my soldiers asked of me, 'surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?' I could not answer."

MacArthur's letter to Rep. Joe Martin, in response to a letter from the GOP leader, was indeed a challenge to Truman's policy of avoiding any risk of a clash with Russia, even if it meant U.S. soldiers would pay the price of Truman's timidity.

Events would prove MacArthur right.

Truman's restrictions would ensure a "no-win war" for two more years that would cost tens of thousands more American lives, and Harry would be sent packing with the lowest rating of any president in history.

Gen. Eisenhower would take office, two years after MacArthur's firing, and threaten the exact escalation MacArthur envisioned, ending the Korean War in six months.

Obama and his party may be celebrating his cashiering of Gen. McChrystal as a macho moment, but by firing the fighting general, for his foolish remarks, Obama has deepened the gulf between his party and the U.S. military.


Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World", "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Violence Expert Visits Her Dark Past

By DWIGHT GARNER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
June 24, 2010

DENIAL

A Memoir of Terror


By Jessica Stern

300 pages. Ecco/HarperCollins Publishers. $24.99.


Jessica Stern is among the world’s experts on violence and evil, a woman who spends her time thinking about bad men and bad deeds. She has lectured at Harvard about terrorism and is the author of a respected book, “Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill” (2003). During the Clinton administration she was on the staff of the National Security Council. She presents herself as hard, no-nonsense, buttoned up. She is certainly possessed of the perfect surname. “If the plane goes down,” she writes in “Denial,” her new memoir, “you want me at the controls.”

“Denial” is Ms. Stern’s plainspoken and very raw account of why, long before 9/11, she was driven to study terrorism and to put herself repeatedly into danger as she flew around the world, like some scholarly twin of the former CNN war correspondent Christiane Amanpour, interviewing committed terrorists. Central among the reasons, it turns out, was her own experience of terror. On Oct. 1, 1973, when Ms. Stern was 15 and her sister 14, the two of them, alone in a suburban house in leafy Concord, Mass., were raped by a man who cut the house’s telephone lines before walking inside and leading them upstairs.

Ms. Stern describes that evening in brutal detail. It was a night that changed her and taught her a dire lesson: “Shame can be sexually transmitted.” The crime wasn’t properly investigated. The police didn’t believe her when she said the rapist was a stranger. Because her story and those of others were not publicized or taken seriously enough by the police, the same man was able to rape some 44 girls — an incredible, heart-collapsing number — from 1971 to 1973. “The entire community,” she writes, “was in denial.”

About these facts Ms. Stern is understandably bitter. Her pain is amplified by other sinister aspects of her upbringing. There was the grandfather who took naked showers with her and may have molested her. This same grandfather, a doctor, thought X-ray machines had curative powers and accidentally killed Ms. Stern’s mother, who he believed had an enlarged thymus. She died at 28 from lymphoma caused by an overdose of radiation; the author, at the time, was 3. Ms. Stern’s father, who had twice remarried, did not care enough, upon learning that his daughters had been raped, to return immediately from a trip abroad. This was a family with issues — issues that, like the sun, were stared at only glancingly.

Ms. Stern recounts these stories, as well as her decision finally to look into the details of her own rape. She reads crime files. With the help of a policeman she discovers the identity of her rapist (he is now dead, a suicide) and begins to interview people who knew him. This man’s childhood was blasted by darkness in much the same way hers was. One of the arguments in “Denial” is this: Humiliation and shame are risk factors for savagery.

“Denial” is a hard book to read, in part because of its subject matter, in part because Ms. Stern’s id floats very near the surface. Her anger is barely sublimated and emerges in unexpected and jagged ways, ways that feel authentic but somewhat beyond her control as a narrator.

Imagining a meeting with her rapist, she writes: “He will realize that he wronged the universe, and his brain will explode. Also his penis will fall off. I will leave him there, his brain on his plate.”

About a psychiatrist who evaluated her rapist in prison and described him as “not a sexually dangerous person,” she thinks: “I imagine this doctor’s penis wilting and shrinking in terror, as small as a bean, and there is some satisfaction in this cruel thought. But wilting is not enough: I want to bloody him. In my mind’s eye I swing a bat right at this doctor’s learned head, smashing his skull, the skull that contained his bad, addled brain.”

There are other passages like these, and Ms. Stern ultimately admits, “There is something attractive about the idea of becoming a terrorist in response to being terrorized.” (She loathes that statement’s moral implications.) Reading “Denial” is like ingesting a novel from a particularly damaged Joyce Carol Oates protagonist come to life; Ms. Stern can seem like a potent distillate of every Oates character ever put to paper.

The talented Ms. Oates has fought for the right of women to write about violence, noting in The New York Times Book Review in 1981: “If the lot of womankind has not yet widely diverged from that romantically envisioned by our Moral Majority and by the late Adolf Hitler (‘Kirche, Kinder, Kuchen’), the lot of the woman writer has been just as severely circumscribed. War, rape, murder and the more colorful minor crimes evidently fall within the exclusive province of the male writer, just as, generally, they fall within the exclusive province of male action.” Men, she wrote, don’t take women who write about these topics altogether seriously.

It is possible to take Ms. Stern very seriously indeed, though, and to consider “Denial” a profound human document without considering it a profound literary one. It lacks allusiveness and distance. It is hot to the touch in ways that are both memorable and disturbing.

Ms. Stern writes vividly about how her rape numbed her. (“Instead of feeling terror, I studied it.”) As an adult she came to feel little pain but also little joy. That lack of joy is evident in “Denial.” When this book isn’t scalding, it is cold; it spits out data like a computer. “I wanted to be outrageously inefficient,” she writes — her way of saying she’d like to let her hair down.

The final scenes of this book are a coming to terms with her father, to whom it is dedicated. They share their grievances with each other and confront many subjects they’d long avoided. “This feels like the end of an age,” Ms. Stern writes. “The end of an age of denial.”

The line I will remember from “Denial,” however, is one in which she describes a desire to scream after feeling muffled for most of her life. “I will roar argon into chlorine, xenon into fluorine, all the noble gases into reactive ones,” she writes. “My lament will terrify even the stars.”

Thursday, June 24, 2010

WHAT A SACK OF SACROSANCT

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
June 23, 2010


In The New York Times' profile on the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, her aunt was quoted as saying: "There was thinking, always thinking" at the family's dinner table. "Nothing was sacrosanct."

Really? Nothing was sacrosanct? Because in my experience, on a scale of 1-to-infinity, the range of acceptable opinion among New York liberals goes from 1-to-1.001.

How would the following remarks fare at a dinner table on the Upper West Side where "nothing was sacrosanct": Hey, maybe that Joe McCarthy was onto something. What would prayer in the schools really hurt? How do we know gays are born that way? Is it possible that union demands have gone too far? Does it make sense to have three recycling bins in these microscopic Manhattan apartments? Say, has anyone read Charles Murray's latest book?

Those comments, considered "conversation starters" in most of the country, would get you banned from polite society in New York. And unless you want the whole room slowly backing away from you, also avoid: May I smoke? I heard it on Fox News and Merry Christmas!

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan prepares to address the forum "Striking the Balance: Fair and Independent Courts in a New Era" at Georgetown University Law Center May 20, 2009 in Washington, DC. A former Dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan's name has been included on many peoples' short list of possible candidates to the Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter, who is retiring this year. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Even members of survivalist Christian cults in Idaho at least know people who hold opposing views. New York liberals don't.

As Kagan herself described it, on the Upper West Side of New York where she grew up, "Nobody ever admitted to voting Republican." So, I guess you could say being a Democrat was "sacrosanct."

Even within the teeny-tiny range of approved liberal opinion in New York, disagreement will get you banned from the premises.

When, as dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan disagreed with the Bill Clinton policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" for gays in the military, she open-mindedly banned military recruiters from the law school, denouncing Clinton's policy as "discriminatory," "deeply wrong," "unwise and unjust."

From this, I conclude that having gays serving openly in the military is "sacrosanct" for liberals.

Having gays NOT serve in the military is a position held by lots of people in other parts of the country, but I do not recall any Christian colleges banning military recruiters because the schools believed "Don't ask, don't tell" went too far the other way.

Not only is every weird, shared delusion of the New York liberal deemed sacrosanct, but what ought to be sacrosanct -- off the top of my head, human life -- isn't.

As Stan Evans says, whatever liberals disapprove of, they want banned (smoking, guns, practicing Christianity, ROTC, the Pledge of Allegiance) and whatever they approve of, they make mandatory (abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, pornography, condom distribution in public schools, screenings of "An Inconvenient Truth").

When liberals say, "nothing is sacrosanct," they mean "nothing other Americans consider sacrosanct is sacrosanct." They demonstrate their open-mindedness by ridiculing other people's dogma, but will not brook the most trifling criticism of their own dogmas.

Thus, for example, liberals sneer at the bluenoses and philistines of the "religious right" for objecting to taxpayer-funding of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine, but would have you banned from public life for putting Matthew Shepard in a jar of urine, with or without taxpayer funding.

These famously broad-minded New Yorkers -- "thinking, always thinking" -- actually booed Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he showed up at the opera after pulling city funding from a museum exhibit that included a painting of the Virgin Mary plastered with close-up pornographic photos of women's vulvas.

(The New York Times fair-mindedly refused to ever mention the vulvas, instead suggesting that the mayor's objection was to the cow dung used in the composition.)

Has a decision to fund or not fund "art" ever gotten a politician in any other part of the country booed in public? And how might the Times refer to citizens booing a mayor who had withdrawn taxpayer funding for a painting of Rosa Parks covered in pornography?

If New York liberals insist on bragging about their intellectual bravado in believing "nothing is sacrosanct," it would really help if they could stop being the most easily offended, P.C., group-think, thin-skinned weanies in the entire universe and maybe ease up on the college "hate speech" codes, politically correct firings, and bans on military recruiters.

With that in mind, here are some questions it would be fun to ask a New York liberal like Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan at her hearings next week:

-- Roughly one-third of Americans are Evangelical Christians. Do you personally know any Evangelical Christians? Name two.

-- In 1972, Richard Nixon was elected president with more than 60 percent of the vote, winning every state except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. How many people do you know who voted for Nixon?

-- Appropriate or inappropriate: Schools passing out condoms to seventh-graders? Schools passing out cigarettes to seventh-graders?

-- Who is a greater threat to America, Sarah Palin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER

McChrystal had to go

By George F. Will
The Washington Post
Thursday, June 24, 2010; A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

In 1932, during a lunch in Albany with Rexford Tugwell, an adviser, New York Gov. Franklin Roosevelt paused to take a telephone call from Louisiana Gov. Huey Long. When the call ended, FDR referred to Long as the second-most dangerous man in America. Who, Tugwell asked, is the most dangerous? FDR answered: Douglas MacArthur.

As Army chief of staff, MacArthur had just flamboyantly conducted the violent dispersal of the bedraggled "bonus army" in Washington. Nearly 19 years later, he was to become most dangerous to himself, as another commanding general has now done. But Stanley McChrystal is no MacArthur.

MacArthur had some of the genius and much of the egomania of a former artillery captain, Napoleon. This made MacArthur insubordinate and got him cashiered by a former artillery captain, Harry Truman. Although McChrystal is a fine soldier who rendered especially distinguished service in Iraq, there is no reason to ascribe to him either egomania or insubordination. He did, however, emphatically disqualify himself from further military service and particularly from service in Afghanistan. There the military's purely military tasks are secondary to the political and social tasks for which the military is ill-suited, and for which McChrystal is garishly so.

The American undertaking in Afghanistan is a fool's errand, and McChrystal is breathtakingly foolish. Even so, he and it were badly matched. This, even though the errand is of the president's careful devising and McChrystal was the president's choice to replace the four-star general who had been commanding there.

It may be said that McChrystal's defect is only a deficit of political acumen. Only? Again, the mission in Afghanistan is much more political than military. Counterinsurgency, as defined by McChrystal's successor, Gen. David Petraeus, and tepidly embraced by Barack Obama for a year or so, does not just involve nation-building, it is nation-building.

This does not require just political acumen; it requires the wisdom of Aristotle, the leadership skills of George Washington and the analytic sophistication of de Tocqueville. But, then, the grinding paradox of nation-building is this: No one with the aptitudes necessary for it would be rash or delusional enough to try it.

The McChrystal debacle comes as America's longest war is entering a surreal stage: The military is charged with a staggeringly complex task, the completion of which -- if completion can even be envisioned -- must involve many years. But when given the task, the military was told to begin bringing it to a close in a matter of 18 months.

The not quite seven months that have passed since the president announced his policy have seen sobering military disappointments and daunting evidence of how intractable is the incompetence and how manifold is the corruption of the Kabul government. For as long as we persist in this Sisyphean agony, the president will depend on forthrightness from a military commander whose judgment he trusts. That could not be McChrystal; it is Petraeus. If McChrystal had been retained, he would have henceforth been chastened, abject, wary and reticent. It is unthinkable that he could still have been a valuable participant in future deliberations with the president and his principal national security advisers. The president demanded, and the Americans in harm's way in Afghanistan deserve, better.

It is difficult, and perhaps unwise, to suppress this thought: McChrystal's disrespectful flippancies, and the chorus of equally disdainful comments from the unpleasant subordinates he has chosen to have around him, emanate from the toxic conditions that result when the military's can-do culture collides with a cannot-be-done assignment. In this toxicity, Afghanistan is Vietnam redux.

In July 1945, with the war in the Pacific still to be won and Winston Churchill engaged in the Potsdam conference, the British electorate turned him out of office. When his wife, Clementine, suggested that this might be a blessing in disguise, he replied: If so, it is very well disguised indeed.

The shattering of McChrystal is a messy blessing if the president seizes upon it as a reason for revisiting basic questions about whether Afghanistan matters so much and what is possible there and at what cost. It may be said that with the Afghan mission entering -- or soon to enter; it is late and now may become more so -- a crucial military phase in Kandahar, the cradle of the Taliban, McChrystal is indispensable. Any who may say that should heed the words of another general, one of the 20th century's greatest leaders and realists. Charles de Gaulle said: The graveyards are full of indispensable men.

georgewill@washpost.com