Knight Of The Mind

I'll do my best to present a philosophical and generally conservative look at current events and life, the universe and everything. Readers are invited to take all that's posted herein with a grain of salt. or if they prefer, a grain of salt, a slice of lime and a shot of tequila.

Name:
Location: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Greetings and welcome. My name is Steve, I'm 35 years old and I work for the US Army as an Operations Research Analyst. Hence my blog title Knight Of The Mind.

Sunday, May 30, 2004

RWC 2007 - Oy Vey What a Draw!

The 2007 Draw for The Rugby World Cup has been held. The news doesn't bode well for Tom Billups, coach of The USA Eagles. The US has traditionally locked down the number three rank in the Americas qualifying zone. Argentina RFC owns the Hemisphere, Canada grinds out second, and the US limps in 3rd and thereby avoids the repechage.

According to this RWC draw, the Americas 3 slot gets served up on the alter to the RWC Champion "Pommies" and the sure to be resurgent South African "Springboks". Oceania 1 also gets to join in on the pile on. In RWC 2003, the Eagles gave it their all against Fiji only to suffer a heart-breaking 1 pt loss. Needless to say, this RWC did the Eagles no favors whatsoever.

The most importatnt matches our team will play will be the qualifiers. If the US is willing to throw their match against Uruguay, they can knuckle their way into a pool where they'll get thumped by the Mighty All Blacks and then bid for an upset against the much-maligned Scots, who have lost some of their rugby luster in recent years. After these two matches, the Eagles would probably go carnivorous on two non-Six Nations qualifiers from Europe.

If the Eagles decided to take the high-road to glory, they would need a top-notch performance to get past their grudge match with Canada RFC. This would "award" The Eagles the opportunity to take their lumps against the RWC Runner-Up "Wallabies". Matches against Wales, Oceania 2 and Asia 1 are all possibly winnable but we would need all three. We would need to send the 1980 US Olympic Hockey team to make it out of that pool.

Thus, throwing the Americas Zone qualifying turney and sneaking into an undermanned pool as a repachage seems the only way USA Rugby will make to a quarterfinal game in RWC 2007.



THE 2007 DRAW:

POOL A:
England
South Africa
Oceania 1
Americas 3
Repecharge 2

POOL B:
Australia
Wales
Oceania 2
Americas 2
Asia 1

POOL C:
New Zealand
Scotland
Europe 1
Europe 2
Repecharge 1

POOL D:
France
Ireland
Americas 1
Europe 3
Africa 1

The two repecharge spots will eventually be decided by play-offs - the winner of Africa 2 versus Europe 4 will face Americas 4 for 'Repecharge 1', with Oceania 3 and Asia 2 facing a showdown for 'Repecharge 2'.

This is the first time in the Rugby World Cup's 17-year history that the whole draw has not been based exclusively on seedings or rankings.

The 2007 RWC will take place in France - with Wales, Scotland and Ireland each hosting one first-round matches each. There will also be a quarter-final held at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff.

The 48-match tournament will run between September 7 to October 20.

Saturday, May 29, 2004

Benedict Arnold Had A Point

The job loss associated with outsourcing will be a major issue in the coming Presidential Election. Like all major issues discussed in Presidential Elections, it will also be badly demogouged to the potential detriment of the commonweal. Political candidates across The Fruited Plain will miscast outsourcing as a cause of illness rather than the symptom of a greater chronic malady.

The enemies of the current Presidential Administration will claim that corporate greed and a lack of concern for the average worker are the source of all of our economic problems. The champions of stronger corporate regulation by the iron hand of the Federal Government will argue that America’s corporations are traitors. They will call these corporations Benedict Arnold with no accurate logical concept of who Benedict Arnold was or why anyone behaves patriotically in the first place.

Benedict Arnold started out behaving patriotically. He enlisted in the Continental Army as an officer and performed with absolute brilliance at The Battle of Saratoga. He turned coat and joined The Redcoats only after his superior, General Horatio Gates, did everything in his power to wreck his career and discredit his heroism.

Arnold receives vituperation for following a logical set of instincts. He walked away from a totally raw deal that he in no way deserved. Arnold took a walk on The Continental Army when that organization did everything but toss him out on the street.

Corporations exist for one purpose. They exist to better their lot. They are naturally greedy and predatory. A lot like that person you and I both see in the mirror every morning. They will walk away from a bad deal just as fast as you or I will walk away from one. As fast as we can possibly manage.

That brings us to why the angst over job loss as an effect of corporate outsourcing is heartfelt, sincere, but utterly directed at the wrong set of culprits. Corporations locate their operations and employ workers where doing so provides them the greatest advantage. They maximize their well being.

They don't do it on anyone's behalf or athwart anyone's aspirations. The impact on the individual is entirely a non-sequitor. A corporation cares about as much about you as you probably care about the typical corporation. When it works out well for me to buy a corporation's stuff I pull out my wallet. When I offer a service the corporation needs badly enough to pay for they offer a salary. That's where both the love affair and the obligation for either party ends.

The people who attempt to make hay out of American job loss from outsourcing are the very politicians and regulators who vociferously call for the policies that create conditions conducive to the flight of corporate capital. Outsourcing would not constitute a rational behavior pattern for any domestic corporation not under duress at home. A combination of high wage rates, high taxation and constraint from litigation and regulation apply this duress to American corporate enterprises.

Corporations who can afford to, escape this duress whenever possible. This relief doesn't come at a cheap price. The expenses of outsourcing run quite high and long term. The risks inherent in sending jobs abroad or even outside a corporate shop add substantially to the cost of doing business.

Under favorable domestic business conditions, outsourcing would be an act of utter management stupidity. Outsourcers pay for extended training and construction of infrastructure. They acknowledge extensive currency risk. They face a political gauntlet at home, and always have the chance of having their millions confiscated on a whim of some foreign politician who gets an itch to nationalize their assets.
It takes a colossally bad set of domestic conditions to make outsourcing seem like intelligent corporate policy. This adverse set of conditions has made corporate paymasters decide that the American economy has become an increasingly hostile place to hire a work force. These paymasters don't argue against the hostility, they just pack up and leave. When the employers leave, the jobs go with them.

You, me and the rest of the work force are not guaranteed a job. We are very privileged and fortunate to live in a country where the vast majority of people who want jobs have them. Basra, Iraq had over 50% unemployment the day The British Army took it over. This is often the rule, rather than the exception in countries who are hostile towards privately owned business.

We can listen to those who bemoan outsourcing and punish corporations who do it, but that would be about as bright as chopping off our own noses because they run too much. Corporations leave because our laws, our wage structures, our legal system and our regulatory agencies make America a harder place for business to take care of business.

A government entity can only practice limited job creation. The true public policy graveman for effecting the rate of employment lies in a government's policies towards employers. When America is a decent place to hire people and corporations are valued entities rather than political pariahs, regulatory targets and lawsuit magnets, they have a rather pleasant habit of hiring and paying people. When corporations are told to peddle their papers elsewhere, the corporate headquarters move to Jamaica with the swiftness and certainty with which Benedict Arnold joined The Royal Dragoons.

Giving The Junior Senator From New York Her Just Due

In a stunning move of political expediency, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has suggested undoing a significant feature of her husband's presidency. She has made the glowingly obvious point that the US Army was reduced to too low a level of active duty forces and has mentioned that we, as a nation, should have more soldiers on full time duty.

Indeed the newest political immigrant to The Empire State makes an intelligent point. Whether Senator Clinton really favors a larger army, we need to take her up on her suggestion. It could become like the Welfare Reform Bill, which President Clinton loudly asked for, but did not really want to see on his desk.

Prior to Operation Desert Storm the active army fielded 18 combat divisions. Between then and the events of 9-11, the army had remained in a state of high speed rewind. President George W. Bush began operations against Afghanistan and Iraq with only 10 divisions on point for the nation.

Enlarging the Army would prove challenging, but not entirely impossible. Two of the demobilized divisions, the 24th ID and the 7th ID were not totally taken down. Each of these divisions retained active HHQ elements and received three national guard roundout brigades to facilitate a rapid remobilization. Thus it remains feasible to enlarge the Army to 12 divisions on a timetable that would positively impact our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Opponents would immediately argue that no one in their right mind would stay in an all volunteer force once actual live rounds fly down range. Before we bring back conscription, we should examine current active army retention statistics. We should compare them to retention rates in guard and reserve units which our decreased active force requires us to increasingly hitch our star to.

This discrepancy in retention rates can only be attributed to basic logic. Active army soldiers serve the army as a full time job. It's what they do and a whole lot of who they are. When they get shot at, it's an occupational hazard they got briefed on before they signed up for the benefits.

Reserve soldiers may be twice the citizen according to Winston Churchill, but they also pay twice the price when the war toxin sounds. Not only do reservists go in harm's way, they also get hit with an unplanned separation from family and get tossed out of a regular civilian job. The dissonance takes its toll and renders further service profoundly unpalateable.

Thus Hillary Rodham Clinton enjoys the best of both worlds when she opines that the US Army should expand its active force. She pays homage to the gods of political panderation and serves her nation in one bold stroke. Therefore I opine that we should act on her recommendation, reactivate the 7th and 24th Infantry Divisions and put our army on a stronger footing.

Putting this bill on George W. Bush's desk would prove condign for everyone involved. As John Lennon remarked in The Beatles' song "Revolution #9". "Take this brother, may it serve you well." It would only be giving the Junior Senator from New York her just deserts.

Friday, May 28, 2004

Gore's Successful Policy of Containment

Let me be the first to congratulate Al Gore on his successful policy of containment. I would like to thank him personally for helping Bill CLinton keep the forces of terrorism at bay for eight years. The containment strategy truly brought us peace in our time.

Clinton and Gore's defense against terrorists during the 1990's ranks up there in American military history with the overwhelming display of shock and awe we gave to the British at Bladensburg, during the War of 1812. How dare Al Gore claim his policy actually succeeded?

If Al Gore's policy of containment kept us safe from terrorism, allow me celebrate several other successful American military policies that rank right up there with the strategic genius of our successful policy of containment.

If Gore invented a successful policy of containment, than the following historical facts are intuitively ture.

The West would never have been won without General Custer's ride at Little Big Horn.

General Hood should be venerated for holding the maruading hordes of General Sherman outside the gates of Atlanta.

The Maginot Line kept Guderian's Panzers under wraps but good.

And for one last swipe at the Lilly of France, a bunch of English peasants with longbows made of yew stood no chance against the mighty cavalry of France at Crecy Forest.

I've planted axiom that Gore's successful policy of containment was an utter sham, let me now count the ways.

In Somalia we declared victory and left as fast as a C-130 could fly. That's not containment. That's open cowardice.

Our embassy in Kenya was a classic victim of Gore's successful policy of containment.

The bombing of the USS Cole certainly demonstrated the success that resulted from Gore's policy of containment.

Oh, and when we're successfully containing someone, a group of religious fanatics should never take over an entire country. When the Taliban took over Afghanistan that was pathetic neglect, not containment.

The end result of The Taliban taking over Afghanistan was the crowning defeat for Al Gore's policy of containment. Bush initially preferred continued containment, but 9-11 made that policy untenable.

So Al Gore's policy of containment was in no way a success or a victory. His lies that it was are an outrageous tergivoration that endangers the lives of our soldiers in the field.

Thursday, May 27, 2004

What Every Woman Should Wear Posted by Hello

In case you ever really wondered?

Cheese Test: What type of cheese are you?

The Man Who Should Have Won A Nobel Prize

John Derbyshire brought up an interesting aside while blogging on The Corner about a recently constructed treehouse he built for his children. He mentioned a man who deserves utmost veneration through the ages for his humanitarian work. That man who's life still positively impacts millions is Lord Baden Powell; the founder of Boy Scouting.

Lord Baden Powell came from an utterly different era. His book "Scouting For Boys" proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt. People now laugh at the title and ridicule the Boy Scouts of America until their sorry windbags run out of hot air. What they should never laugh at are the contributions that scouting has made to the lives of so many boys.

In an age where children are deluged with drugs, violence and unthinkably vulgar sex before they even turn off their idiot boxes, go outside, and meet people of bad moral character, the scouting movement stands a lonely, underappreciated vigil against the moral disintegration of the modern American male. This was certainly why my parents enrolled me in Cub Scouts at an early age and encouraged my efforts until they reached fruition. My parents beamed with pride when I joined the Eagle Scout Class of 1985.

The obvious benefits of time spent as a Boy Scout include self-reliance, outdoorsmanship and a deeper appreciation and respect for the majestic elegance of nature that surrounds us all. These gifts in and of themselves are worth more than eight or nine tons of platinum. They only scratch the surface of what scouting offers a willing recipient.

Scouting gives us all a code. A sense of chivalry to guide us through an age of vulgarian, decadent rot. When I wore the Boy Scout uniform and took the Boy Scout Oath, I was being trained to meet obligations. Both in our meetings and around the campsite, we were made by caring adults to put down the toys of children and take up the tools that befit a grown man.

Post-Modern America stands poised at the precipice of perdition. We stand there only partially because of our iniquities. We stand there because we grew up being rewarded for ducking responsibility and punished for taking it. As Boy Scouts we were taught honor. Honor means you do what's right in accordance with, in the absense of and even right into the buzzsaw teeth of a controlling legal authority.

As I said earlier, Baden Powell came from a different era. In fact, he anteceded much of what destroyed the classically liberal modern American. In 1939, the same year Baden Powell was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, the world took a truly tragic turn for the worse that we have yet to set completely aright even today. The war grew so cataclysmic that the Peace Prize went unawarded. Lord Baden Powell never even got fair consideration.

No mere laurel wreath would have shut down Ostengrupenfuhrer Heydrich's Final Solution. Nor would Japan have waived off the Rape of Nanking. No mere prize would have torn down the Berlin Wall or rendered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima an unnecessary sortie.

Yet still I believe, in what's left of my youthful idealism, that our world would be just a measure better if Lord Baden Powell had gotten his due. Recognition for his deeds with a Nobel Peace Prize.

Guess What Goes With Hashbrowns and Eggs?

Kerry's House of Ketchup #13 Proudly rests above the fold on TAM.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

This Man is Deeply Nuts!! Posted by Hello

SDH relaxes after work Posted by Hello

Raging As The Daylight Fades

In The Bible, Joseph promised The Pharoah seven fat years followed by seven lean. While Albert Gore lost out on the Pharoahship by one one-hundreth of a percent, he had previously enjoyed his years of abundance and plenty. Now that prophecy has turned full circle. Vice President Gore has become Mr. Gore and he's facing the lean years with a Hobson's Choice of burning out or fading away.

In facing down this dilemna, Al Gore seems to have channeled Welsh Poet Dylan Thomas as his oratory muse. Gore's star may have ebbed and his 15 minutes are well past done. However, he will not go away without a fight. He may have to be taken away kicking and screaming.

He has taken to heart the closing couplet from the D. Thomas Poem "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night".

"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Today offered Gore his latest opportunity to vent. Fittingly, John Ashcroft announced a heightened terrorist threat on the same day that Gore cut loose. If people as imprisoned by the past as Albert Gore continue to give it's major speeches, we have to think up a new appellation for MoveOn.Org.

Al Gore's rage and profound frustration went on fulsome display as he laid into President Bush with every single club in his rhetorical golf bag. He ripped the president for not paying greater homage to legal authority, even if it seems much less controlling after eight years of governance from President Clinton and his sidekick Al.

Al Gore's take on the prisoner abuse scandal was that Bush personally chose not to abide by The Geneva Convention. Lynndie England should have worn her tinfoil hat under her black beret. That way President Bush could never have exercised jedi mind control and made her abuse those poor Iraqis. Gore figured out PFC England's motivations a little better, later on in the appalling polemnic, when he went and got snippy by remarking that "dominance is as dominance does."

Al Gore then detonated a propaganda stink bomb on what he called "Rumsfeld's war plan" and read off quotes from several top generals who have groussed about the war plan and fortold our national doooooooooooooooom. By the time Gore reached his apagee, he had us all believing once again that Earth hung in the balance.

Then Al Gore volunteered his services to as an SES level hiring manager at the Office of Personel Management. He offered President Bush loads of advice on who he needed to preclude from his next adminsitration. He wanted Rumsfeld, fired! Condi Rice, fired! Wolfwitz, fired! Everyone to the right of Le Duc Tho, Fired!

It was quite the rant. He has my undimmed admiration. Jumping the shark or even flying over the cuckoo's nest would vastly understate the dramatic power of Al Gore's performance. He may still drift in close-Earth orbit. What a stem-winder.

To quote his new found pal Howard Dean. "YEEEEEAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!"





Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Who Michael Moore Really Hurts

Michael Moore seems to have adorned himself as the paramount hegemon of modern left wing propaganda. This achievement deserves a certain grudging respect, coming from a man of no particular artistic or intellectual talent. Moore brings two intangible assets to the table and they seem to have won this man life’s jackpot. He believes in his ideals and he works very hard at what he does for a living.

The problem with Moore’s professional achievements exists because they come at a cost. Not a cost to Michael Moore, I doubt his skipped a buffet anytime this month, but rather to society as a whole. Moore’s films project his nihilism and move society towards the vision of his movies. He views the world as an ineluctable conspiracy of the privileged and then wallows in privilege like Commodus, The Vile Roman Despot.
Michael Moore cannot profoundly hurt Roger Smith, President Bush or even the principal of Columbine High School. These people suffer less from Michael Moore’s detestable demagoguery of demonization than the audiences who sit in the theatre and listen. These audiences listen and feed on all the reasons to quit.

Reason unabated by faith does not provide the vitality a person needs to work hard towards a goal. The world of Michael Moore is one of nihilistic twilight. A man who disbelieves in everything, doesn’t have any ground left to stand on. Michael Moore tells the audience that everyone and everything is corrupt and contemptible. The cynicism of Michael Moore will never defeat a giant. It will only convince “the little guy” that he’s an utterly powerless midget.

Moore ridicules to destroy, but never has a positive or even a palatable alternative. He portrays a world of excrement and won’t even give it credit for making the grass grow green. I have never seen nor heard any positive content from a Michael Moore crockumentary.

It’s not so much his beliefs that are inherently evil. Samuel Gompers and Albert Schweitzer both believed in causes that could easily be construed as liberal in nature. What truly renders Michael Moore a corpulent coprophage of corruption, is the unremitting hate and negativity.

The negative-minded will always steal oxygen from the left right and center of the political and ideological spectrums. The tragedy accompanying Michael Moore’s masochistic methodology is that it works. The world once required at least some positive and uplifting content from it’s entertainers.

Michael Moore flushes the entire world down his horrendous, unsanitary toilet. The judges at Cannes liked the ride enough to hand him a Golden Palm. What does this say about them? What does that do to the rest of us?



The Kuleshov Effect and The News of The War In Iraq

The discovery of persistence of image and the application thereof to photography, brought about the invention of moving pictures and forever changed the history of the world. It is common practice to value a picture at a rate of a thousand words. What is not understood as widely is the power placed in the hands of the person editing a sequence of film, and how much the edit job can change which 1,000 words get conveyed by a roll of moving pictures.

The Soviet filmmakers employed by Josef Stalin first discovered how to utilize cutting and splicing between different scenes in order to greatly amplify the emotional shock of a motion picture. A man named Kuleshov is believed to be one of the first to ever have applied this technique to propaganda films. Hence, the technique is known as The Kuleshov Effect and has become a staple of filmmaking and nightly news production ever since.

We now fast-forward to the terribly shocking footage of prisoner abuse in the Iraq War. While the abuse, itself, constitutes base moral turpitude of the rankest order, the use made of the images has been equally evil and repugnant. This effect becomes amplified when these images are broadcast to a predominately illiterate audience in the foreign countries that sponsor our enemies.


The story of the torture inflicted on POWs by US Army MPs did have to be told. The specific, gory pictures did not have to be broadcast on 24 hour news channels world wide. The fact that the source for this news story was an internal disciplinary investigation by the Army could have shown up in the lead of these awful stories. It never seemed to be mentioned until well below the fold.


Several aspects of how the stories were presented to the world by CBS and other networks have many of the earmarks of a Sergei Eisenstein propaganda film aimed at inflaming the passions of our enemies and demoralizing the American public. The film seems less of a news story and more of a meticulously prepared criminal prosecution of the chain of command in Washington, DC. This is so much true that the story figures prominently in fund raising letters currently being mailed out by the opposition party.

The prevalence of sadistic women as the torturers has been particularly problematic. We currently fight an enemy from a highly misogynistic culture. These people expect subservience out of women and force them to wear the burka. When they see a woman in a skimpy BDU T-shirt leading an Iraqi prisoner around on a dog leash, the outrage easily be predicted.

These particular images seemed to have an absolute paramount position in every media portrayal of the POW torture incident. They seemed almost calculated to intentionally enrage every country in The Middle East. It was almost as if CBS had developed a vested interest in seeing to it that the opposition to the US mission in Iraq became amplified ten-fold.

Another aspect of this entire episode that boggles the mind, involves the total lack of attention paid to the commanding general who let it be known that her soldiers were expected to play hardball in order to exert information. Furthermore, if you read somewhere well below the fold, you'll find out that these were inexperienced troops that received minimal training in POW treatment according to The Laws of Land Warfare.

Actions taken by the leadership in Iraq produced a recipe for the disaster that has predictably occurred. They put untrained soldiers in a pressurized environment and gave them stimulus to behave in an immoral and illegal fashion. That, in and of itself, was a major story when Lt. William Calley’s platoon shot the entire village of My Lai.


While a few borderline S&M shots of women in military uniform always seem to tune in the pervert demographic, the visual media accompanying this story seemed directly targeted towards making it damaging to everything the US military is tasked to accomplish in Iraq. The use of visual propaganda, by major US media companies, to turn the American population against the current war has placed our soldier's lives in mortal danger.

The slickly edited images of horror have a certain artistic merit and almost a ghoulish appeal. However, as was the case with movies like "Triumph of The Will" and "Birth of a Nation", the mordant, aberrant purpose for which these propaganda shorts have been used, overshadows any inherent qualities that may have justified the manner in which these images were edited prior to there worldwide broadcast.

De Las Casas and The 9/11 Commission.

The Spanish Empire declined and then fell with a cataclysmic crash after its armada sank off the coasts of The British Isles. Its infamous reputation lived for centuries and tarred generations of Hispanic people with an unfair reputation for duplicity, inhumanity and barbaric cruelty. This horrible reputation, known by historians as "La Leyenda Negra", or The Black Legend resulted primarily from the writings of a Catholic Monk; Father Bartolomeo De Las Casas.

De Las Casas observed the encomienderos and all of the misery which these people inflicted upon South and Central America. His account sickens any person with a rational mind. When rock singer Neil Young wrote his PC Jeremiad "Cortez Was a Killer" (Lyrics Here), he riffed off the fundamental conceit posited by the writings of De Las Casas. Five hundred years after De Las Casas died his message of self-loathing and grief resounded across the ages and profoundly affected the thinking of a man who probably never studied Spanish Literature and History.

The 9/11 Commission will compose the primary source historical document that will inform future generations of historians, school children and pop culture entertainers of what happened on 11 September 2001. These men and women seem too shortsighted to recognize what they have in their hands. They are the ambassadors that will introduce our society and our traditions to the world of the future. These commissioners are writing the American History that people five hundred years hence will gripe about having to read in high school or college.

Like Bartolomeo De Las Casas, the 9/11 Commission presents an antiheroic picture of our people and our society. Their description of the NYPD and the NYFD does not even remotely give these men and women credit for valor and initiative. The Monday Morning Bart Starr's cast their aspersions on these officers and firefighters from the overfed and very comfortable perspective of The Inquisitor's Chair.

They portray the rescue workers, who toiled in desperation amongst the fires of Gahanna, as bumbling caricatures of Henry Blake and Frank Burns in a profoundly sickening and distasteful episode of MASH. My grandchildren may never see the heroism of these people because a bunch of retread, hack politicians have usurped the mantle that should have been given to people vastly better. The shortsighted and cupiditous are writing the first draft of the history of our age.

I have read Bartolomeo De Las Casas and took a very light lunch after doing so. I have no objective way of knowing whether his history is a fair and accurate account of how Spaniards behaved in The Caribbean Islands. Enough other people support his version of events that this seems likely. Thus, what I learned about Latin American History heavily reflects De Las Casas' appraisal of Spanish imperial policy and society. Judging from Neil Young's musical protest, a lot of other people learned the same version.

Some historian 500 years hence will read the report of the 9-11 Commission. They will then read a few editorials from The New York Times. After that, our notional historian will plug America's own low-budget Sergei Eisenstein, Michael Moore into his DVD player. Amazingly, David Ben Veniste, the respected and widely read New York Times and Jabba the Haw Haw, Michael Moore all corroborate one another.

The historian will write a moving and elegant text that plants this revisionist view as the axiomatic view of ancient and corrupt America. The author will win tenure and go on to renown and acclaim.

My point is simply this. We have to start paying attention to who writes that first rough draft of Post-Modern American History. The authors thereof can do for our nation what Virgil did for Rome or they can do to our culture what Bartolomeo De Las Casas did to the Hispanics. Nothing would prove more tragic and wrong than allowing the despicable Michael Moore to proceed through the eons as the legendary historian of our corrupt and immoral age.


"Reciprocals"

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com