Proving MPAI

Most certainly including the neocon portion of the Tea Party:

The need to reinvest in the military is not an ideological sentiment but rather a baseline statement about urgent national-security needs. But don’t take my word for it. A recent blue-ribbon commission chaired by President Clinton’s secretary of defense Bill Perry and former Bush administration National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, released a report this summer that “represents a striking bipartisan consensus that the United States must do more when it comes to national defense if we are to continue to play the international role we have and pursue the interests that have animated American grand strategy since the end of World War II.”

American strength comes at a price, to be sure. But there is a price to weakness as well, one that the commission notes “in the long run would be much greater.” Thankfully, Americans are telling pollsters of all stripes they agree — cutting defense is not an option.

You’re bankrupt, you morons. Lofty and ambitious words about a historically illiterate grand strategery that has not only failed, but has actually weakened the American military position, aren’t going to pay many soldiers’ salaries or buy many guns. Talking about “national security” is absolutely and utterly ridiculous as long as millions of immigrants are permitted to invade the country at will, and no amount of bases in Afghaniraqistan are going to make the nation any more secure.

It’s pretty simple. More money != better. Conservatives seem to understand this when it comes to welfare, so why don’t they understand that government spending isn’t any more effective when it comes to defense?

Training in action


This is an interesting little clip of four clueless guys attempting to take on a guy who appears to possess a moderate amount of boxing experience. Notice how he keeps moving sideways and backward into open space, only occasionally stepping forward when the opportunity, or in one case, the need, presents itself. The most important thing is that he limits himself to short, quick jabs and crosses; by doing so he avoids committing completely to a strike and thereby leaving himself open. He stays focused on defense throughout and does an excellent job of throwing his opponents down to the ground in order to buy himself more time and clear space whenever he can.

Now, imagine if the guy’s training had incorporated some jujitsu and he’d been throwing some elbows and the occasional low kick of his own instead of only punches… more than the one guy in the white would have been down. Of course, the four guys should have surrounded him from the start, but they had no way of knowing he was a boxer and in the heat of the moment, it’s almost impossible for more than two people to coordinate their actions anyway.

For me, the best moment is when he steps into the white-shirted guy’s second attempt to kick him, catches him off balance on one leg, and puts him down. It reminded me of how one fights a Tae Kwan Do kicker; the minute they plant and start to move their rear leg, step in hard. It’s harder to do than it sounds, because the instinctive reaction is to step back. And Mr. White Shirt is a perfect example of how not to fight. He’s aggressive, but hapless, consistently leading with his face and telegraphing his moves so badly that not a single one of his five attacks even lands, let alone does any harm.

Compare that guy with this man defending his girlfriend. He also shows obvious signs of training, but demonstrates less situational awareness and fighting experience as well as inferior technique. Part of this is because he is taking a more aggressive approach, but he makes the mistake of repeatedly extending himself and twice leaves himself open to an attack by the unengaged opponent, at one point even turning his back on the first guy he attacked. He also leads with his rear hand twice; although he gets away with it here thanks to his opponents’ lack of training, trying that against the first guy would have almost surely met with the rude interruption of a jab to the face.

I was also surprised at his lack of finishing, as I was completely expecting him to kick the first guy in the face when he turned around at the end. But then, the guy had gestured at him, so perhaps he was taught to go to submission rather than incapacitation.

The honest atheist

And there goes Richard Dawkins’s argument, presented in The God Delusion, that atheists are more moral than theists. Clearly he is an exceptional judge of human character and well-suited to pronounce judgment on morality, given his superior personnel skills demonstrated in selecting people to run his web site and now his charity.

Josh Timonen was one of a small coterie of young protégés around Richard Dawkins, sharing his boss’s zealous atheism. But now he and the evolutionary theorist have fallen out spectacularly. Professor Dawkins’s charity has accused Mr Timonen of embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds. The two atheists had become close in recent years, with Dawkins, the best-selling author and Emeritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University, even dedicating his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, to him. But Mr Timonen and the Dawkins foundation are now preparing for a legal wrangle.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, has filed four lawsuits in a Californian court alleging that Mr Timonen, who ran its online operation in America, stole $375,000 (£239,000) over three years. It is claiming $950,000 in damages, while Mr Dawkins is suing him for $14,000 owed to him personally.

With the exception of the hapless Sam Harris, atheists repeatedly insist that despite having no externally imposed morality, there is no reason for them to behave worse than those who do possess a morality imposed upon them by their gods. And yet, again and again, we see that their moral behavior, (as measured by the theistic systems in which they do not believe), is completely dependent upon the circumstances in which they find themselves and the temptations they face.

In the same way that an atheist leader with sufficient power is more likely than not to murder at least 20,000 people, we now know that atheist charities, (if I recall Dawkins’s claims correctly, the foundation for Reason and Science was the first explicitly atheist charity in Britain), are one for one in corruption. But I suppose that’s what happens when you turn yourself into the godless version of a big-haired televangelist.