The Ceasefire...

Israel's agreement to a ceasefire shows that they listen to world opinion.

Time and time again Islamic terrorist groups in the ME have violated ceasefire agreements. Their word is worthless. With the Lebanese government unable or unwilling to eliminate Hezbollah, Israel effectively has no one to negotiate with except terrorists -- who understand only one language -- the language of force.

Cuba: "Hugely Successful"

The headline struck my eye.

Cuba: The Accidental Revolution: A look at the country's hugely successful...

Quiz Time:

Do you think this headline about Cuba's huge success came from

a) FOX News

b) the National Post

c) the CBC

d) the Toronto Star.

Hint: I don't read the Toronto Star.

Scroll down for the answer.











Answer: The CBC, of course. It's the Nature of Things. As a bonus, the show in question features Canada's own David Suzuki.

Here's more, taken from the CBC's website.

"Without fertilizer and pesticides, Cubans turned to organic methods. [organic good; non-organic bad] Without fuel and machinery parts, Cubans turned to oxen. [oxen good; machinery bad] Without fuel to transport food, Cubans started to grow food in the cities where it is consumed. [trucking bad; growing in your back yard good] Urban gardens were established in vacant lots, school playgrounds, patios and back yards. As a result Cuba created the largest program in sustainable agriculture ever undertaken. By 1999 Cuba's agricultural production had recovered and in some cases reached historic levels."

Ah yes, oxen. Urban gardens. Can't wait. And what is it with this trendy "sustainable agriculture" thing? Haven't human beings been sustaining agriculture for millenia? And aren't western nations growing ever more food more efficiently than ever?

The blurb continues:

"In Cuba: The Accidental Revolution (Part 2) we learn that the country has been blockaded since 1961"

[really? - Cuba good; blockade bad, USA bad]

"but today Cuba has the highest quality of life in the region, the highest life expectancy, and one of the highest literacy rates in all of Latin America." [dictatorship good; freedom bad]

Higher than Florida, just off the Cuban coastline?

And, does living in a dictatorship with political oppression and religious intolerance and persecution contribute to or maybe even be the source of this high quality of life?

And, if the quality of life is so great, why are Canadian churches engaged in relief and charity to Cuba?

Just wondering.

But, in the skewered way that the CBC thinks, Cuba is an enemy of the USA, so it's a friend of Canada and the CBC. Plus, it's completely socialist -- they probably have their own CBC. Maybe they could do news anchor exchanges. They wouldn't even have to change their CBC logos.

Someday, the whole world will be socialist, if the CBC gets its way. The ideal would be for us to hand over all our earnings to the government, so they could redistribute it and do all kinds of good things. Oh, if only Jack Layton ruled Canada. I've even got a motto he could use: "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need".

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Proportionate Response -- the Terrorists were counting on it

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said the other day that he was surprised by Israel's response to its border incursion and the killing, kidnapping, and bombing of Israel. It never expected Israel to launch a war over just two kidnapped soldiers. He expected Israel to respond, but in a tit-for-tat kind of way, leading to a prisoner exchange.

In other words, he was counting on a "proportional response".

There was even just a hint of grievance in his words, suggesting that Hezbollah had been blind-sided by the Israeli response, that Israel wasn't playing fair, or by terrorist rules.

Terrorists favour binding a sovereign nation to a proportional response.

Knowing that a state is limited to a proportional response makes it safe for terrorists to do their work. It's a ground-rule they favour. It turns kidnapping and murder into a proportional game that can be safely played. It allows the terrorists to enjoy the continued support of the native population within which they reside.

What he was not counting on was a disproportionate response made on Israel's terms.

The nations of the world, with the notable exception of the Anglosphere (USA/Canada/Australia) immediately attempted to tie Israel's hands and restrict its response, as if they ought to be bound to the same scope and proportionality as the terrorists. What is needed is for aggrieved nations to be free to make an "unpredictable response" to an unprovoked attack. Sometimes take the blow, sometimes respond in-kind, sometimes, a massive retaliation. Terrorists should never know what the response will be.

Terrorists heartily endorse the dogma of proportional response.

Should we?

This just in...

From the Jerusalem Post --

"Leaders of American Muslim and Arab groups urged the FBI on Wednesday to be sensitive when scrutinizing activities by the Hizbullah on US soil."

This is the same bunch that bombed the US Embassy in Beirut -- an act of war against the US.

For their part, they are now demanding their "rights".

And what are they doing on US soil to begin with?

"PEI Voters Furious"

"PEI Voters Furious".

So says the headline in this morning's G&M, online edition.

I'm reporting on the ground here in PEI. The situation at the moment is calm. But hostilities could break out at any moment. People are congregating at the local Tims to decide the next course of action.

Greivances? Of course we have grievances. Sure we get federal equalization payments out the wazoo, but to show our appreciation we charge people "from away" double on their PEI property taxes. So it all equals out.

And PEI does not have 100,000 people as some have suggested; we are 140,000 strong -- but still a minority, a small, tiny, miniscule, powerless minority -- with minority entitlements and rights! Since entitlement rights are inversely proportional to the perceived powerlessness of the group, we are mightily entitled. So, get back to work, Ontario Steve, we need the money!

Don't forget, Charlottetown is the "Cradle of Confederation"; that means that the rest of the nation is eternally in our debt! Don't call us "just another province" -- like Quebec. We have 140,000 people. 4 federal MPs. 30 or 40 MLAs. Mayors, councillors, you name it. The Feds are building another huge building in the centre of town to show the power of taxation and the benefits of Confederation; there are federal-government-subsidized busses roaming the city -- empty!

But things could erupt at any moment. Will keep you posted.

Am taking shelter now.

From the depths of the Earth - the Word of God is heard

Boopchile will like this one.

Yesterday's news featured the remarkable discovery of a manuscript in an Irish bog. The manuscript contained the book of Psalms, or at least a section from it. It had been preserved for over a thousand years in the bog, uncovered by an excavator, and then miraculously noticed by the operator of the digging machine. It was in extremely fragile condition, but the supervisor sensibly covered it with moist earth until the custodians of such things could take responsibility for it.

The CBC described the find as a book of small-p psalms. They failed to indicated that these were in fact Psalms, i.e., from the Bible. The Globe and Mail did one better. Their headline referred to the find as a "Book of Songs", mentioned psalms in the text, but no reference to the Bible or the Christian context.

What is really remarkable beyond the miraculous preservation and discovery, was the particular text that the manuscript was found open to.

The manuscript was open to Psalm 83. The CBC noted that this is a psalm in which Israel pleads with God to protect it from its enemies. Pretty good, for the CBC. (But I suspect they had just copied the text over from the AP without giving it much thought. ) The Globe and Mail (G&M) excised all such references.

The text of Psalm 83 is remarkably relevant to today's world. Pretty good for the scribblings of an obscure middle eastern tribe that recorded what they said was the very words of the living God thousands of years ago.

Here's the text of Psalm 83, miraculously preserved for over a thousand years, and brought up from the earth at just the time that Israel is fighting for its life. Providence? You decide.

Psalm 83 [NIV copyrighted]

A song. A psalm of Asaph.

1 O God, do not keep silent;
be not quiet, O God, be not still.
2 See how your enemies are astir,
how your foes rear their heads.

3 With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.

4 "Come," they say, "let us destroy them as a nation,
that the name of Israel be remembered no more."

5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you-

6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,

7 Gebal, [a] Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.

8 Even Assyria has joined them
to lend strength to the descendants of Lot.
Selah

9 Do to them as you did to Midian,
as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon,

10 who perished at Endor
and became like refuse on the ground.

11 Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb,
all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,

12 who said, "Let us take possession
of the pasturelands of God."

13 Make them like tumbleweed, O my God,
like chaff before the wind.

14 As fire consumes the forest
or a flame sets the mountains ablaze,

15 so pursue them with your tempest
and terrify them with your storm.

16 Cover their faces with shame
so that men will seek your name, O LORD.

17 May they ever be ashamed and dismayed;
may they perish in disgrace.

18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.

May God preserve His ancient people from their foes and fulfill His promises to them. May He bring righteousness to the earth through the return of the Prince of Peace. May the enemies of God be scattered and Christ exalted.

And that's the way the Ball bounces...

Killing 1,000 Australians to "please Allah"

Australia has its own home-grown Muslim terrorist cell -- just like Canada. This has not been widely reported in the North American media.

Accused cleric hoped to 'kill 1000'
Natasha Robinson
July 25, 2006
The Australian
[excerpted]

SUBURBAN Islamic cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika wanted to kill 1000 Australians to "please Allah" and had the support of a blond recruit [Mr Kent] who had pledged violent jihad during a meeting with Osama bin Laden....

"If you kill, we kill here 1000," Mr Benbrika allegedly said in a conversation covertly taped by police. "Because if you get large numbers here, the government will listen."

====

There are 13 accused terrorists in Australia; Canada has 17.

It appears that radical Islam is becoming a world-wide phenomenon. It would be prudent and rational for western nations to restrict further immigration of Muslims, but that's not going to happen. That would favour one cultural view of civilization over another, and we can't have that.

And at this point, it may not make a difference, anyway.

But here's a thought. Which Canadian political party would Muslim extremists feel most at home in? Answer: not the Conservatives.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Dire Predictions from Downunder 2004

For some reason I'm on an Australian newsmedia jag.

This 2004 article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald online edition.

Bush threatens mankind, says Caldicott
By David Williams
smh.com.au
November 16, 2004
[excerpted]

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr Helen Caldicott fears US President George Bush's re-election will lead to Armageddon....

"This is the most serious election that has ever occurred in the history of the human race, without a scrag of doubt," she told smh.com.au.

[Hollywood stars certainly thought so -- that's why they all left for the south of France as soon as Bush's election was confirmed.]

"I don't know if we'll survive the next four years ....

.... it's not just the threat from nuclear war. It's the threat of what's happening to the environment, the global warming which is occurring rapidly now, to ozone depletion, to species extinction, to deforestation - it's the whole thing."

[What about the threat from malaria? Millions in third-world countries die because of first-world sensibilities regarding the use of malaria-fighting DDT. Based on junk science. Now that's a real crime against humanity, and it is laid squarely at the feet of leftist environmentalists.]
....

"But this is worse, these people are much worse than the Reagan people."

[Reagan oversaw the collapse of Communism, a very serious offense for which he has never been forgiven]

Mr Bush's win meant "endless war and I think it could mean nuclear war", she said.

[It hasn't yet, but leftists are still optimistic with over two years to go.]

"In January 1995 we got to within 10 seconds of nuclear war....

[And it was George Bush's fault!]

"They [the Bush administration] have been able to con the American people with their extremely brilliant propaganda and brainwashing, with the help of the media .... They don't know that Bush et al want to go into Iran next and that they want to dominate the world militarily and that they want to put weapons in space....

[They're slow on Iran, but we earnestly hope that the US does dominate the world militarily, and, if there are to be weapons in space, we'll all sleep better knowing these are in the hands of the Americans.]

It is a mandate for Bush to do absolutely anything he wants.

[Well, I hope Congress and the Senate realize this!]

I know people don't like me using this word but they're fascists."

Not firing all her ammunition at Mr Bush, she saved some for Australian Prime Minister John Howard. She said Australia was now the "51st state of the US".

[As a Canadian, I find that a very offensive comment; we reserve the right to refer to ourselves as the 51st state; then Israel, so, get to the back of the line, buddy, er, buddyess]

"I've always been so proud of my country, now I'm not just ashamed by what's happening and embarrassed ...

[You and the Dixie Chicks.]

All this from another Nobel prize nominee.

Kill Bush?

Peace prize winner 'could kill' Bush
Annabelle McDonald
July 25, 2006

A Nobel Peace prize winner recently commented -- to school children -- that she would "like to kill George Bush". Correction. She actually said she would "love to kill George Bush".

The Australian characterized her speech as "feisty", as in "Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday".

Interesting. You muse out loud in front of children about killing a sitting President, and the media uses a playful word to describe your behaviour. Not a word of condemnation or even criticism.

According to the report, her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

I think Mark Steyn is right when he writes about the self-destruction of Western civilization.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Quote of the Day

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

This from Mark Steyn (http://www.marksteyn.com), quoting Hussein Massawi, Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago:

Now, given this mindset, what would be a proportionate response?

Proportionate response and ants in your pants

If your house is invaded by killer ants, proportionate response would say you are entitled to kill the ants in your house. And, perhaps, one additional outside ant for every person killed (to "teach the ants a lesson"). However, this leaves the ants strong and ready to fight and kill another day. And the day after that. And the day after that.

So, over time, the number of deaths by ants in your household is going to continue climbing.

At some point, you might decide that a more sensible approach would be to go after the ant hill.

And that is what Israel is doing in Lebanon.

The CBC responds...

I received a response from the CBC, regarding my criticism of their soft portrayal of Hezbollah on this morning's This Morning.

Here it is:

Sir/Madam,

This is a difficult and emotionally charged subject. Our goal is always to balance comment from experts and politicians of ALL stripes, with questions that challenge accepted views. Our goal is to broaden understanding of what is happening. We do our best to address the concerns of all sides without fear of favour.

As you can see from the e-mail comments below received in the past hour, the SAME story can elicit remarkably different responses from viewers across the spectrum. I wonder who is right?

MT - TORONTO: "What is the reason for your double standards and outright bias FOR Israel? Might makes right?"

RK - TORONTO: "Your morning's efforts to present a sympathetic portrait of Hezbollah
as a legitimate organization with which Israel and the west should
negotiate were naive and soft-headed, but entirely in keeping with
you astonishing left-wing bias."

TS - "His liberal anti American agenda blended with a somewhat covert anti Israel sentiment permeated his response about why the M.E. is in turmoil.

JE - KITCHENER: "Mr. Forestall has to be given a great deal of credit in his attempts to put some balance in Mr. Kingstonâ€*s closing comments, trying to get some admission that Hezbollah truly has been terrorizing Israeliâ€*s.

PP - QUEBEC: Mr Forestell showed his bias in saying that it would be "distasteful" for either the US or Israel to talk to Hezbollah.
I would suggest it is equally distasteful to talk to the Israelis.

PS - I followed through on my last post. Fox News is on the air!

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

CBC's Hezbollah - a "quote-quote terrorist organization"

Watched CBC this morning. As they announced an "expert" in middle eastern affairs, you can imagine the thrill of excitement. Here's what I learned:

- Hezbollah is, and I quote, a "quote-quote terrorist organization", that, admittedly, does kill people

- Hezbollah provides schools and medical care to south Lebanon

- the so-called "war on terror" is a phantom pretext used by the US and its warring allies to advance its own military aggression.

The CBC host, in fairness, did counter some of the more outrageous statements of his guest expert, but without passion. At the first break, he told the expert what a great job he was doing so far.

I'm ordering Fox News immediately.

More on "proportionate response"

I was taken to task today by a G&M poster who argues that Israel ought to have made a "proportionate response".

Here's my reply.

JL - thank you for your post.

A proportionate response would do nothing to eliminate the ongoing threat that Israel faces. It would simply be retribution for retribution's sake. It would leave Hezabollah strong and ready to fight another day. Worse, it would leave Hezbollah with the idea that they can "win" this thing.

What is needed is a disproportionate response that is so overwhelming that Hezbollah concludes that it cannot win. And that is what Israel is attempting to do.

And it better do it fast. Down the road a bit Iran will have nuclear weapons, and then all bets are off.

Israel is doing what it needs to do to eliminate the terrorist threat.

Israel vs. Hezbollah - what's the difference?

A poster to the Globe and Mail writes concerning the Israel-Lebanon conflict, "This is absolutly disgusting. What difference is there now between Israel and violent non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas?"

Here is my answer:

Israel is a sovereign state defending itself against unprovoked attacks involving bombing, murder, kidnapping and violation of its border by lawless Muslim terrorist groups which wish Israel's extinction.

Israel, for its part, merely wants to exist in peace with secure borders.

Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties; the terrorists seek to maximize them.

Israel warns civilian areas when attacks are imminent; the terrorists hope to surprise civilians.

The terrorists are motivated by the desire to terrorize and kill and maim; the Israelis are motivated by the desire to secure their borders and end the attacks on their territory.

If the Muslims disarm, there would be immediate peace in the region. If the Israelis disarm, they would be immediately annihilated.

Jack Layton is on the air

I'm watching Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP Party, on CPAC.

He says that Canada under Stephen Harper has lost its vaunted neutral-broker status in the Middle East.

This is piffle. The Liberals/NDP clearly side with the Islamist extremists and terrorists against Israel. There is nothing neutral about their stand. They like to put terrorists on a par with a democratic state.

He is calling on Canada to urge an immediate mutual cease-fire. In other words, reward the terrorists by denying Israel the right to fight back.

He demands a ceasefire by Israel and adds Hezbollah too, almost as an afterthought.

He talks about the suffering in the area as if it were confined to Lebanon and Gaza and caused only by Israel. No mention of the unprovoked raid by Hezbollah that included invading Israel's sovereignty, killing and kidnapping its soldiers, and extensive bombing.

The Liberal/NDP mind is truly a wonder to behold.

I thank God that I am not a liberal.

I'll let you decide...

Here are some excerpts from a diary of one of the present middle eastern combatants.

Do you think the diarist is an Israeli or a member of Hezbollah?

I'll let you decide...

"X walks into the room, still in his jeans. He's been called to come ASAP. What's happening? He asks me. I update him, and we brief for our mission quickly. He is concerned about making mistakes, and bombing the wrong targets. He is experienced, and has been around long enough to see mistakes happen and innocent civilians killed. A friend of his... once mistook a letter in a target's name, and ended up shooting at the wrong target, killing a whole family. X does not want the same thing to happen to us. He emphasizes that there is no rush, that we must check and recheck every coordinate we receive, make sure we understand EXACTLY what we are supposed to target.

m o r e ...

It's strange how the focus in these missions is not to succeed, hit the target precisely, but rather - not to make any mistakes. The message is clear. Hitting the target is expected, no misses are acceptable. There aren't any congratulations for a well-performed mission. Only a hammer on the head if something goes wrong.

Sign of the times (1): "Money can't buy the thrill of saving"

"Money can't buy the thrill of saving".

It can't?

This sign is splashed across the wall at one of my favorite liquidator stores - Winners.

I must confess, I enjoy a bargain. But, I'm also an English major with an analytical bent.

So I'm stuck with trying to deconstruct this sign.

"Money can't buy the thrill of saving".

Let's see. Saving here means saving money. Money can't buy the thrill of saving. But isn't money precisely the thing needed to buy the thrill of saving? In order to save, don't you have to buy something? And in order to buy something, don't you need money? (Even if you buy it on your credit card, you have to pay eventually.)

"Money can't buy the thrill of saving".

There are two possible interpretations that would render this nonsensical slogan sensical.

The first is that the sign means "Save your money and don't buy anything -- the thrill of saving (by buying nothing) outweighs any pleasure you may experience from buying something here".

The second is that the sign is advocating shoplifting. Under this scenario, the sign wishes to state that the thrill of shoplifting (with 100% associated savings) outweighs any satisfaction achieved by buying the thing with money.

Or, perhaps the sign-writer was aiming for something more like "having money in your pocket can't compare with the thrill spending it on a bargain".

But still, it takes money to do this.

So, it still doesn't make sense.

But, in our present post-modern deconstructionist society, perhaps it doesn't need to. Words mean everything and nothing. We shouldn't expect them to always make sense. Perhaps it is sufficient that the slogan conveys some kind of emotion that suggests you will be happy buying stuff here.

Still, I would like to know what the sign-writer thought he or she was saying.

I've got an email inquiry into Winners. I'll let you know what they say.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

The Dutch lead they way...

The Netherlands has led the way in liberal-rights matters for years; Canadian Liberals have looked with unabashed admiration as the Dutch embraced homophilia, euthanasia, and prostitution, three subject areas that Liberals earnestly hope to transform into unnegotiable "Canadian values" in our lifetime. (They've already got "Susie has two Daddys" and "Johnny's got two Mommys" taught in kindergarten, but they will not rest until "Mary's Mom's a sex-trade worker, so's her Dad!", and "Grandpa just checked out", are also standard kindergarten fare. Under Court order, if necessary. Because, in Canada, "it's never too early to teach our children tolerance".)

So it is interesting, and, perhaps, instructive, to see the Dutch leading the way in perhaps what will become the last frontier, namely, pedophilia.

According to the AP:

A Dutch court has refused to ban a political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12.

One of the party's three known members was convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987.

In the Netherlands, the party has been dubbed the "pedophile party". (In fairness, it should be mentioned that the party is given no chance of success.)

In Canada, that party, or, at least, the one that seeks to keep the age of consent at the already discounted age of 14, is dubbed "the Liberals/NDP", who join with their friends at EGALE, the Liberal-funded militant homosexual-rights group, in trying to keep the age of consent low.

This raises a question.

Can a mere two years separate the ugliness of depraved pedophilia and the enlightened loftiness of "Canadian values" so cherished by the Liberals and NDP?

Militant Islam and the beginning of wisdom

I recently watched a video of a London-based Islamic rally to protest the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

The protesters chanted and placarded their desire for the annililation of Europe (and the taking of European wives as war booty). They chanted that Europe's 9/11 was on its way, and cheered Osama bin Laden, a "real man".

You might think that the police arrested the protesters for, oh, I don't know, genocidal hate-speech, treason maybe.

And you would be wrong.

Instead, the police, are you ready for this, arrested two non-Muslims for displaying the Mohammed cartoons.

Advocating the annihilation of a continent is OK; displaying a cartoon that might offend certain religious sensibilities, is not.

And this on the streets of (once) Christian Britain.

More and more it is looking like miltant Islam is God's chosen agent to chasten and/or punish apostate Christendom. He shows mercy upon whom He wills, and judgment upon whom He wills. And none can stay His hand.

He is to be loved, revered, and feared.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

In praise of disproportionate response...

Proportionate response.

It's a modern buzzword.

The idea is, if you are attacked, you must respond in kind. So, if someone invades your territory, and kills or kidnaps a couple of citizens, you must limit your response to killing or kidnapping two or three of their citizens, even if you possess overwhelming military superiority . Otherwise, your response would be disproportionate. Which is evil.

More evilthan the original act of aggression; that is explainable, excusable, inevitable really, caused by legitimate grievance against the West (all grievances against the West are legitimate). So, when the "bad guys" bring down the World Trade Centre towers, our PM of the day, Jean Chretien, says, "well, what did you expect?", or words to that effect. In other words, when attacked, we are to blame. When we respond, we are to blame. In short, we are always to blame, and attacks against us are always justified.

The problem with the disproportionate response doctrine is it doesn't work. The west thinks in terms of right and wrong. The Arab/Muslim mind thinks in terms of strong and weak. By making a "proportionate" response, you maintain the illusion that it's an evenly matched contest; you give the aggressor a continued hope of winning.

A good example of this is the Gulf War, Original Edition™. The allies limited their advance to the original UN Charter: they drove Iraq out of Kuwait, but stopped short of Baghdad. Right vs. wrong at work -- right to boot them out, wrong to invade their country and depose their ruler.

Wrong.

Saddam did not conclude that the west was reasonable, or compassionate by this act of generousity on our part; he concluded that we were weak (it would not have occurred to him that we might be strong but stupid).

No wonder he played the UN for years, weaving and bobbing around UN Inspection teams.

At the start of Gulf War, Redux™ Saddam thought he could win. Emboldened by Bill Clinton's cut-and-run in Somalia, he expected the West to fold as soon as the first photos of troops with bandaids reached the hometown newspapers.

Western media outlets certainly were willing to prove Saddam right. I remember the CBC starting their "things-are-getting-bogged-down-is-it-going-to-be-a-quagmire coverage just days before Saddam's troops crumpled and the allies marched unapposed into Badhdad.

Probably the best example of the effectiveness of a "disproportionate response" (as horrendous as this is) was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. It hurts me to say this because I feel deeply for the Japanese people and their suffering. But the dropping of the two bombs quickly and efficiently drove out from their minds thoughts that they could win, and replaced them with the deep conviction that they could not win. Peace soon followed.

That peace has been a lasting peace. And, rather than breeding resentment and further cycles of violence, the Japanese are our friends today.

If the proportionate response people had had their way back then, the Allies would have sent in wave after wave of troops; the war would have dragged on, and many more Allied lives would have been lost. Worse than this, even assuming that the Allies would have eventually won, an "honorable loss" may have left the Japanese thinking "maybe we can win the next one" (as happened with Germany in the Great War, followed by WWII.

"Maybe we can win the next one". Killer words.

What is needed in the face of aggression and evil is a disproportionate response. One that allows two thoughts to take hold of the aggressor's mind: a) our aggression triggers a costly response, and b) we cannot possibly win this.

In the present conflict in the Middle East, Israel should not give undue heed to the "appropriate response" crowd. Not to say that they should just carpet bomb the Islamic agressors, but they should feel to take a military response that they believe will achieve their objectives as soon as possible, with the fewest possible casualties. They need to drive home the following thought into the minds of the Islamic atackers "we cannot win this."

"We cannot win this".

The thought that brings peace to a generation.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Too good to be false

Christianity is sublime.

Just think.

That God would love his fallen creation so much that he would wrap himself for eternity in humanity, bear the punishment our rebellions deserve, and offer adopted status as God's very own, His sons and daughters to all those who choose to enter by His narrow gate.

It is too good to be false.

And all those who "think they're smarter than God", or insist on trusting in their own efforts, get left out.

And it's too God-exalting and humanity-humbling to have originated in the mind of man.

As the stunned, amazed angels said, as they began to grasp the honour bestowed upon mankind, and the awesome extent of God's saving love, "Glory to God in the highest!"

Yes!

Someday, all creation will join this chorus of praise, and all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

Someday, every knee, even the knees of the most ornery and stubborn, will bow; and every tongue, even the tongues of the most vile and blasphemous, will declare "Jesus Christ is Lord".

He won that right when the nails were pounded in the wood.

The world showed its true colours when it crucified the Lord of glory.

God showed the extent and depth of His love in the very same act.

He turned an act of unspeakable evil inside out, turning it into an act of inexpressible love.

Love so amazing

So sublime

Simply too good to be false.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Child Suicides and political correctness

A National Post article today reported a rise in child suicides in Canada. Not a huge number, in absolute terms, but a concern, nonetheless.

The article offered safe, politically correct reasons for this rise: increased societal pressures to grow up quickly, increased pressures to excel at school, etc. No mention whatsoever was made of the disintegrating family unit.

Rather than the politically correct reasons offered in this article, the rise in child suicides is more likely explained by the meteoric rise in Canada of adult-centered sexual rights, all of which come at the expense of a child's natural right to be born into a stable home consisting of the child's mother and father.

All these rights -- abortion, divorce, single-parenting, same-sex marriage -- indirectly violate the Commandment "thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother", because, implicit in this command is the understanding that a child is brought to birth to be raised by its father and mother.

God, in his wisdom and kindness, in the natural order of things, has provided children with mothers and fathers. Our society, by elevating sexual freedoms, has shattered this convention.

Should we be surprised when violating God's laws and provisions come at a destructive price?

Oh so soothing (but completely false)

There are many soothing, comforting ideas "out there". One of them, found in new age mysticism, is that God is in all of us.

This idea has found its way (surprise!) into Anglicanism.

A recent article, published in The Diocesan Times of Nova Scotia and PEI advocates meditation based on the notion that the Spirit of Christ inhabits every person; all you have to do is "tap in"!

Here is my response to this article:

This article contains the idea that the spirit of Christ dwells in every human being.

This comforting idea may fit the views of Hinduism or new-age enthusiasts, but is completely foreign to Christianity and its salvation imperative. Several passages of Scripture explicitly contradict it. From John's "you must be born again", to Paul's, "if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His", the witness of Scripture is uniform and emphatic: man, in his natural state, is not inhabited by God.

The fact that this false universalistic notion finds a home within the Anglican Church today perhaps explains why present-day evangelistic efforts are so anemic. If, in fact, the Spirit of Christ dwells in every human being, there is scarcely the impetus let alone the urgency to preach the gospel "that by all possible means I might save some" as the apostle Paul put it. It is Churches that believe that men and women in their natural state are perishing and need to be saved that engage in healthy and productive evangelistic efforts.

The positive confession highlighted in this article, "I honour the place of love and light, of peace and truth, that is inside you, and inside me", would be right at home with new-age beliefs, but not Christianity. How unlike the confessions of the saints when found in the presence of a holy God: Job ("now I see Him face to face, and repent in dust and ashes"), or Peter ("depart from me, Lord, I am a sinful man!), or Paul ("oh, wretched man that I am!"). And how unlike Jesus' own estimation of what proceeds out of the human heart! As for the human heart inevitably being a place of love and light, Jesus warned, "If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"

Christian meditation? By all means, for "my sheep hear my voice" and this is the privilege of every born-again believer in Christ. But first make sure that you have come to Christ by faith, and have received His Spirit. And don't expect his voice to echo the soothing platitudes of new age mysticism, but rather the comforting as well as discomforting admonitions of holy Scripture, for the Spirit you seek is its Author.

A Starter Kit:

I am the way, the truth, and the life

No one comes to the Father but by Me

Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish

You must be born again

He that believes on me shall never die.

Mother Jesus, part 2 (I told you so...)

In a previous post, I noted how the new Presiding Bishop-elect to the Episcopal Church referred to "our Mother Jesus" in her inaugural sermon.

I also said,

"... such language defies traditional Christian formulations. But that is what liberals do. And, if you call them on it, they respond by saying, "of course, I was speaking metaphorically and not concretely". Trouble is, they view all the language of the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical; none of it has actual substance. So they feel free to embellish and improvise."

Here is an excerpt from an article which addresses the controversy that followed her statement.

"I was trying to say that the work of the cross was in some ways like giving birth to a new creation," she said. "All language is metaphorical, [There it is -- ALL LANGUAGE IS METAPHORICAL - so, God is not really Jesus' Father; Jesus is not really God's Son, etc.]

"and if we insist that particular words have only one meaning and the way we understand those words is the only possible interpretation, we have elevated that text to an idol," [In other words, if you simple-mindedly believe what the Bible clearly declares or plainly states, you are an idolator; you are sinning by so doing].

"I'm encouraging people to look beyond their favorite understandings." [In other words, believe sophisticated me, and you'll be OK; believe what the Bible plainly states, and you're doomed.]

Such speech goes beyond mere foolishness; it is evil.

Who could follow such a foolish, misguided woman; or believe that her words carry even a drop of apostolic authority?

Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldier..

The G&M bloggers are having a field day with Israel's military response to the kidnapping of one of its soldiers on Israeli soil. Here is my response:

Israel wants nothing more than to exist and live in peace.

It has already lost too many of its precious sons and daughters to war.

The surrounding Arab nations want nothing more than Israel's annihilation.

The only thing that Arabs seem to understand is brute force; they view concessions as a sign of weakness. If force is the only language Arab nations understand, then Israel must speak loudly and clearly.

Israel's military response to terrorism on its soil is justified.