True Believers

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats, "The Second Coming"

Warning: This piece is going to be long. It is also, in a weird way, a review of Joss Whedon's Serenity, since that movie finally released the block that's been keeping me from writing this essay for about a week, though work has conspired to keep me from posting it for the last four days. (Congratulations, Joss. I walked out of the theater Wednesday night with my mind whirring at mach 6, as the gears meshed and the tumblers tumbled and the mechanism, with groaning protest, unlocked. Serenity was excellent mental lubricant.) By now, I hope, most of my readers have already read one or more reviews of the film or have seen it, and have some familiarity with the background of that universe and its characters. Anyway, to proceed:

As I said last weekend, I watched the Jim Carrey movie The Majestic, and it inspired the idea for not one, but two posts. However, I was only able to write the first post. The second stubbornly refused to gel in my mind. I fought with it most of last week, and then Wednesday night I went to the Tucson Serenity sneak preview.

I don't think I got out of the film what most of the rest of the audience did. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it very much, but the underlying theme of the film spoke to me. We in the audience were not, of course, allowed to record anything, so lines I "quote" will be my best recollection or paraphrasing (and if you've not yet seen the film and don't want to know anything in detail about it, stop reading now.) The theme is "true believers."

Captain Malcolm Reynolds, the protagonist, was once, but is no longer a True Believer. One of the rebel "Browncoats," he had his belief beaten out of him at the battle of Serenity Valley. Now he just wants to be as free from the interference of the Alliance government as is humanly possible. He wants to be an individual. He wants his freedom. He is, if you want to draw a contemporary parallel, a practicing anarcho-capitalist living on the fringes of a totalitarian society (with the exception of the fact that he sees no problem with stealing from the Alliance at any opportunity). Although he'd probably have a hard time discussing his personal philosophy in detail, he has his own code that he lives by strictly.

The antagonist in the film, The Operative (since he is given no name), is a True Believer, and it is what he believes that grabbed my attention more than anything else in the film. The Operative believes that the Alliance is "building a better world - better worlds," and he acts as a mechanism to enable the Alliance to achieve its ends, even though he describes himself as "a monster, who will have no place" in those better worlds. The ends justify his means. "I don't murder children," Reynolds husks. "I do," replies The Operative, with a gentle smile.

Glenn Wishard, in a post at Canis Iratus last year entitled A Thumbnail History of the Twentieth Century wrote:

The rise and fall of the Marxist ideal is rather neatly contained in the Twentieth Century, and comprises its central political phenomenon. Fascism and democratic defeatism are its sun-dogs. The common theme is politics as a theology of salvation, with a heroic transformation of the human condition (nothing less) promised to those who will agitate for it. Political activity becomes the highest human vocation. The various socialisms are only the most prominent manifestation of this delusion, which our future historian calls "politicism". In all its forms, it defines human beings as exclusively political animals, based on characteristics which are largely or entirely beyond human control: ethnicity, nationality, gender, and social class. It claims universal relevance, and so divides the entire human race into heroes and enemies. To be on the correct side of this equation is considered full moral justification in and of itself, while no courtesy or concession can be afforded to those on the other. Therefore, politicism has no conscience whatsoever, no charity, and no mercy.

(Emphasis in original.) One of the themes that I repeat on this blog is the cockroach resilience of socialism/communism. The line that piqued me from The Majestic was a line that wasn't even in the original script. Set in 1951 during the McCarthy period, that film's protagonist has been subpoenaed to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Adele, the love-interest in the film, utters this:

This is a free country, you can be a communist if you want to be a communist!

I think Glenn's declaration that the 20th Century "neatly contains" the rise and fall of "the Marxist ideal" is a bit premature, but I fully concur with his conclusion that "politicism" has neatly divided societies in the manner described, and now, as Yeats put it in 1921, "The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." (That's a bit overstated, but we're talking poetry, not engineering.)

All of human history has encompassed the struggle to "create a better world." The question, "A better world for whom?" has often been glaringly omitted, but nevertheless, history has shown a continuing progression of improvement for the average individual in freedom, general health, life expectancy, and material wealth. Just ignore those hundreds of millions who have died along the way in misery, squalor, and agony from warfare, disease, starvation, malign neglect and deliberate murder. Don't you understand? They bore the cost of getting us here, and are bearing the cost of future advancement. As I quoted James Lileks in On Guillotines and Gibbets:

Personally, I’m interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process.

Human history is one of constant warfare, and the deadliest warfare hasn't been over land or over resources, but over ideology. Further, the deadliest warfare has arguably occurred during the last century, and worse, it has been committed by governments not against the military forces of other governments, but against civilians, both foreign and domestic. According to this site run by Rudolph J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii:

Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years.

America isn't left off this list, either.

During our takeover of the Philippines between 1899 and 1902, American soldiers undoubtedly tortured and deliberately murdered several thousand Philippine civilians, and tens of thousands more died of disease and starvation. This war, and our acts during it, was savaged by Mark Twain in his essay "A Defence of General Funston" in 1902. In the collection of Twain's works On the Damned Human Race, the preface to that essay includes this speech given by Massachusetts Senator George Hoar from 1903:

You, my imperialistic friends, have had your ideals and sentimentalities. One is that the flag shall never be hauled down where it has once floated. Another is that you will not talk or reason with people with arms in their hand. Another is that sovereignty over an unwilling people may be bought with gold. And another is that sovereignty may be got by force of arms....

What has been the practical statesmanship which comes from your ideals and sentimentalities? You have wasted six hundred millions of treasure. You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives, the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest, bringing their sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane....

The book also quotes Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge:

(God) has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America... The Philippines are ours forever. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world.

The more things change...

The Philippines only started our 20^th Century democidal activities, according to Professor Rummel. The sack of Peking after the Boxer Rebellion, the deliberate bombing of civilian populations during WWII, Korea and Vietnam followed. Rummel concludes:

Putting together all the subtotals in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people, conceivable[sic] even as many as 1,641,000 all told. Virtually all of these were foreigners killed during foreign wars. Domestically, throughout this century the American Federal or state governments were responsible for the murder of about 1 out of every 1,111,000 Americans per year.

And we're pikers.

According to Rummel:

Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.

Or, as he puts it on his main page:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
----Lord Acton

Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.
----This Web Site

And ideology kills, but the only thing that can oppose it is another ideology.

BELIEF

At war today are three mutually opposing ideologies. The first striving to "create a better world" is socialism. In its most virulent form, communism, it is responsible for the deaths of over one hundred million people. It has failed everywhere it has been tried; some failures being more spectacular (and bloody) than others. Glenn Wishard believes that "the Marxist ideal" is on its way out with the ending of the 20^th century. I'm not so sure. I don't think that species of cockroach is down for the count, apparently not here in the U.S., and certainly not in Europe. Not by a long shot.

The second ideology is "liberal democracy." We are, right now, engaged in warfare in the middle East trying to bring sovereignty and liberal democracy to fifty million people by force of arms. So far it has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, and about two thousand of the flower of our youth with many more wounded, and it shows no sign of ending soon.

The third ideology has been named "Islamism" - the forced spread of Wahabist Islam and the imposition of Sharia law upon the entire world. It is unknown how many that ideology has killed so far, but it's definitely in the hundreds of thousands at least, millions if you include the internecine warfare between the different islamist sects.

There are, of course, other ideologies extant in the world, but these three are predominant and currently in open warfare, both cold and hot. Many people have commented on the apparent willingness of those of the socialist ideology to act as a fifth column for the Islamists. Why, they wonder, do people who espouse a belief in fairness, equality, justice, religious freedom, and tolerance support an ideology that puts religious leaders above all, that makes women chattel, that makes homosexuality a capital offense, that makes the practice of any religion other than Islam a crime?

Because they BELIEVE - they believe that theirs is the only "true way" to utopia, and that America with its individualism, consumerism, and capitalism is the one true enemy, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Islamists won't spare them, but they don't care. Guillotines or car bombs in the public square, either is justifiable if it hastens the process. They have passionate intensity.

Following his own personal code, the character Malcolm Reynolds once again finds something to believe in. At the end of the film he and his entire crew embark on an almost certainly suicidal mission to tell the universe of the horrible secret they have uncovered. "The universe is gonna know the truth," he says. The Operative asks, "Are you willing to die for that?" He replies, "I am," and means it. Peter Appleton, Jim Carrey's character in The Majestic stands before the House Un-American Activites Committee and speaks of his belief in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, fully aware that he could go to jail for contempt of Congress (a valid charge, since he holds the proceedings in contempt.) He believes in something enough to take a risk, for the first time in his life.

We have people in the White House who believe. They believe that we can bring sovereignty to an oppressed people by force of arms. They believe that people - everyday average people, everywhere - want to be free. They believe that liberal democracy is the best form of government for that. They believe in capitalism. They believe in individualism. They believe. The people in our military, in the overwhelming majority, also believe. They are willing to die for it, and have been.

This is America. You can be a communist here if you want to be (but given its track record, I cannot imagine anyone of sound mind actually wanting to be.) We won't kill or even merely imprison you for your belief - unless you actively work to overthrow the Constitution of the United States, and even then your odds are pretty good. Socialists and their fellow-travellers are disproportionally represented in all levels of public education and the media, and have had literally decades to direct public thought. Yet (by the slimmest of margins) we've elected a leadership of True Believers of a different creed. This means that Yeats was wrong - the best do not lack all conviction. However, that doesn't make us True Believers, either. We are jaded by government. We are often disgusted by the things our government has done in our name, for us and to us and to others. Not enough of us are willing to risk for our convictions. We would rather try to be as free of government interference as possible, because we know that power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely. In the Firefly episode "War Stories," Shepherd Book speaks a line of great truth:

A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned.

But we are at a crossroad of history. Of the three ideologies that are fighting for the future, only one promises at least the possibility of restraint on the power of government. If we don't support that ideology, one of the others will most certainly be ascendant. People will die. Governments will kill them. The question is, how many, and will they die in vain?

What do you believe?

Quick Post.

Saw Serenity last night. Full house, 413 seat theater. Quick take: Excellent movie. Much longer post to follow, but I got up at 3:30 this morning, and I walked in the door to my home at 9:45PM this evening. Long day. Another one tomorrow.

Go see Serenity. You won't be disappointed if you like this blog.

Compass Resigns. Lawsuits to Follow.

Glad to see it. Hope it doesn't get him off the hook.

Police Superintendent Eddie Compass resigned Tuesday after four turbulent weeks in which the police force was wracked by desertions and disorganization in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath.

"I served this department for 26 years and have taken it through some of the toughest times of its history. Every man in a leadership position must know when it's time to hand over the reins," Compass said at a news conference. "I'll be going on in another direction that God has for me."

As the city slipped into anarchy during the first few days after Katrina, the 1,700-member police department itself suffered a crisis. Many officers deserted their posts, and some were accused of joining in the looting that broke out. Two officers Compass described as friends committed suicide.

The story goes on, but no mention of Compass's announcement that "Everyone will be disarmed. Only police officers will have guns." Nor was there any mention of the Federal District Court injunction against further confiscations, nor the claim by Nagin and Compass that they did not order any confiscations, and that no confiscations occurred, nor that the plaintiff in the case resulting in the injunction has had the guns that weren't confiscated from him returned.

Check out SayUncle and work your way backwards. He's got all the details.

Awwww DAMN.

Fellow blogger Dale of Mostly Cajun reports on the aftermath of Hurricane Rita's rampage through SW Louisiana as it directly affected him:

I got into my own van and headed to my house. I’d lost shingles and the chimney to my fireplace and the old TV antenna, in addition to some corrugated steel off my workshop. I’d brought a portable generator to power up my freezer and refrigerator so I wouldn’t lose any food. I connected that up and had them both running.

Further exploring the house, I found that I had water dripping inside from the damaged roof, so I spread some pans around to catch the drips and headed to my office to get a wet-vac and a ladder so I could suck up the water and put one of those blue tarps over the damaged roof.

When I got back, smoke was pouring out of my house. I called 9-1-1 to report the fire. After I finished reporting, I ran to the house to see if I could break in windows to let out my cats, but the smoke and the fierce heat coming off the building were so much that I couldn’t get within a few yards.

The local fire department responded very fast, but when they got there, the community water system was dry, killed by Hurrican Rita. They called for assistance from several nearby fire departments who transported water in, but the house was a total loss.

Did you ever think about what you lose? Four loyal pets...irreplaceable. Itty, Splot, Mollie, Callie, my four cats... Mom and Dad’s photo albums... photos of the past 80 years. My library...books I’d acquired over the past twenty-odd years. My gun collection... Personal papers... On and on and on... All gone. Devastation is an over-used word. I use it here...

Damn, Dale. What can I do to help?

OK, Ravenwood,

I'll see your fighting hamster, and raise you a commando gerbil!

Never take a knife to a gunfight!

(Thanks, Ben. I needed that!)

Newspeak

I watched a movie this afternoon that I hadn't seen in a while, The Majestic, starring Jim Carrey. It was set in 1951, during the House Unamerican Activities hearings. It's a sort of Capra-esque period film, but, given what's been happening in the news politically recently, it was interesting to watch. It has inspired this post, and hopefully one other if I can eke it out by tomorrow.

The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution? They’re pieces of paper with signatures on them. And you know what a piece of paper with a signature is? A contract. And contracts can be renegotiated at any time. - Author Michael Sloan from the screenplay for The Majestic, spoken by the character Leo Kubelsky, studio lawyer.

--

In his opening statement kicking off "Ghosts of Nominations Past: Setting the Record Straight," Sen. Schumer declared that Senate Democrats on the committee had been doing their level best to grapple with a breakdown in the process caused by Republicans. The problem, according to Sen. Schumer, went well beyond the stalling resorted to by Republicans when they were last in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The crux of the matter was President Bush's determination to pack the federal courts with "right-wing ideologues" in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, judges well outside of the mainstream, bent on implementing their extremist political views through conservative judicial activism. What was needed, Sen. Schumer proclaimed, was for the president to nominate moderates — by which he seemed to mean those who would interpret and enforce the law, rather than disregard and willfully rewrite it in order to advance a fierce partisan agenda. - Peter Berkowitz, National Review Online - It's Unanimous - May 17, 2002

--

(Senator Hillary) Clinton announced Thursday she will oppose Roberts after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 to recommend confirmation. The full Senate is expected to vote next week.

She cited "an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for chief justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches."

She added that after Roberts' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, "I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear."

She said her "desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweighs the respect I have for Judge Roberts' intellect, character and legal skills."

Edward Cox, a Manhattan lawyer and son-in-law of President Richard Nixon who also is seeking the GOP Senate nomination, said Clinton "had a chance to show that she could rise above blind partisanship and not be beholden to left-wing attack groups."

"The senator unfortunately has again decided to join the likes of Ted Kennedy and the liberal wing of her party in support of judicial activism," Cox added. - Associated Press story, 9/24/05

--

Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association. - AP Story, 9/21/05

--

If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.

But liberals have recently taken to pretending judicial activism is -- as The New York Times has said repeatedly -- voting "to invalidate laws passed by Congress." Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point. - Ann Coulter, Actually, 'Judicial Activism' Means E=MC²

--

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." - Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass

--

“My obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.” - Judge John Roberts, Senate confirmation testimony.

That's a lot of quotes, but hopefully you got the gist of it. For the Left, "judicial activism" is restraining "progressive" legislation (that just happens to contravene the Constitution). For the Right, "judicial activism" is creating law from the bench, or upholding "progressive" legislation though it violates the Constitution, because it "advances rights," (as the Left defines "advancing rights.")

The Senate Democrats proclaim that they want to make sure that Roberts is a "moderate," or at least not a "judicial activist." They've suddenly fallen in love with the concept of stare decisis. As I noted back in June over the Janice Rogers Brown nomination, at question is what Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky called "shred(ding) the last eighty years of American Constitutional law." Yet his counterpart, Chapman University law professor John Eastman rebuked him:

What happened seventy or eighty years ago that changed the Constitution? There was not a single amendment at issue in the 1930's that changed the Constitution. Some radical, federal programs were pushed through. Some radical judges, under pressure, finally signed on them, and the notion that we can't question that unconstitutional action that occurred in the 1930's, and somehow that defending that unconstitutionality is adherent to the rule of law, is rather extraordinary. There are scholars on left and right that have understood that what went on in the 1930's was...had no basis in Constitutional law, or in the letter of the Constitution itself.

But it extends well past the 1930's, and everyone in the Senate knows it. Chemerinski recently wrote:

Since (Lewis F.) Powell's resignation, Sandra Day O'Connor has been the fifth vote in such crucial areas as upholding the right to abortion, limiting campaign contributions, protecting the separation of church and state, and permitting universities to engage in affirmative action.

None of this was, in Chemerinski's eyes, "judicial activism," and he adds:

Democrats need to oppose any nominee who would bring about significant changes in these areas.

James Madison, writing under the pseudonym Publius, in Federalist #78 defined the intent of the Supreme Court:

By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

However, see: Kelo v. New London, Raich v. Gonzales, Wickard v. Filburn, Scott v. Sanford, U.S. v. Cruikshank, ...

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Which is why every elected and appointed Federal official swears an oath, not to the flag, not to the nation, not to the President nor to Congress, but to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But of course, if you're able to redefine the language, "uphold and defend" can mean anything you like. Just like "judicial activism."

Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning.

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Kelo v. City of New London, Thomas, J. dissenting.

--

The Court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize. Wabaunsee v. Umbehr, Scalia, J. dissenting.

--

That's the First Amendment, Mr. Chairman. It's the backbone of this nation. It's everything that gives us the potential to be right and good and just -- if only we'd live up to that potential. It's what gives me the right to sit in this chair and say my piece before this committee without fear. It's the most important part of the contract that every citizen has with this country. And even though this contract... the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- even though they're just pieces of paper with signatures on them -- they're the only contracts we have that are most definitely not subject to renegotiation. - Author Michael Sloan from the screenplay for The Majestic, spoken by lead character Peter Appleton.

Apparently Mr. Sloan hasn't been paying attention to the courts.

But he's bang-on-the-money about that "if only we'd live up to that potential" part.

I Hope Everyone's All Right.

Mostly Cajun and the Layabout Sailor have both headed for higher ground to get out of Rita's way, along with tens of thousands of their neighbors. Since Jim lives on his boat, I was heartened to see that Rita bore more Eastward and did not, in fact, slam directly into Galveston harbor. Hopefully the sloop New Dawn will be none the worse for wear when Jim comes home. Dale doesn't live on his boat, but he was more in the direct path of the storm. Dale, I hope like hell everything is still upright and tight when you get back.

To the rest of you out there that I don't know, best of luck to you all.

I KNEW This Blogging Thing Would Eventually Pay Off!

Via Instapundit, I'm now going to a Sept. 28 preview of Serenity! All I have to do is write a post reviewing the film afterwards.

I've mentioned Serenity here before. Specifically, I got the box-set DVDs of Firefly for Father's Day last year, this EXCELLENT cartoon from May, and this post from April linking to the first trailer. (Just establishing my bona fides.)

Man, I can't wait. This looks GOOD, unlike most of the dreck that Hollyweird's kicked out this year.

Tagline of the year: "I aim to misbehave."

UPDATE: Per the requirements to get into the advanced screening, the synopsis of the film:

Joss Whedon, the Oscar® - and Emmy - nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE, ANGEL and FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.

IMHO, the ensemble acting is some of the best I've seen since M*A*S*H. Maybe better.

And check THIS out:

Validation.

Me, election 2000:

Those of us still capable of intelligent, logical, independent thought have been overwhelmed by the public school system production lines that have been cranking out large quantities of substandard product for the last thirty-five years or so. The majority of three or four generations have managed to make it into the working world with no knowledge of history, no understanding of the Constitution or civics, no awareness of geography, no ability to do even mildly complex mathematics, no comprehension of science, and realistically little to no ability to read with comprehension, or write with clarity. And we seem to have developed attention spans roughly equivalent to that of your average small bird.

After all, about half the public accepted the Democratic premise that we were too stupid to vote correctly because their guy didn't win by a landslide, didn't they? And the other half was outraged, not that they made such a ludicrous argument, but that they didn't want to play fair and by the rules that no one seems to understand or to be able to explain.

The other majority party isn't blameless in this; they like an ignorant electorate too. It's easier to lead people who can't or won't think for themselves. It took both parties and many years of active bipartisan meddling to make the education system into an international laughingstock.

However, the end result of this downward spiral has been an electorate ignorant in the simple foundations of this country and its government. Most especially the foundation of a rule of law in which EVERYONE is equal under the laws of the land. The Democrats have taken advantage of this general ignorance to its logical extreme. President Clinton, when testifying under oath, debates the meaning of the word "is", and essentially gets away with it. Vice President Gore, when shown to be in direct violation of campaign finance law states that there was no "controlling legal authority".

Laws don't MEAN anything to them. A law is an inconvenient bit of wording that just has to be "interpreted" properly to achieve their ends. When they file suit, they must shop for the proper judge, or they might not be able to get the "spin" they want. Like the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland, words mean just what they want them to mean, no more no less. And that meaning can change at any time.

Paul Mirengoff, Sept. 15, 2005:

And herein lies the problem: to Democrats, respect for the rule of law doesn't count as a value. To them, the law is simply a pretext for achieving desired results or (if not suited for that work) an obstacle to be circumvented for the same purpose. No wonder John Roberts gives them the willies.

His was more brief, but we just said the same thing.

It's Been Over a Week, Now.

Since I sent my emails to Sen. Kyle, Sen. McCain, Rep. Kolbe, the White House and the Vice President. All I've received in acknowledgement is this:

Subject: FROM THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN JIM KOLBE
From: AZ08IMA.PUB@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV
Date: 9/11/2005 5:24 PM
To: (My other email address)

Your message has been received.

That's more than I've gotten from anybody else.

Ravenwood Fisks One.

So I don't have to.

This Doesn't Look Good.

And I've seen nothing on this side of the blogosphere about it.

UK DEFENDS IRAQI JAILBREAK

The British government has defended the actions of its troops in southern Iraq who forced their way into a prison and freed two of their soldiers arrested by Iraqi police.

It said its troops smashed into the jail cell only after negotiations to secure the release of the two men failed.

This comes as a suicide car bomber attacked a US diplomatic convoy in the northern city of Mosul, killing four Americans and wounding two others.

Defence Secretary John Reid told the BBC the two soldiers should have been handed over to British forces after being arrested by local police.

Earlier, senior UK army officer Brigadier John Lorimer said in a statement the men wound up in the custody of Iraqi militias.

"We don't actually know the details of why these people were handed over - whether it was under threats or by collusion, or whatever," Mr Reid said.

"What we do know is that under the law they should have been handed back to the British forces themselves. That is the law which enshrines our presence there.

"I understand also that the Minister of the Interior, at the highest level, instructed that they should be, that the local judicial authorities said the same," he said.

The Ministry of Defence said when the soldiers were not released, British forces broke down a perimiter wall at the police station, and found evidence that led them to a house where the two were held captive.

Basra's governor denounced the incident as a “barbaric” act of aggression.

“A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act,” Governor Mohammed al-Walli told the Associated Press.

An Iraqi interior ministry official told the AFP that the two Britons were involved in an undercover “intelligence-gathering mission”, a claim that has been neither confirmed nor denied by British military officials.

“They were driving a civilian car and were dressed in civilian clothes when a shooting took place between them and Iraqi patrols,” the official reportedly said.

The pair were said to be wearing traditional Arab headdresses and clothing.

Mohammed al-Badi, an official with the Basra governor’s office, said the two men had appeared suspicious to police.

“A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them,” Mr Abadi said.

They were reportedly arrested and charged with shooting two Iraqi policemen.

Arab satellite television networks broadcast photos of two Western men, identified only as Britons, seated on the floor of the jail, one with a bandage covering most of the top of his head and the other with blood on his clothes.

The incident has forces tensions between UK troops and Shi'tes in southern Iraq to an all-time low, and followed a chaotic day of rioting in which at least two Iraqis were killed.

The clashes raise questions about how much sovereignty Iraqi authorities have really been granted when the US-led Coalition
Provision Authority handed over power to an interim Iraqi government in the northern summer of 2004.

The soldiers' arrests sparked violent protests outside the prison after Iraqi demonstrators reacted angrily to the presence of British armoured units.

Petrol bombs, burning furniture and tyres and stones were hurled at the troops.

At one point, a British soldier was seen fleeing from a tank, his body covered in flames.

Two Iraqis were killed in the clashes, an interior ministry official said.

Tensions in the comparatively peaceful, Shi’ite dominated south have been simmering since Sunday, when British forces arrested three members of the Mehdi Army, a militia group loyal to radical Shi’ite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr.

Among the three was the group’s Basra commander, Sheik Ahmad Majid al-Fartusi.

The Left is going to have a field day with this. I hope the soldier who was burned makes it. The pictures I've seen are not encouraging.

They Never EVER Stop

Part Who-the-Hell-Can-Keep-UP?

Via David Codrea's War on Guns comes this mendacious and malicious op-ed from the Strib:

Guns at work/A recipe for danger, not defense
September 19, 2005

Neil Mahmoud had every reason to live. Newly married and on the verge of a career as a computer programmer, the 23-year-old student saw little peril in his job at an Apple Valley convenience store. The job entailed ejecting the occasional troublemaker, of course, and just this July Mahmoud tossed out two young men who tried to rob the place with a pellet gun.

Good thing they didn't have a real gun. Or a knife. Or a crowbar. Or a really bad attitude (it was two against one.)

But the neighborhood was regarded as supremely safe, and locals were shocked late last month when Mahmoud was found on the shop floor bleeding to death from a gunshot wound. How could such horror invade a tranquil town?

It invaded not because a criminal came to call, but because the store's owner had recently purchased a gun. The weapon was meant to deter robbers and protect employees, but -- as too often is the case -- ended up underwriting a tragedy. The person who shot Mahmoud, police have determined, wasn't an intruder. All evidence suggests that Mahmoud shot himself -- accidentally.

The accident may seem a fluke, a rare and unfortunate happenstance hardly worth a second thought.

That's because in this case it is a fluke. If it were common, you wouldn't be reading about it in an op-ed. Man-bites-dog. If-it-bleeds-it-leads.

In truth, Mahmoud's needless death vividly illustrates the folly of counting on guns for safety.

Right. An absolute minimum of 68,000 defensive gun uses per year, but "counting on guns for safety" is "folly." Tell that to the Algiers Point Militia. Tell it to Joyce Cordoba.

But the first mendacity:

Thousands of accidental gun deaths occur in this country every year.

Thousands? As in "In excess of two thousand?"

No.

The editorialist just lied to you. According to the Centers for Disease Control WISQARS tool the number of accidental gunshot deaths in 2002 was 762. In 2001 it was 802. In 2000, 776. In 1999, 824. That's quite a few, but those aren't scary numbers like the vague "thousands" that could imply 7,000, 8,000, 9,000 or more are they?

The key to reducing the number is clear.

Of course it is! "Reduce the number of guns!"

More than a decade ago, a study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that private gun ownership heightens a household's risk of homicide threefold and raises the likelihood of suicide five times above that of a gun-free household.

That's our friend Dr. Arthur Kellermann's study. I discuss Dr. Kellermann in This is the Kind of Thing that REALLY IRRITATES ME, from June of 2003. (See why I say they never EVER stop?) Note the logical fallacy of correlation = causation. If you own a gun, it will cause you to suicide or become a victim of homicide. Not that you might own a gun because you live in a dangerous neighborhood, or you purchase a gun because you have suicidal feelings. Oh no. The evil mind-altering waves given off by firearms are the cause of Bad Things Happening.

The Joyce Cordoba link above relates the following:

Former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel writes: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

What do "gun control activists" say?

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's Web site displays this oft-quoted "fact": "The risk of homicide in the home is 3 times greater in households with guns." Their Web site fails to mention that Arthur Kellermann, the "expert" who came up with that figure, later backpedaled after others discredited his studies for not following standard scientific procedures.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Kellermann now concedes, "A gun can be used to scare away an intruder without a shot being fired," admitting he failed to include such events in his original study. "Simply keeping a gun in the home," Mr. Kellermann says, "may deter some criminals who fear confronting an armed homeowner."

He adds, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide -- i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat."

That op-ed was signed. By Larry Elder. Back to Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous:

In short, having a gun close at hand is generally more dangerous than not having one. Plain logic suggests that this is true not just on the home front but in the workplace as well -- and research bears out the speculation. Workplace violence has become an American commonplace, and those who study it insist that blessing the presence of guns on the job can only bring more bloodshed.

Got some cites? Names of "those who study it"? Another example of argument by "appeal to authority" - anonymous authority. "Take my word for it! I'm unbiased!"

"Workplace violence" seems to be a new stick with which to beat the gun-control drum, attempting to frighten people into defenselessness, but read the FBI's 2004 report Workplace Violence (an 80-page PDF file) where it reports that from 1993-1999 there were an average of 900 workplace homicides annually (more than the average number of accidental deaths by gunshot) and

(V)iolence by criminals otherwise unconnected to the workplace accounts for the vast majority - nearly 80 percent - of workplace homicides. In these incidents, the motive is usually theft, and in a great many cases, the criminal is carrying a gun or other weapon, increasing the likelihood that the victim will be killed or seriously wounded. This type of violence falls heavily on particular occupational groups whose jobs make them vulnerable: taxi drivers (the job that carries by far the highest risk of being murdered), late-night retail or gas station clerks, and others who are on duty at night, who work in isolated locations or dangerous neighborhoods, and who carry or have access to cash.

Robbery. Not accident. Victims like Mr. Mahmoud, even though his Stop-and-Rob was in a good neighborhood.

More than that, however, is this little tidbit:

As the total number of guns in circulation has gone up, as the total number of people with concealed-carry licenses has done likewise, workplace homicide has been declining. I'm not arguing correlation = causation. I'm arguing the opposite. More guns does not equal more death.

But this guy is.

As researcher Dean Schaner has argued in a book about employer liability, "It is far more foreseeable that an employee will be injured in a workplace full of guns and an environment reminiscent of the Old West, than one in which weapons are prohibited."

And here we have an invokation of Ravenwood's Law: "As a discussion about guns grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Dodge City or the Wild West approaches one."

All tragedies give rise to a flood of "if onlies." Surely all who cared for Neil Mahmoud are consumed with thoughts about how his life might have been saved. Yet such thoughts should preoccupy not just those mourning this charming young man, but all Minnesotans. This tragedy teaches a lesson to which employers -- and all of us -- should hold fast: To keep the workplace safe, banish weapons.

Right. So only the criminals and disgruntled employees can have a "safe working environment."

Sell it somewhere else. The American public isn't buying it. They're buying guns.

Get Your Kim du Toit Fix, While It Lasts!.

Jim at Smoke on the Water has the link to the Kim du Toit archives. Per his request, I'm linking to his post, rather than directly to the archive. As he says, "save what you can while you can."

I doubt we've heard the last of the du Toit clan, but right now a lot of people are suffering psychological withdrawal.

Michael Bane's Got a Good Point.

Read what he has to say. I'm in complete agreement with him.

We still have a long way to go.

Oh, and the Best of Me Symphony #95 is Up.

I've got an entry this week, too. I forgot to post about last week's, of which (IMHO) this was by far the best entry: Don Surber's Clone Clarence Thomas.

Amen. Ramen!

An Atheist No Longer.

I am now a Pastafarian! I realize that I'm a late convert, but no less sincere for that! I have been touched by His noodly appendage!

(For those without a sense of humor, get a life!)

Militias

Last month, as most of you are aware, I had an abbreviated debate with guest poster Alex on the meaning of the Second Amendment. As I noted in the first post of the debate, I ran into Alex in the comments of a post at Ian Hammet's Banana Oil! In that comment thread, Alex raised this question:

When was the last time an “armed militia” did anything at all to protect my freedom? Can you give even one example? A free press that can expose government overreaching, that gives me freedom. The right to protest and create a groundswell of changes through civil disobedience, that gives me freedom. The military that keeps the fight with our enemies away from my doorstep, that gives me freedom. Many people have died (or at least put their own lives at risk) in these pursuits just in an attempt to keep you and I free.

I responded:

(C)oncerning your comment “When was the last time an ‘armed militia’ did anything at all to protect my freedom? Can you give even one example?” I can give an example of how an “armed militia” has protected it’s own freedom. I can give you four, in fact, quite easily.

First, during the Los Angeles “Rodney King” riots, the Korean community armed itself in defense of their businesses and prevented arson and looting. Second, during the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, residents of the devistated areas armed themselves and again defended against looting until law enforcement could be reestablished. Third, Secretary of State Rice recently recounted to Larry King how her father and others armed themselves in defense against “night riders” during the civil rights struggle. And finally, I recommend that you read up on The Battle of Athens, TN. These may not have affected you, personally, but I assure you, these incidents affected the participants greatly. And before you complain that these acts were not carried out by “militia,” I feel it necessary to inform you that according to the U.S. Code, Title 10, subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13 § 311 defines the militia as:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Those involved in these actions fall under subsection 2 - the “unorganized militia."

Alex took exception, of course:

As for the Militia- I would argue that if you go by the definition where anybody of a certain age with a gun constitutes a militia, then yes, maybe there have been acts of liberty by “militias”. However the more prevalent (and realistic) definition (the first one usually listed in a dictionary tends to be the more generally accepted one) is:

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

By that definition I would argue that none of the “examples” you provided were, in fact, militias. (The one debateable example would be the Tennesee folks since they had some basic military training- but even that seems like a stretch).

To turn your argument on its head- by your definition, Condaleeza father was simply facing another “militia”, right? The “Knight Riders” were armed folks trying to get what they want since the government wouldn’t do it for them. It doesn’t matter the intention of these groups by your definition, they should all be armed. Hey, the looters were armed too (some of them), does that make them a “militia”? I would argue it is the formal weapons and tactics training aspect that seperates a true militia (one that could be looked at as an “army of citizen soldiers”) , from a bunch of idiots with guns. If my neighbor’s house is burning and I turn my garden hose on it, that doesn’t make me a fireman.

My rejoinder:

"I would argue that if you go by the definition where anybody of a certain age with a gun constitutes a militia, then yes, maybe there have been acts of liberty by 'militias'.” That would be the legal definition, by the statute quoted. However, "I would argue it is the formal weapons and tactics training aspect that seperates a true militia (one that could be looked at as an 'army of citizen soldiers') , from a bunch of idiots with guns." I would argue that it most definitely is not "formal weapons and tactics training" - it is intent. Is the intent of the group or individuals to uphold and defend the rules of society, or break them? Does the group or individual protect and defend the intent and purpose of the Constitution, or does it seek to violate it? Whether the group or individuals are "formally trained" is immaterial. The "formally trained" classification divides the "organized militia" from the "unorganized militia."

By that definition, how would you define Ms. Rice's father and his group, and how would you define the "night riders" they were defending against? The Korean shopkeepers? The Miami homeowners? The looters? The mobs?

Alex did not address this last question.

Well, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina certainly illustrates the dichotomy between the looters and the "unorganized militia" in stark contrast once again. Certainly most people interested in this topic are familiar with the Algiers Point militia story:

The Algiers Point militia put its armaments away Friday as Army troops patrolled the historic neighborhood across the Mississippi River from the French Quarter.

But the band of neighbors who survived Hurricane Katrina and then fought off looters has not disarmed.

"Pit Bull Will Attack. We Are Here and Have Gun and Will Shoot," said the sign on Alexandra Boza's front porch. Actually, said the spunky woman behind the sign, "I have two pistols."

"I'm a part of the militia," said Boza. "We were taking the law into our own hands, but I didn't kill anyone."

She did quietly open her front door and fire a warning shot one night when she heard a loud group of young men approaching her house.

About a week later, she said she finally saw a New Orleans policeman on her street and told him she had guns.

"He told me, 'Honey, I don't blame you,' " she said.

For days after the storm, the several dozen people who did not evacuate from Algiers Point said they did not see any police or soldiers but did see gangs of intruders.

So they set up what might be the ultimate neighborhood watch.

At night, the balcony of a beautifully restored Victorian house built in 1871 served as a lookout point. "I had the right flank," said Vinnie Pervel. Sitting in a white rocking chair on the balcony, his neighbor, Gareth Stubbs, protected the left flank.

They were armed with an arsenal gathered from the neighborhood — a shotgun, pistols, a flare gun and a Vietnam-era AK-47. They were backed up by Gregg Harris, who lives in the house with Pervel, and Pervel's 74-year-old mother, Jennie, who lives across Pelican Street from her son and is known in Algiers Point as "Miss P."

Many nights, Miss P. had a .38-caliber pistol in one hand and rosary beads in the other.

"Mom was a trouper," said Pervel.

The threat was real.

On the day after Katrina blew through, Pervel had been carjacked a couple of blocks from his house. A past president of the Algiers Point Association homeowners group, Pervel was going to houses that had been evacuated and turning off the gas to prevent fires.

A guy with a mallet "hit me in the back of the head," said Pervel. "He said, 'We want your keys.' I said, 'here, take them.' "

Inside the white Ford van were a portable generator, tools and other hurricane supplies. A hurt and frustrated Pervel threw pliers at the van as it drove off and broke a back window.

Another afternoon, a gunfight broke out on the streets as armed neighbors and armed intruders exchanged fire in broad daylight. "About 25 rounds were fired," said Harris. Blood was later found on the street from a wounded intruder.

Not far away, Oakwood Center mall was seriously damaged in a fire caused by vandals.

"We were really afraid of fires. These old houses are so close together that if one was set afire, the whole street would all go up," said Harris. "We lived in terror for a week."

Their house is filled with antique furniture, and there's a well-kept garden and patio in back. "We've been restoring this house for 20 years," said Harris.

There are gas lamps on the columned porch that stayed on during the storm and its aftermath. The militia rigged car headlights and a car battery on porches of nearby houses. Then they put empty cans beneath trees that had fallen across both ends of the block.

When someone approached in the darkness, "you could hear the cans rattle. Then we would hit the switch at the battery and light up the street," said Pervel. "We would yell, 'we're going to count three and if you don't identify yourself, we're going to start shooting.' "

They could hear people fleeing and never fired a shot.

During the days, the hurricane holdouts patrolled the streets protecting their houses and the ones of evacuees.

"I was packing," said Robert Johns. "A .22 magnum with hollow points and an 8mm Mauser from World War II with armor-piercing shells."

Despite their efforts, some deserted houses were broken into and looted, said Pervel.

Now the Algiers Point militia has defiantly declared it will not heed any orders for mandatory evacuation. The relatively elevated neighborhood area is across the Mississippi River from the city's worst flooded areas and has running water, gas and phone service.

"They say they're going to drag us kicking and screaming from our houses. For what? To take us to concentration camps where we'll be raped and killed," said Ramona Parker. "This is supposed to be America. We're honest citizens. We're not troublemakers. We pay our taxes."

"It would be cruel for the city to make us evacuate after what we've been through," said Pervel.

The roof was damaged on her house and the rains left "water up to my ankles," said Boza. So she moved into her mother's nearby home.

She said she still has 42 bullets to expend before she could be forcibly evacuated.

"Then I hope the men they send to pull me out are 6 feet 2 inches and really cute," she said. "I'll be struggling and flirting at the same time."

By BOB DART,
Cox News Service
Monday, September 12, 2005

In Biloxi, Mississippi, the same:

Jeffrey Powell yanked the cushions off his living room sofa and arranged them on the bed of his truck. Then he got his shotgun, made himself comfortable, and spent the night in his driveway, protecting his hurricane-ravaged home and enjoying whatever breeze he could catch on a steamy night.

Powell is part of the Popps Ferry Landing neighborhood watch, a group of citizens trying to restore order and peace in their middle-class community a week after Hurricane Katrina brought her chaos.

"We're not going to have any looters out here," said Dan Shearin, 56, Powell's next-door neighbor. "We have some burly men who are sleeping outside with guns. If the looters come, we'll take care of them."

They haven't shot anyone, but they had to scare off a few groups of people they didn't know in the middle of the night, Shearin said.

As stories of violent and desperate looters have made their way across Mississippi, people in communities where law enforcement has been overwhelmed are reaching for their guns to police their streets.

In Popps Ferry Landing, many neighbors had lived near each other for years but had never spoken. The realization that their safety and homes were vulnerable and police presence was scarce brought them together quickly. The Dollar Store up the road was looted and vandalized pretty badly.

"We haven't exactly seen organized law enforcement out here," said Hugh Worden, 53, who lives on the other side of Powell. "The first day after the storm, we saw law enforcement out here. After that, there's not been much patrol. I suppose police are protecting the main streets."

Worden, a manager at Treasure Bay Casino before it was destroyed, said he has talked to everyone within three blocks of his home.

"The good thing is, now we all know each other," he said.

Popps Ferry Landing is tucked away in an enclave of western Biloxi, not far from Pass Road, the main east-west thoroughfare through town. Most of the houses here are two-story Colonials built in the early 1990s, and valued between $100,000 and $175,000. Many lost all or part of their roofs in the storm, and on some the entire front was torn away, as well. Piles of wood and aluminum siding stand in yards. So many trees are down, the road is an obstacle course.

Shearin said he did not sleep outside with a gun, but like most of his neighbors, he owns one. He has a Smith & Wesson .38.

"If I see somebody who's not supposed to be here, I'd shoot over their head," he said. "I wouldn't shoot anyone. I'm not a violent person -- not yet, anyway."

Shearin, a retired phone salesman, said he has been disappointed that police don't have the manpower to deal with looters.

"What good is the federal government?" he asked. "You've got to take care of yourself."

Sitting on his porch drinking a bottle of Aquafina, Shearin said he'd never seen as much destruction as Katrina brought.

"The terrorists couldn't do this much damage," he said.

He and his wife, Dottie, said they'd like to get out of Biloxi for a while, but they, like their neighbors, have to stay and wait for insurance claim agents to come by and assess the damage. The Shearins lost half their roof and most of their back yard, including a new hot tub.

"We are waiting on the insurance agents," Dottie Shearin said. "They have to come by and make a visual inspection."

Around the corner, Marti McKay, 30, said she and other neighbors have scattered their cars around the street to make it look as if everyone is home. It was scariest before they got their power back Saturday.

"It's nerve-racking at night around here because it's so dark," McKay said. "It's so quiet. We're used to the sound of air conditioning, and lights."

Her housemate Robin Frey helped organize some spotlights in the neighborhood powered by generators. And neighbor Oliver Fayard, 49, walked the streets with a flashlight to check on everyone.

"You didn't have a choice but to get out there and network," Frey said. "We saw some cars we didn't know that came through the neighborhood. We gave them a look to kill. We made it known these are not vacant houses."

By Allison Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 5, 2005; Page A23

Another example from New Orleans:

When night falls, Charlie Hackett climbs the steps to his boarded-up window, takes down the plywood, grabs his 12-gauge shotgun and waits. He is waiting for looters and troublemakers, for anyone thinking his neighborhood has been abandoned like so many others across the city. Two doors down, John Carolan is doing the same on his screened-in porch, pistol by his side. They are not about to give up their homes to the lawlessness that has engulfed New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

"We kind of together decided we would defend what we have here and we would stay up and defend the neighborhood," says Hackett, an Army veteran with a snow-white beard and a business installing custom kitchens.

"I don't want to kill anybody," he says, "but I'd sure like to scare 'em."

With generators giving them power, food to last for weeks and several guns each for protection, the men are two of a scattered community holed up across the residential streets of the city's Garden District, a lush neighborhood with many antebellum mansions.

The streets, where towering live oaks once offered cool shade, are now often impassable because of huge fallen branches and downed power lines. Lovely porches framed in wrought iron lay smashed. Many of the homes appear only slightly damaged, or even untouched.

But the neighborhoods are stunningly empty, and so quiet that they sound like a forest.

It is a short drive but a world away from the city's downtown, where tens of thousands of hungry, thirsty and increasingly angry people waited in misery at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center before evacuations finally began.

Here, Carolan starts his nightly watch by lighting a big fire in his barbecue pit. Hackett turns his lights on and jams a 15-foot wooden brace against the front door so no one can break through.

The night is "black, black, black," Hackett says. "It reminds me of when I was in Vietnam, it reminds me of Dac To."

They have not had a problem staying awake. Each night there are gunshots in the distance, sometimes people walking through, an occasional car driving by.

"Last night I had to draw down on some people," Carolan says. A car with what sounded like a crowd of drunken, partying kids came through and stopped.

"I had to come out with a flashlight in one hand, pistol in the other," he says, crossing his arms like an X. "I said: `Who are you? Do you live here? What are you doing here?' They said, `We're leaving.'"

Hackett, who in his 50s, lives alone, with his two cats and a bunch of neighbor's pets that he is caring for. Carolan, 46, is keeping watch with his brother, wife, son, and 3-year-old granddaughter.

In the first few days, they were especially fearful. Looters smashed windows and ransacked a discount store and a drugstore a few streets over. Three men came to Carolan's house asking about his generator and brandished a machete. He showed them his gun and they left.

"It was pandemonium for a couple of nights. We just felt that when they got done with the stores, they'd come to the homes," Hackett says. "When it's not easy pickings, they'll go somewhere else."

Things have gotten quieter, the men say, but not quiet.

"What do you say, I'm a survivor," John Carolan says with a laugh, thinking of the reality TV show. "Hey, give me the million bucks now."

How long can Carolan and the others hold out?

Hackett has enough gas and food for a month. Carolan says they have weeks' worth of food and bug repellent, and he will siphon gas from left-behind cars to keep his electricity going.

"Everything we have is in our homes. With the lawlessness in this town, are you going to walk away from everything you built?" Carolan says. "A lot of people think we're stupid. They say, `Why did you stay?' I say, `Why didn't you stay?'"

ROBERT TANNER
Associated Press
Sept. 5, 2005

These are just a couple of the stories of people arming themselves and organizing. The militia is made up of all the population who are willing and able to come together to assist in the defense of people and property against enemies foreign and domestic.

Alex tried to claim that the KKK and looters qualified as "militia" under the legal definition spelled out in U.S. Code, Title 10, subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13 § 311. Not so, and it is blindingly apparent to anyone who is not self-deluded into believing that guns in the hands of the law-abiding are a threat to the safety of the public.

Remember: Any law that could be passed to "reduce the number of guns" in circulation, will reduce the number of guns in the hands of the law-abiding - not the criminal, nor the criminally inclined. It will disarm the victims, not the perpetrators.

Ask Patricia Konie. And do a Google News search on Ms. Konie. She's not to be found on any Mainstream Media link. Interesting, isn't it?

Square on Jefferson's Chest.

I can live with that. Another one of those useless internet quizzes, the OK Cupid Politics Test. My score:

I can concur with that conclusion. But John Kerry being nearly dead-center? I find that difficult to believe.

Someone Else Getting Educated?.

I check my sitemeter stats a couple of times a day just to see how things are going. Every now and then I see something like this:

Over two and a half hours and 24 pages viewed. I figure the people who do this are either really pissed off (or aghast) about what I have to say, or really interested. But as far as I can tell, they hardly ever leave any comments either way.

I find that lack of feedback odd, when someone would invest that much time reading.

UPDATE:

Holy smokes! Look! New Orleans is back online!