According to this story from AP, campus idiotarians are protesting Israeli policies. I weep at such a blatant display of historical ignorance:

Students for Justice in Palestine likened the current Mideast violence to the Holocaust — only with the Palestinians as the victims. They also called for the university to divest any Israel-related investments.

They are equating chasing down terrorists and enemy soldiers cravenly hiding among civilian populations, with putting men, women and children into trains and shipping them off to be shot, or gassed. As someone who probably lost relatives in the latter manner, I am beyond outrage.

“This really should be Holocaust prevention day,” said Sarah Weir, a 23-year-old cognitive science major.

I read stuff like this, and I just want to take them by the shoulders and shake them until the oatmeal that passes for cognitive machinery comes out of their ears.

A cognitive science major? She should stop studying thinking for a while, and just try doing it instead. But one wonders if she has the equipment for it.

I already mentioned this this morning (a few posts down), but here’s a press story. The Church is angry at the Israelis for shooting at the Church of the Nativity (in apparent response to sniper fire from it). No similar anger is expressed at the Palestinian commandos who took over the place.

In fact, not only are they not angry, but they’re attempting to negotiate a deal to move them to Gaza, after they’ve given up their weapons.

Why are they doing this? Do they think they’ve done nothing wrong? Or is it because they don’t want the church to sustain any more damage, and risk the lives of the hostages (who they will not admit are hostages) in the battle that it would require to capture or kill them?

If the former, they are moral morons, and don’t deserve to run a Sunday school, let alone a Christian church. If the latter, then it’s clear that the church and its inhabitants are hostages to the situation, regardless of the mealy-mouthed platitudes being pronounced by their eminences.

And either way, they’re apparently perfectly comfortable with rewarding terrorism with freedom to go out and do it some more (there’s likely no shortage of replacement guns in Gaza).

Christians everywhere should be outraged.

I already mentioned this this morning (a few posts down), but here’s a press story. The Church is angry at the Israelis for shooting at the Church of the Nativity (in apparent response to sniper fire from it). No similar anger is expressed at the Palestinian commandos who took over the place.

In fact, not only are they not angry, but they’re attempting to negotiate a deal to move them to Gaza, after they’ve given up their weapons.

Why are they doing this? Do they think they’ve done nothing wrong? Or is it because they don’t want the church to sustain any more damage, and risk the lives of the hostages (who they will not admit are hostages) in the battle that it would require to capture or kill them?

If the former, they are moral morons, and don’t deserve to run a Sunday school, let alone a Christian church. If the latter, then it’s clear that the church and its inhabitants are hostages to the situation, regardless of the mealy-mouthed platitudes being pronounced by their eminences.

And either way, they’re apparently perfectly comfortable with rewarding terrorism with freedom to go out and do it some more (there’s likely no shortage of replacement guns in Gaza).

Christians everywhere should be outraged.

I already mentioned this this morning (a few posts down), but here’s a press story. The Church is angry at the Israelis for shooting at the Church of the Nativity (in apparent response to sniper fire from it). No similar anger is expressed at the Palestinian commandos who took over the place.

In fact, not only are they not angry, but they’re attempting to negotiate a deal to move them to Gaza, after they’ve given up their weapons.

Why are they doing this? Do they think they’ve done nothing wrong? Or is it because they don’t want the church to sustain any more damage, and risk the lives of the hostages (who they will not admit are hostages) in the battle that it would require to capture or kill them?

If the former, they are moral morons, and don’t deserve to run a Sunday school, let alone a Christian church. If the latter, then it’s clear that the church and its inhabitants are hostages to the situation, regardless of the mealy-mouthed platitudes being pronounced by their eminences.

And either way, they’re apparently perfectly comfortable with rewarding terrorism with freedom to go out and do it some more (there’s likely no shortage of replacement guns in Gaza).

Christians everywhere should be outraged.

Lone-Star-state reader Greg Lange points out this bit of all-too-typical tripe and “shrub” bashing from the unredoubtable Molly Ivins. It’s all pretty bad, but the part that really got to me was:

Sharon himself started this second Intifada with his cruelly reckless and deliberately inflammatory visit to the Temple Mount. Took no genius to see what that was going to touch off. If you want to blame this Intifada on someone in particular, Sharon is the leading candidate.

Yes, Molly, ignore the evidence that the Intifada was planned for months leading up to that, and the visit was an excuse–not a reason.

Anyway, I don’t have time to dissect this properly right now–maybe someone else will take a crack at it.

George Mason finally got a memorial on the mall today.

Lee surrendered to Grant a hundred and thirty seven years ago today, at Appomattox Courthouse, effectively ending the War Between The States. This site describes the events leading up to that final capitulation. I’m struck by the professional tone of the letters between the two generals, in the days prior.

This is one of the reasons that Grant was a great general. He was always a clear communicator, and his letters to his officers had the same clarity–describing exactly what was to be accomplished strategically, without necessarily dictating how, leaving that instead to their initiative.

Also, to put this event in context of current events, consider, as we mourn the loss of some three thousand dead.

That war killed over six hundred thousand Americans on both sides. And this was when the country only had a total population of about forty million. Losing the equivalent today, percentage wise, would be like losing four or five million people, mostly men in arms.

Lee surrendered to Grant a hundred and thirty seven years ago today, at Appomattox Courthouse, effectively ending the War Between The States. This site describes the events leading up to that final capitulation. I’m struck by the professional tone of the letters between the two generals, in the days prior.

This is one of the reasons that Grant was a great general. He was always a clear communicator, and his letters to his officers had the same clarity–describing exactly what was to be accomplished strategically, without necessarily dictating how, leaving that instead to their initiative.

Also, to put this event in context of current events, consider, as we mourn the loss of some three thousand dead.

That war killed over six hundred thousand Americans on both sides. And this was when the country only had a total population of about forty million. Losing the equivalent today, percentage wise, would be like losing four or five million people, mostly men in arms.

Lee surrendered to Grant a hundred and thirty seven years ago today, at Appomattox Courthouse, effectively ending the War Between The States. This site describes the events leading up to that final capitulation. I’m struck by the professional tone of the letters between the two generals, in the days prior.

This is one of the reasons that Grant was a great general. He was always a clear communicator, and his letters to his officers had the same clarity–describing exactly what was to be accomplished strategically, without necessarily dictating how, leaving that instead to their initiative.

Also, to put this event in context of current events, consider, as we mourn the loss of some three thousand dead.

That war killed over six hundred thousand Americans on both sides. And this was when the country only had a total population of about forty million. Losing the equivalent today, percentage wise, would be like losing four or five million people, mostly men in arms.

From the Washington Times:

Turkish officials are warning NATO allies that they have detected new bases for the militant PKK Kurdish Workers Party being built in northern Iran, at least three in the Iranian city of Umriye disguised as medical facilities. The PKK have apparently relocated — with Iranian permission — after being driven out of northern Iraq last year by Turkish military raids. The Turks say they have evidence that the new camps are storing weapons and training insurgents — and are dropping strong hints of an al Qaida connection.

As the story points out, such warnings are often prelude to a cross-border strike. The Turks have done this to Iraq in the past, under similar circumstances, but I’m not aware that they’ve ever gone after Iran. If they do, this could set up another flashpoint in the Middle East, whether Al Qaeda are involved or not.