Andrew Sullivan takes issue with the Sunday New York Times story on support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It's worth recalling that the flag-burning amendment was supported by around 80 percent of the public, and the balanced budget amendment by around 85 percent - and yet both failed.

What he misses here, I think, is this: no one was going to really rally for these issues. It was a matter of sentiment that the public didn't care so strongly about. No Congressman who voted against either Amendment was going to lose their seat as a result or face a primary challenge, or anything else.

In fact- had either Amendment gone to the states, they certainly would have passed.

Sullivan also misses this: it seems to be widely evident that gay marriage, when asked at the beginning of a fight, is much more popular than it is a little while later. Look at the eventual reaction to Civil Unions in ultra-liberal Vermont. Or look at Canada, where support for gay marriage dropped by as much as twenty points in a few months. If it looks like gay marriage is going to be judicially-imposed, it will be hard for the Democrats not to go along with an Amendment.

I think the eventual compromise on the issue will be that there will be an Amendment codifying marriage- but allowing the states to create 'civil unions.' An Amendment which bans all gay unions will not pass- one which simply restricts marriage to a man and a woman will.

After all- not a single major Democratic Presidential candidate can be found who will openly support gay marriage. What happens next May, when MA will probably have to allow gay marriage, people flood into the state to get married, and then file forty-nine Federal lawsuits?

If the Republicans push for the FMA under such conditions, and the Democrats manage to obstruct it, they'll ice a lot of Congressmen and Senators. If they seek to stop ratification: they're in danger of losing State Houses.

Today the word ‘Imperialist’ is mostly used as an epithet by the radical left. “US Imperialist Circles Plot Aggression against Korean Workers’ State” might make a good headline in the Daily Worker, but the actual word ‘Imperialist’ seems anachronistic when used outside of the context of historical discussion. Yet I think that is needs to be brought back into use. While the left might hurl the word as an insult, I wear it proudly. Yes, I am willing to proclaim it openly: I am an Imperialist.

What is Imperialism? Does my being an Imperialist mean that I wish to redraw the maps of continents and carve economic concessions out of foreign nations. Hardly. What I advocate is a largely indirect imperialism whereby other nations (and eventually the entire world) will be brought into the family of Western nations. It is silly to pretend that other civilizations are equal to that of the West when all objective evidence demonstrates that they are not.

An American Empire already de facto exists. We must admit this and begin to deal with it, or we shall suffer the consequences. An Empire, such as that controlled by the United States today will require sacrifices and bring benefits. We must admit this and make the case for it to the American people.

The Basis of Empire:
Contrary to popular belief, there is a proud tradition of Empire in the West. From the dawn of the West, great Empires have exported out values and brought foreign peoples into the light of reason. In particular, the Athenian, Roman, and British Empires should be our model. Athens is the birthplace of the West and we today are its descendents. Rome spread Western ideals through the known world and enjoyed centuries of unrivalled power. Britain brought the blessing of civilization to five continents. This is not, as some would suggest, something to run from or be ashamed of: the collective accomplishments of Athens, Rome, and Britain represent the greatest achievement in the history of humanity. The hidden empires of the West: those of Christ and those of the Jews, bring us greater glory still. This is the legacy which we now must embrace.

America is left with the mantle of Empire: whether we like it or not. Who else could lead the world in this dangerous new era: France? The United Nations? China? There is no other nation which could successfully be the leader of decent humanity and there is no other nation which deserves to. Modern America is the inheritor of heritage of liberty that is a unique gift to the West.

We must accept the mantle of Empire because we desire progress. Those who claim that, absent a world government of some sort, the civilization will eventually destroy itself are probably right. The pace of technology is as such that weapons of mass destruction are within the means of even the poorest countries. Before too long they will be within the reach of individuals. Other dangerous technologies, groups, and regimes threaten both our way of life and our very lives.

If we must live with some form of world government then, what form do we wish it to take? Does anyone sincerely believe that the United Nations is up to the job? Would any patriotic American ever consent to live under such a system? I pray to God that they would not. George W. Bush has done more to reign in the thugs of the world in three years than the United Nations has done in fifty-eight years.

Peace for the world does not lay down the path of negotiations and conciliation. Our enemies, or at least our sane enemies, respect only one thing: strength. This world does not need a diplomat: it needs a dictator.

America must, for its own sake as well as that of others, become the “good King” of the world. That does not mean that we must be involved in every decision of every nation. But it does mean that we will have to accept that we must keep the peace and act to destroy threats. It will mean accepting spending and sacrifice. But it will also bring benefits.

With our efforts to assure are own security, we can spread the precious heritage of Western liberty throughout the world. We can secure our own economy by designing a world economic system with the rules stacked in our favor. Free trade, it should be recalled, does not work the best between equals: it works best when there is a disparity of power (or, at least, it works best for the nation in whose favor that disparity lies). As it was for Britain: economic and scientific progress will be the greatest benefits of American Imperialism.

What exactly is this ‘heritage’ which enables us to lead the world? What are the hallmarks of Western progress?

An Interest in Scientific and Material Advancement: One of the great inherent advantages of Western civilization is its forward-looking nature. Much is often made of the fact that the Chinese ‘invented’ gunpowder. However, the truth of the matter is this: the Chinese had gunpowder for hundreds of years and never managed to do much more with it than build fireworks. Westerners got hold of gunpowder and, within a few years, they were blowing down castle walls with it.

A quick examination of major non-Western civilizations (the Chinese, the Indians, Africans, Native Americans, Moslems, and the Japanese, among others) reveals a single common thread: without outside factors, none of these seem to have ever been particularly interested in scientific or material development. A Chinese peasant of the 5th Century BC and a Chinese peasant in the year 1900 would probably find that they had much more in common than they had separating them. Advancement in modern China has come only through outside influences. Similarly, Japan actually deliberately shunned advancement and spent several centuries seeking to revert to an earlier state. This was not because either the Japanese or Chinese lack a racial capacity for development: it is because they are culturally inclined against it. China built a fleet which was capable of dispatching men to virtually any point in the world: yet they never established any presence overseas.

A hundred generations of North American Indians managed to live and die without making a single notable contribution to human history. Now, I am fully aware that this statement will raise the ire of some, but to them I ask: if the Indians were so sophisticated, then where are their cities and monuments? Where are their great works of art and literature?

In fact, looking at the span of human history leads to a single conclusion: mankind, for the most part, has traditionally shunned progress. More human progress has been made in the three thousand year history of the West than was ever made in all the rest of time. Modern humans emerged in Africa and Asia 100,000 years ago, and appeared in Europe 28,000 years ago. If one assumes that all cultures are equally inclined towards development, then should not Africa and Asia be vastly more advanced than the rest of the world?

The only possible conclusion, it seems to me, is that there is something special about the West. We are, in fact, culturally superior to some extent. We are culturally driven to advance in ways that other people aren’t. To this very day there are people in parts of Africa and Asia who live in ways which would be comprehensible to our earliest ancestors. Without Western interference over many years, I wonder what all of Africa would be like today.

Only Western Civilization brings with it actual growth and development. In many ways, it seems to me that most non-Western civilizations are set up to actively inhibit growth, which is viewed as bringing undesirable complications.

Human Rights and Individual Liberty: The key, I think, to Western superiority is the liberation of the individual. We live in a society so concerned with personal liberties that some circles fly into hysteria over the idea that enemies captured on foreign battlefields could be denied access to lawyers.

We, I often believe, have gone too far in our obsession with ‘human rights.’ Even a society which is as deeply concerned with liberty as ours has to worry about its own security. Civilization isn’t going to end because someone who was planning to blow up a radioactive bomb in a city is held without charges. It just might end in the face of persistent biological attacks. Yet, still, we must understand that our culture of freedom is one of the major reasons for our success.

In most cases (where there is not a compelling security interest involved) we tend to place a priority on individual rights. We do not permit people to be pointlessly wasted in the name of ‘custom’. The West, unlike most other civilizations, has never engaged in any form of organized human sacrifice.

When I hear someone prattling on about the ‘equality of all cultures’ I am often reminded of the story of a British officer in India who came upon the scene of a Suttee, a Hindu rite where a live wife is burned upon the funeral pyre of her dead husband. Told that such practices were an “Indian tradition”, the officer responded that it was a British tradition to hang people who did such things. We live in an uncivilized world. Where we can we have the ability and the obligation to bring a little light in and to safeguard the rights of others.

Human rights are not only generally a good thing because people like them. They are also a good thing because they lead to development. Slaves do not make scientific breakthroughs or produce great works of art. Free people, however, do. The liberation of the human spirit is to the great benefit of everyone.

The Progress Drive: We are left with the decision between stagnation and progress. A world order in which non-Western powers are allowed to dominate will be a static one. I would, I think, even include the European Union amongst the ranks of the ‘non-Western’ powers. ‘Western’ is about more than geography. It is about a spirit of exploration and discovery which is derived from some strange and innate spark. Modern Europeans, if left to their own devices, would probably be perfectly content to remain exactly where they are. An examination of human history would lead one to conclude that this is the natural state of man.

It is only in the West, it seems, that we develop, explore, and invent for the sake of doing so. Here we do things the way that they work best, not the way that they have always been done.

This is especially significant because we have, to some extent, reached a plateau of Earth-bound human development. The real future of mankind lies in space, where we can build colonies on other worlds and vastly expand the human population. The Chinese, despite the obvious need, never established overseas colonies: Europe did.

The Nature of the Empire:
Am I saying then that Imperialism is an entirely altruistic enterprise? No: far from it. American Imperialism will bring the blessings of civilization to the world- with a price. In exchange for the United States being the global Hegemon, it gets the benefits of Empire. This means special trade deals for Americans, extra rights for American companies, additional protection for American citizens, and perpetual American military superiority. These are the benefits of Empire. A dominant (and well-run) Empire is going to become richer and safer with time.

American Imperialism is rooted in an acceptance of two basic facts. First, that Western Civilization is the only civilization capable of bring progress to this world and that, second, the United States of America is the only nation capable of spreading the virtues of the West.

The focus of the American Empire would be threefold:
1) The American Empire will bring peace and security to the Earth by destroying enemies of freedom where it is easily possible and otherwise containing or deterring them. This cannot be done by an ordinary nation or even a combination of ordinary nations. The only two entities which could undertake such action are a World Government or a dominant, hegemonic power. The latter (so long as it is the United States) is, in my opinion, preferable.
2) The American Empire will promote human advancement by extending the reach of human freedom and promoting the useful sciences. The more free and well-educated people we have on the Earth (in other words, the more ‘Western’ people) the higher the likelihood of necessary major breakthroughs such as Faster-than-light travel.
3) The American Empire will usher in the next phase of human existence: the settlement of major populations off the surface of the Earth.

The Means of Empire:
Now it must be noted here that I do not advocate the conquest and colonization of other nations (though I do advocate colonization: more on that later, though). Rather, I would use a combination of military bases, collaboration with local elites, and, where necessary, short-term direct military occupation. We do this for our own security and gain as well as the security and gain of others. Benevolent Empire is always a balancing of altruism and enlightened self-interest.

People say, “Empires always fall.” This has been true, at least to the present time. However, this is not so much true because it is an immutable fact of history as it is true because those running Empires have made fatal and often stupid mistakes.

The Athenian Empire fell because it horribly mismanaged the Peloponnesian War. The British and Roman Empires both fell because of over-extension and other mismanagement. Of course: it took hundreds of years for that to happen so, even if America is “following the path of Rome” as many have written, there are about three hundred years to go before the fall.

The American Empire should (and probably will) avoid the greatest trap into which other Empires have historically fallen: attempting to conquer vast swaths of already inhabited land. This was the downfall of Rome and of Britain, but it shall not be the fall of America.

Instead the American Empire will rule by proxy: operating in the shadows with relative handfuls of administrators and soldiers. The rule of the Empire will be mostly peaceful, as most will eventually reconcile themselves to its power and work to enjoy its benefits.

As I have recommended earlier- an American Empire should annex both the Moon and Mars. It should also look into discarding the Antarctic Treaty and pressing American claims there (though, perhaps, allowing the claims of some friendly nations as well). I fully realize that some will consider such a venture to be a waste of time. But I will remind you that the purchase of Alaska was once known as “Seward’s Folly.” While the practical uses of Antarctica may not be apparent at the present time: that does not mean that they are not there or that they will not appear in the future. It ought to be recalled that Antarctica is an actual continent, albeit one covered in ice. It is certainly rich in resources (which, I admit, cannot be extracted for the present time). What isn’t great about owning an extra continent, especially when it can be done with a minimum cost?

Yes, I am an Imperialist:
Some will try and confuse Imperialism with Racism. They are, in fact, totally different things. As it happens, most of the nations which are seemingly unfit to govern themselves are mostly made up of minority groups. This doesn’t mean that minorities are inherently incapable of government: it just means that those in question are.

I’ve never bought into the lie that “all cultures are equal”- it is obvious to any unbiased observer that the culture of the West is vastly superior to any other. If we accept that: must we not also accept a duty to seek to spread that culture elsewhere? Imagine the potential of a world full of dynamic Westerners.

Empire is the destiny of great nations. It is the destiny of America. The American Empire can lead mankind into the future: soaring into the stars upon the backs of those great heroes who raised a mighty Republic from nothing, promoted it to the head of nations, and on behalf of a just God who has made it the master of the world.

We've got some great men in Iraq. This story is just too good for words:

But Lieutenant Colonel Steven Russell isn't nervous. He believes he has the best protection.

"If God doesn't intend for me to die in Iraq then nothing the enemy can do will make it so," he told Reuters.

"I have a strong belief in Jesus Christ as my lord and saviour."

Meet the man who heads the search for some of Iraq's most dangerous guerrillas in Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, a grim place that only has dust and flatlands in common with Russell's native Del City, Oklahoma.

He is not your typical tobacco-chewing American soldier with nude centrefolds hanging in his barracks.

Russell is a deeply religious family man who believes good old-fashioned American discipline and prayers will help lead him to Saddam's hardcore supporters.

"The diehards will just have to die hard," he said in an interview, sitting in one of Saddam's former palaces as American soldiers grunted and lifted weights nearby.

UPDATE: This man should be a General.

“In retaliation, American troops backed by Bradley fighting vehicles swept through Iraqi neighborhoods before dawn , blasting houses suspected of being insurgent hideouts with machine guns and heavy weapons fire.
“ ‘This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them,’ said Lt. Col. Steven Russell, commander of the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment.”
--AP story, Nov. 8, after Black Hawk copter goes down.

“ ‘They are not allowed to go around kissing pictures of Saddam in this city,’ Russell said. ‘It will not happen.’
“Afterwards, Jaburi and Russell interviewed a middle-aged man in traditional Arab clothing who they suspect of inciting demonstrations.
“ ‘Look me in the eye. Let me make some-thing very clear,’ the American officer told the man over tea at the governor’s office.
“ ‘If our ears and eyes see and hear you are connected with demonstrations, and anti-coalition activities you will be going to jail for a very long time.’
--Reuters, Dec. 16

posted by Yoshi at 11:10 PM

The left often talks about how stories are 'filtered' from the Extreme Right into a right-wing media 'echo chamber'.

Well, more or less, this story- now on Yahoo thanks to Agence France Presse- is cribbed from the British Sunday Express via an unnamed British source who, in all probability, got the story from some Kurdish press sources (or maybe the hit-and-miss folks at Debka who, sometimes, are amazingly accurate and othertimes are telling tales about masses of Chinese troops in Afghanistan).

Now, because this story has an AFP stamp on it, it can be reported in the 'mainstream' US press. Hence how rumor gets turned into a story.

Remember when I was talking about 'unknown unknowns'? Read this.

Some French prosecutor wants to prosecute Dick Cheney. The alleged-men at DU are slobbering. Good luck.

Damned Frogs.

Manages to get taken in by a Nigerian Bank Scam and tries to blame President Bush for it.

The Best part:
Looking back at the letters now, I can see it all. For heaven's sake, she even said both her parents had died of the ebola flesh-eating virus.