Damn Iran!  Damn Hamas!  And Damn the U.S. State policy of always urging restrain!

“The only way some form of quiet will ever exist in the Middle East is if Israel is given the latitude to totally defeat its declared enemies.

“Since 1948, Israel has been forced to fight 4 wars with the hostile nations surrounding her. Despite defeating her enemies on the battlefield, the international community has never permitted Israel to completely destroy any of these regimes….” (emphasis mine)

“…Sharon stated: “…A war has been forced upon us. A war of terror. A war that claims innocent victims daily. A war of terror being conducted systematically, in an organized fashion, and with methodical direction… We will pursue those responsible, the perpetrators of terrorism and the supporters. We will pursue them until we catch them, and they will pay a price.” (emphasis mine)

-Rush Limbaugh, December 6, 2001

“Pay a price.”?  This is not exactly a goal to “…totally defeat its declared enemies.”

And why in hell does Israel require permission from any “community” to destroy her enemies?

With this self-sacrificial policy Israel is complicit in her own destruction.

Ayn Rand wrote in “The Lessons of Vietnam” in 1974 that “The first intended victim…will probably be Israel”―if the ‘antiwar’ efforts…succeed.  (Israel [is] the country that need[s] and deserve[s] U.S. help―not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean….”)

–The Voice of Reason p. 142

I wear a little IDF (Israeli Defense Force) pin at times, (wishing I had earned the right to wear it) knowing the futility of my personal love of Israel and her gallant,  half-measured response to her enemies―and her inevitable demise.

Have Americans forgotten that we are at war?  Do they credit President Bush for having kept the enemy at bay since 911?  Do they know that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in the history of America?  No, to the last two questions, if there is to be a history of America after whatever President Obama does to America.  Yes, it seems Americans have forgotten that we are at war.

Below are a few reminders from two great minds on the philosophy of war.  One, Macleod, is a novelist and a great one.  I highly recommend his book if you can find it.  The other was a surgeon in war.  Both deal with what they knew:  WWI.  I submit that their principled thoughts do apply to the war we’re fighting today.  With a difference:  in today’s war we are all soldiers in it.

Robert Tracy
Vietnam, 1969

“In this war no one can afford an excessive imagination.”

―Barometer Rising by Alistair Macleod, 1941, “Sunday”, p.46

***** ***** *****

“The soldier is alone in his war with terror….” Preface, XV

“War is only tolerable when one can take part in it, when one is a bit of the target and not a pensioned spectator.” ibid., p.XX

“We must practice a prudent economy in emotion in time of war if we are to remain sane. Where there is a lavish display of feeling the mind is not at peace; it is divided against itself.” “Moods”, p. 37

“…natural courage…men who did not feel fear. Their courage seems to have had its roots in a vacant mind. Their imagination played no tricks.” “The Discovery of Fear”, p. 4

“In a battle somehow the horror of this business of war is not felt….”The Discovery of Fear”, p. 46

“…the soldier can be defeated by his own thoughts….You must leave your imagination behind you or it will do you harm….The sharp contrast adds to his troubles by keeping alive the idea of another way of life―the chronic danger of an alternative in war.” “How Courage is Spent”, p.101

―The Anatomy of Courage by Lord Moran, 1945

To appreciate
the beauty
of a snowflake,
it is necessary
to stand out in the cold.

–Anonymous

Artist unknown

I like this style of art for it’s stylized realism.  In this instance, as an illustration for the accompanying thought, it’s perfectly delightful.

(Source:  I don’t know.  I get these little pictures in the mail from someone I’ve known since 1st grade.  She writes her notes to me on the back.  It looks like they come from a little desk calendar.  She better write and explain.)

I see that it’s not PC these days to offer wishes in this manner.  As I say “Happy Holidays” is fine.  But here is my non-PC wishes (the “Merry Christmas” is of my own creation.  The “Happy Chanukah” I found on the web.):

To all Christians and Jews:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

©  Ayn Rand 1976

A number of readers have asked the question:  Is it appropriate for an atheist to celebrate Christmas?

Ayn Rand answers:  Yes, of course. A national holiday, in this country, cannot have an exclusively religious meaning. The secular meaning of the Christmas holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion: it is good will toward men—a frame of mind which is not the exclusive property (though it is supposed to be part, but is a largely unobserved part) of the Christian religion.

The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: “Merry Christmas”—not “Weep and Repent.” And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form—by giving presents to one’s friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance.  (The gift-giving is charming only so long as it is non-sacrificial.  O. Henry’s famous  “The Gift of the Magi” is a sadistic horror story, though he did not intend it as such; that story is a good example of the futility of altruism.)

The best aspect of Christmas is the aspect usually decried by the mystics: the fact that Christmas has been commercialized. The gift-buying is good for business and good for the country’s economy; but, more importantly in this context, it stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure. And the street decorations put up by department stores and other institutions—the Christmas trees, the winking lights, the glittering colors—provide the city with a spectacular display, which only “commercial greed” could afford to give us.

One would have to be terribly depressed to resist the wonderful gaiety of that spectacle.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you.

AYN RAND

The Objectivist Calendar, Number 5, Dec. 1976.

Merry Old Santa Claus
Thomas Nast
Harper’s Weekly
January 1, 1881.

As an atheist (and before I chose to be an atheist) I’ve always held this Christmas song as my favorite.  There’s power here.  And glory.  And a depth of regard for man and his universe.

“Oh Holy Night”

Crawford is excellent, as shown in “The Phantom of the Opera” (a segment here) .  The children’s choir is a nice touch.

However, I wish I could find a deep male voice for this as the “Fall on your knees” requires it, as if a command.

The Ultimate Sacrifice
Dale Daniel
Original Mixed Media on Panel
11″ x 14″

What a name!  Such a common name as Fred Smith.  You all know his company.  Here’s his short story, and a guessing game.

“Fred Smith started [a company] in 1973 and did not make a profit until 1976.  During that period, the company was constantly on the verge of bankruptcy.  Once Smith helped meet the payroll through gambling winnings.  Add to this a hit-and-run accident, an FBI investigation, a divorce, lawsuits, and his temporary demotion from CEO to president and you have all the ingredients for a mental breakdown, not to mention business failure.  But toughened by death-defying combat experiences in Vietnam and his own resilience, he struggled through and made [the company] immensely profitable.”

The Prime Movers : Traits of the Great Wealth Creators by Edwin A. Locke, “The Drive to Action”, p. 95-6 (HB)

Who is Fred Smith?  What is his company?  There’s a clue in the logo of his company.  It’s an arrow.

Click on the arrow and you’ll know who this Marine, with sharp-shooting skills, is.

I love my 16 year old Honda.

I just stepped out to get a shot of it.
Canon EOS
Digital Rebel XTi

(Hmm.  Wonder where this Canon was made.  In America, or Japan?)

My wife loves her 12 year old Toyota.

I loved my 1965 Plymouth Barracuda.

1965 Barracuda
Robert Tracy
Pencil
8½ x 8″
1982

My apologies for so bad an image of my car.  The drawing was sold long ago and this is all I have.  I’m sure my wife has a good photograph of this great American-made automobile somewhere.  So expect something better than this in a future post.  In 1965 American automakers did produce very good cars.  I can’t say the same for them now.

I held on to it as long as I could.  On our way back from a trip to Massachusetts, at rest stops I actually had two offers from strangers to buy my Barracuda.  Eventually, I sold it for $65.00 in 1983 after we had bought our first Honda.  And we never looked back.

“Buy American” Is Un-American
By Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.
(September 1, 2000)

“More and better production is good for all men, everywhere. What’s good for Toyota is good for America. That’s individualism, and that’s Americanism.

“Government interference with free trade is un-American. Sacrificing one’s standard of living in order to subsidize inefficient domestic producers is un-American.”

Full article HERE

O’Reilly: Some Fox ‘pinheads’ don’t get insult to Christmas
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Thursday December 11, 2008

“Since Washington State accepted an atheist message calling religion ‘myth and superstition’ as part of its official holiday display….”

These atheists don’t speak for me.  I, who am an atheist, do enjoy the “Nativity Scene” on the court house lawn every year.  It’s a delightful story, good to see it memorialized.

However, there are atheists who make their views a political statement.  That is improper.

My atheism is a private, moral issue, and a minor one at that.  I might post my intellectual views on my blog, but would not attempt to use the government to force them on the public.