Ben's World

This is for everyone who has ever disputed my claim that my English is technically perfect (the style issue is another question entirely).


You are a GRAMMAR GOD!


If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!


How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

You know, people manage to get here through some strange searches, but I think this one is just funny. Someone punched "Mog Church" into Yahoo! and wound up with me. Looks like that cult thing's becoming pretty serious.

Yes, Right Wingin-it is sponsoring a contest in honor of Michael Moore.

The rules are thus:

1) All posted entries must originate from a liberal blog, or mainstream website.
2) Entries need not contain comment by or of Michael Moore, however extra consideration for 'Moore' content will be given.
3) all entries must be submitted before Sunday night at 10PM Central time.
4) weekly awards will begin the week of April 12th, so have your entry in on or before sunday, April 11th
5) to enter, Trackback ping this post by the deadline. if you dont want to trackback, no problem. send an email to: mobile-at-blogcastlive.com

Never one to take the hard way when I can do something just as well and easier, I went straight to the source. Thus, entry will be something originated by....Michael Moore!

But your "desertion" didn't go away -- and here's the reason why. You have sent countless numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" -- while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled.

I think that the post I'm using has just about every liberal cliche about President Bush imaginable, so I should be competitve. Hurry and get you submissions in before the deadline.

There is something that I've constantly heard repeated, quite frequently by those who seem to view Western culture as inherently immoral or bad. It's that the Crusades were an inherently bad thing, that they were some sort of crime committed against Muslims, or any of a litany of other epithets. But why? What made the Crusades so awful? From where I stand, nothing much, really. They were a moderately successful attempt to stem the advance of an expanding Muslim empire, one that was expanding at the expense of the West. I see nothing wrong with a military action in defense of one's culture and way of life (does anyone see any parallels to our response in the Middle East right now?).

When the Crusades were launched, they were an attempt to aid the beleaguered Byzantine Empire, which was geographically and culturally the guardian of Christian Europe. The Byzantines were facing a steadily encroaching Muslim dominion on their southern borders, one that was systematically conquering Byzantine provinces, including the Holy Land. The Crusaders from Europe marched with the intent of reclaiming the Holy Land, while the Pope's call for a Crusade was founded in part by a call for aid by the Byzantine Emperor.

However, the historical and martial aspects of the Crusades are not what I'm concerned with. I'm more curious about why they are considered to be some black sin upon the conscience of the entire West. The charge I've heard most frequently is that the Crusaders raped, pillaged, and did various other distasteful deeds. Although I'll concede the factual aspects of that point without debate, I don't see it as enough to make the Crusades wrong. During the time period when they took place, acts such as those were considered to be perfectly legitimate during warfare, a part of the "law of war" of the time if you will. Furthermore, they were activities commonly conducted by those on the other side as well, yet blame is never placed there. Another criticism I've heard is that the Crusades were an invasion of Arab lands, we were making war on peaceful Arabs, etc. Given that they were an action to reclaim territory that had been held by the West for over a thousand years by that point, I hardly find that charge credible.

In the end, I find that criticism of the Crusades as immoral frequently boils down to a latent anti-Westernism (or sometimes quite active). The people who condemn the Crusades frequently do so not for other reasons, but because they were an attempt to defend the West against another civilization. In these people's eyes, that is the ultimate sin, because everything non-Western is superior to that which we ourselves have built. I thoroughly disagree. The West is the only civilization that has developed a sense of the worth of the individual, and has affirmed that sense through laws designed to protect the individual's freedom and liberty. I have no qualms with applauding actions taken to preserve that culture, for I do not see it as something fundamentally wrong. Although it's not perfect, Western civilization is easily the most preferable one in the world, and one that I would not willingly trade for another. It's worth defending, in the past, now, and in the future.

Great Scot! You're 'Macbeth!'


Which famous Shakespeare play are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

U.S. Officials Vow to 'Pacify' Fallujah

The deaths and mutilation of four American contractors in Fallujah "will not go unpunished," chief U.S. administrator in Iraq L. Paul Bremer said Thursday — and a U.S. general vowed an "overwhelming" response.

...

Kimmitt told Fox News Thursday that the response against the contractors' attackers will be "deliberate, precise and it's going to be overwhelming."

"These people that committed this barbaric act will not go unpunished nor will the people of Fallujah be held hostage by a very small minority in the city," Kimmitt continued.

The brutal actions of the insurgents in Fallujah are remniscient of both Mogadishu and Madrid in some ways. While the former may seem to be for obvious reasons at first glance, it is the commonalities between both of the two prior instances that are cause for concern. In both cases, the targets of the attacks (the US government in Somalia; the Spanish in Madrid) caved in to fear and essentially gave the terrorists what they wanted. This time, however, there will be a different story. Although the treatment of the contractors in Iraq was quite brutal, the response this time will not be surrender. Instead, the reaction will be swift, deadly, and focused. Despite what some will say, it will certainly be quite appropriate. Although some among us will say that the only way to reduce the violence will be to leave, that will be sending the wrong message. We did that before, and they eventually hit us at home, on our own territory. The message to send is that we will hunt down those responsible, and the trip to Hell will be so fast that they won't know what happened. At the same time, we will continue to work to rebuild Iraq, demonstrating that for those who are willing to support peace and freedom, we are steadfast friends. It is only for those who battle for oppression, terror, and subjugation that we bring retribution, and the retribution will be harsh indeed. Eventually, one of two things will happen. Either the enemy will see the futility of continued hostilities and the benefits of working for peace and reconstruction, or they will be destroyed. Either way, Iraq will be rebuilt and become peaceful. It is up to the Saddam loyalists to decide if they'll live to see that day.

Who watches the watchers? It's a valid question, even though its one no one cares to give much thought. In modern-day America, the politically correct answer is to say that the "people" watch the watchers. After all, we do elect them, observe them, and ultimately choose whether to keep them. In theory. In reality, though, how many of us actually watch? Less than half the country actually votes in Presidential elections; turnout in off-years is even lower than that. Of that dismal percentage, an even smaller portion of the electorate actually follows governmental happenings closely enough to truly be informed. From there, only a small few who can observe full-time can become reasonably well-versed in the actual happenings of the government; the rest of us get what's put out on the news. If we are supposed to be the watchers, then we're blind and don't have a chance of getting it right. Now, the politically correct answer is to cry loudly, "Raise voter awareness!" and "Get the people involved!" and things of that nature. However, is that the way it's really supposed to be?

I don't think so, and I don't think the Founding Fathers thought that, either. If they had, why did the incorporate indirect election of Senators into the Constitution? In the system outlined within the Constitution, the Senate is essentially the body of watchers rather than the people. It is the Senate that counters the excesses of the Presidency when negotiating treaties or making appointments. It is the Senate that reins in the misdeeds of the House when passing legislation. It is only when the Senate fails in that regard that the Supreme Court, the ultimate of watchers, steps in to keep the balance. The Senate is not intended to be responsible to the people. The Senate is the states' house in the Congress. It is the intended role of Senators to function as the elder statesmen of the Republic, ensuring that the interests of the several states, as the body politic, rather than the populace as an aggregate of individual voters, persevere. The House of Representatives belongs to the people; the Senate is for the states.

Of course, that's gone now. With the 17th Amendment, Senators have become accountable to the people. Some say this is a good thing; I disagree. By making the Senate accountable to the voting populace, Senators must inevitably ride the whim of public opinion in order to remain in office. Rather than acting as watchers, the Senate is now under the same gaze of the House, and the actions of individual Senators have become indistinguishable from those of Representatives. The only difference is the amount of time for which they must campaign for re-election. The Senate now spends its time passing ineffective (or harmful), yet popular bills in a constant attempt to appease the masses. Because Senators face the wrath of the electorate if they do not please the voters, they are trapped into taking actions that are not in line with their intended role. The Senate, by its nature, is intended to take unpopular actions and be able to do so precisely because it is insulated from the electorate. It cannot fulfill that role if it is dependent upon the goodwill of the electorate for the re-election of its members.

The solution to this is simply the repeal of the 17th Amendment. In order for the Senate to properly execute its role, it must be restored to the conditions necessary for that role to be exercised. This is not to say that the Senate is unaccountable to anyone or is a sort of supreme arbiter. The legislatures are intended to elect Senators, leaving Senators accountable to the states. Furthermore, the Presidency and Supreme Court still exercise their checks upon the actions of the Congress as a whole. However, the role of watcher built into the Constitutional structure of government is meant for the Senate. The delicate balance of our government needs to be repaired. The Senate must once again be able to take up its task of watching the watchers.

I don't know how to react to this, I really don't.

Violence kills nine in Sunni Triangle

In a scene reminiscent of Somalia, frenzied crowds dragged the burned, mutilated bodies of four American contractors through the streets of a town west of Baghdad on Wednesday and strung two of them up from a bridge after rebels ambushed their SUVs.

Our soldiers and workers losing their lives in Iraq has become almost a routine occurrence for us, one that doesn't hit us as hard as it should. This episode, though, simply rams home the sheer brutality of some of those we fight against. Even in open warfare, there is some level of decency you show the enemy, which at least includes not mutilating the ones you kill. This however, goes far beyond that, and wrenches the gut with the level of inhumanity displayed. The disparity between this treatment of our troops and the images and stories of our soldiers working to improve the lives of Iraqi children and other civilians is nearly too great to describe. What hits the closest to home in the midst of all that, though, is one simple fact: my friends are there. UCA lost a sizable portion of our Corps of Cadets when units were activated. For all I know, someone I know, someone I sat in class with or did land nav with, someone I was on OpFor with during an FTX is out there right now. The seniors who took a personal interest in improving my scores my first year, who turned me from being in the bottom of the MS I class to being at the top of it, are probably there right now. And that is what they're facing. I know that some people will use images like this as an argument against the war in Iraq. "See?" they'll say. "This wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded. They'd be alive right now." But what about the cause they died for? They might have lived, but how many of us would be dead or mourning because of an attack by some of the very same people who are dancing over our soldiers' corpses right now? I don't know; the naysayers don't know. All that I do know is that those soldiers, those civilians, died to protect the rest of us from people who want to inflict that treatment upon all of us. They died going into the vipers' nest and trying to clean it out, before anything else could strike at us. What will they get in return? They'll be lauded as heroes, I'm sure, by those on both sides of the issue here at home. But what of the cause they died for? I know, and I wish I didn't, that there will be those who say that the cause they died for isn't worth that grief? But aren't the causes that truly matter the only ones for which we'll endure that sorrow? I can only hope so.

Right Wingin-it, Mog, and Aaron have all commented on this event as well, although more pointedly and eloquently than I. I'd like to encourage you to visit them and see what they have to say.

***UPDATE***
Boots and Sabers has a lead on info regarding how to contact the employer of the civilians killed to show support. Even if it's only a message, please do what you can to express your support for the families of those who've lost loved ones.

I'm not sure exactly when it happened (which means I need to be paying more attention), but Boots and Sabers permalinked me in the "fish" category. Boots and Sabers was one of the first blogs I began reading regularly, so I'm rather pleased they've taken note of me. (Although the "fish" designation does bring back some less than wonderful memories of my MS I year at UCA...)

Every Wednesday, I join with other bloggers in promoting Wictory Wednesday. Stop for a minute and think about what you the kind of America you want to live in. Then, ask yourself who will better lead the country towards that goal: Kerry or Bush? I believe that President Bush is the best candidate to lead us to a secure, prosperous America. If you think the same thing, volunteer or donate to Bush's re-election campaign. Then, click on the Wictory Wednesday button on the sidebar to visit other bloggers urging people to do the same thing. We're depending on people like you.

Since the previous FF VI character quiz didn't work correctly, here's the same result from a different one.

Apparently, my previous post regarding Mog linking to me has elevated me to the status of being a member of Mog's cult. Yay me.

I just happened to be browsing my referrer logs, and something interesting came up. Somewhere amongst the chain of links I was wandering, I discovered that....

MOG LINKED TO ME!!!!!!

Twice! And had good things to say, too. The only thing was, it happened like two months ago and I didn't know about it :( I'm absolutely thrilled that I managed to attract some attention from Mog. Yay!

Having failed to get the National Security Advisor to testify before the 9/11 commission, two of our "honorable" Senators are going to attempt to hold a welfare bill hostage unless Rice testifies. The less than dynamic duo of Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy are going to try to attach an amendment to the welfare reauthorization bill that would require Condi to testify before the commission. This is partisanship at its absolute worst, as well as a direct assault upon the system of checks and balances. Although the amendment is not likely to be successfully attached, the intent is extraordinarily clear. If the amendment were to be attached, that would force Senators with a clearer understanding of the function of executive privelege to vote against the entire bill in order to prevent the amendment from passing. This hypothetical scenario puts Schumer and Kennedy in a position to dictate highly undesirable terms: either demonize yourselves in the media or erode checks and balances. That choice is no choice at all. It is imperative that blatant attempts like this to destroy the counterbalancing power of the executive branch are stopped before they wreck our government.

Alright, I'm down to just a month until graduation (yes, this is another one of those personal posts). I'm all set with my double minors in Honors and Military Science, and the first draft of my thesis is in. Everything's nearly up to speed with the battalion website, which will be a relief. I really don't want to leave any loose ends on that, in case the S-5 next year isn't up to speed. The Corps budget request from SGA went through in full, after our requested modifications, so yes, we'll have a saber arch completely outfitted with new equipment in time for Homecoming next year. Sadly, my last event as Color Guard Commander is coming up later this month. It'll be a little sad at the Military Ball when I command my last color guard as a cadet here; the color guard's been my department since MS I year, and it'll be hard to leave it behind. Unfortunately, I still have to come up with a date for the ball, although I may seriously just not bother with the trouble. Our Scabbard and Blade company (B-18, in case you were wondering) will be reactivated on 9 Apr. That's been a major project all year, and I'll be glad to see it come to fruition. Commissioning is still causing issues. The medical stuff has pretty much ruled out a Federal component, but the Texas State Guard may take me. Getting ahold of them has been rough, though. Anyway, hopefully everything with that will turn out well.

In yet another attempt to take both sides of an issue, Kerry recently voted against Laci and Connor's Law, which would makes harming a fetus in the commission of a crime against the mother a separate offense, resulting in two counts of the charge. Combined with his track record of voting in favor of abortion "rights," Kerry has managed to establish himself as one of the most hostile members of the Senate toward the pro-life movement (as evidenced by this action at one of his rallies). However, Kerry considers himself to be a devout Roman Catholic who regularly makes time in his campaign schedule for Mass. If he's so devout, however, then why does he consistently flout Church teachings regarding abortion and other issues? For a Roman Catholic, part of the faith is to submit to the teachings, doctrine, and discipline of the Church. Kerry's actions, though, are in complete contradiction of the faith he claims to hold so dearly. By his fruits is Kerry known, and he has shown himself to be no disciple of the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to issues of morality. Given the gravity the Vatican attaches to the abortion issue, Kerry is the first in a line of public figures who need to be subjected to discipline. Kerry, as well as others who publicly defy Church teachings, should be promptly excommunicated. For them to describe themselves as Catholic while defying the doctrines of their church is in truth a massive lie directed at the public. Although Kerry may have faith in Christ and worship the undivided Holy Trinity, he does not let his faith have any impact upon his public life, essentially living a lie. Until he comes to terms with that and repents, the Church should excommunicate him, in order to protect the integrity of its witness.

BLACK MAGE!!!!


Black mage. You have a desire to destroy everything
that does not banefit you. You have devastating
magic, but the catch is you have a hideous
round head and beady yellow eyes, which is a
real roadblock in getting women. You also have
the strange aversion to removing your hat in
public. Or private. Even while sleeping. Or
showering. Wait, you don't bathe, that's right.


What Final Fantasy Job Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Thanks Ipse Dixit for the button.

This is definitely a great ad for the President's re-election campaign. Go check out, and then visit Blackfive and Right Wingin-it for the lead on that one.

Yes, I'm sure the vast majority of us learned about this in high school civics class (for those of us who actually bothered to show up or pay attention) and know that it's (in a nutshell) the group of processes which prevent any one branch of the Federal government from gaining dominance over the other two, and that this system is generally considered to be a good thing. However, this principle is under serious assault from Congress, in its push to have Condoleeza Rice testify before the 9/11 commission. Why exactly is this an assault on checks and balances? In order for the Executive Branch to function properly, the members of that branch must be able to act without fear of coercion from the other two branches. If Condi does testify before the commission as a result of Congressional pressure, the precedent set will be that the Executive Branch, right up to the President himself, is subject to the demands of the Legislative Branch. Rather than three branches that counterbalance each other, we would instead have a system where one branch, the Executive, is subject to another, rather than co-equal with it. With that precedent set, there would be nothing to stop the Congress from running roughshod over the President, effectively gutting the system of government provided for in our Constitution. Although not publically recognized as such, the push to have the National Security Advisor testify before the Commission is a stealthy assault upon the underpinnings of our system of government. It must be resisted, else we lose the delicate balance of power amongst the branches of our government.