Civil War

The Exchange - Civil War

Since my daughters are homeschooled we have been watching the Ken Burn's documentary about the Civil War over the past two weeks as part of our study of history. That documentary is my favorite documentary and I've seen it three of four times since I saw the original broadcast.

But watching it this time with my daughters two things struck me as they never have before. First I was struck by the fact that despite having grown up in the South and lived here most of my life and dearly loving this part of this country of mine I am more certain than ever before that I would have gone north to Yankeedom to fight for the Union in that particular war. My religious and even my political convictions would have probably rendered any other outcome impossible. Certainly very unlikely. Even as a small boy I remember thinking I would never fight for any cause which threatened another man's enslavement. That being said I am still to this day amazed however by how mediocre, even disastrous, was the military leadership of the North in general, and yet how tremendous the political leadership of the North in particular. And yet with the South all things were as reversed. Their military leadership was little short of brilliant and their political leadership hardly worth the mentioning. An Army of giants built upon a government of misshapen and dwarfish, petty ideals. It makes me wonder if this was not as it was always meant to be. The world is as it is because they were as they were. It is hard, very hard, for me to imagine that war, as it was conducted, as it was concluded, not being as surely foreordained as the Birth of Man himself. Indeed it was a kind of Rebirth of America, if not even of Man himself, as a new thing. War is such a very strange thing, that washes away all of our past sins in a bath of blood to cleanse us and make us ready for the sins of tomorrow. It is like a womb of wrong we must begrudgingly inhabit, and yet without it the day of new life never comes. Tomorrow is never born.

The second thing that struck me this time, really struck me - like a hammer blow to my skull - was how much of all we are today was foreshadowed in that war. Battleships, a more true and just Republican democracy, mass communications and transport, concentration camps, warfare against civilian populations and terrorism, lightning attacks, modern espionage, modern cities and industry, guerilla and unconventional warfare, the machine gun, vast leaps forward in all kinds and varieties of technology, political reform, modern civil rights, political corruption and reform, leadership a century ahead of time, leadership centuries behind the times, and the incredible, if not outright suicidal bravery of the American soldier embarked upon that cause he and his leaders feel is just enough to fight for. It is hard to see the American soldier of the Second World War and the modern American combatant in Afghanistan and Iraq and not see him outlined in the Soldiers of the campaigns of the Civil War. That war, like many wars, but that war especially and in particular, just as with the Second World War, was a prophecy and harbinger of things to come which I doubt very seriously that we will escape before the turn of the next century, or beyond. If ever.

If history is a stream which never runs dry then the Civil War was truly the Mississippi of our nation's capital frontier. And an omen for the world to come.
It is like visiting the graveyard of your ancestors only to discover that those ghosts never stayed aground, but wander around you still, their burial more a memory
than a fact.

Anyway, it was a graveyard worth revisiting, and a memory worth the disinterment.




Save This Page

Civil War and the Death of Old Legends

Allele – Civil War and the Death of Old Legends

Title of Work: Civil War

Author, Director, Artist, Creator: Marvel

Form (Book, CD, DVD, Film, etc.): Comic Book

Ranking/Recommendation: 9 of 10


Well, I now know how the Civil War ends. I found the ending compressed, and shortened and a bit too easy for my tastes, but I think Cap made the smart move.

Unlike the Justice League the heroes of the Marvel rebellion simply had no chance whatsoever of resisting both the authorities and the heroes stacked against them. Eventually it would have ended with the utter liquidation of the resistance and their resistance was only gonna harden the political resolve against them. I was kinda shocked, even amused, that when the civil workers grabbed Cap that he was shocked they were against him.

Of course they were gonna be against him, what, did he think that the vast majority of the population would be glad to see the triumph of a resistance movement fighting their own military, civilian, political, and governmental authorities, as well as special agents (the registered heroes) sanctioned by their own government? I don’t see how he could have been that stupid and deluded in the first place, or anyone else for that matter, including any readers supporting that position for the long run. You might wanna see Cap and his team win a skirmish or two but to think that most people would approve of him and his side winning? That’s laughable.

Like I said earlier an easy compromise could have been negotiated in which some heroes would go public, and some heroes could retain their secret identities as long as all registered with the proper authorities. But as time went along I realized neither side, nor the writers, were interested in anything like a logical compromise until events had run their course. Which was fine with me because I found this the best large-scale Marvel project ever undertaken in the sense of a milieu or background setting for future developments. The only reason I ranked it a 9 instead of a 10 was due to the fact that there were obvious plot and construction holes in the overall project and I liked four previous Marvel projects better; when Captain America went after Daredevil in Hell’s Kitchen due to government construction of another super Soldier, when Kraven kidnapped Spidey and “killed” and then replaced him, the entire Venom/Black Suit story arc (I much prefer the Black Suit), and the Spidey/Daredevil/Kingpin/Gang War involving the Hobgoblin. But now for the first time ever I like Marvel as well as I like DC, not just a few lone characters like Spiderman or Daredevil, but Marvel and the Marvel World itself. I think this was an entirely courageous and great project, very timely, and to tell you the truth I was shocked by the conservative conclusion. I had expected Marvel to go in the opposite direction entirely, a sort of all hail rock-n-roll, screw the authorities, we hate the Man and power structure ending that only some modern liberal could think brilliant and angst-ridden. A mascara and tattoo modern rock whiney-teenager, the world is doomed ending. But they actually played it right, even if a little unevenly, and even if they went askew every now and then by occasionally disappointing in the individual storylines.

But eventually Iron Man was gonna have to win because his side was the correct side. Once the very idea of regulation became fixed in the public mind there would be no turning back the clock to a prior mindset. Not that I’m a big fan of over-regulation, but regulation of policemen, soldiers, EMS workers, or anyone else with the potential power of life and death (and such heroes would certainly have those abilities in many cases) is only logical. There is no way around that.


Couple that with the fact that Iron Man is a much, much better modern leader of men and there was no way Cap or his renegades could triumph. Cap was an anachronism from another age, one in which great leadership skills were basically evidenced on the Tactical Level. He never really graduated. He never rose in rank to Major, Colonel, or General America. He remained in effect always a small group, Special Teams Tactical Leader. He never ranked as a Strategic Leader with a Strategic Vision. He had no way of truly moving into the Future, made little to no employment of advanced technology (except as a last ditch effort against IM, if only he had employed such foresight against terrorists and murderers and Nazis – a Shield, that’s the limit of your Arsenal of Democracy?), was almost always reactionary (instead of being anticipatory and proactive against potential threats), never advanced as a Commander, had no strategic vision for the future, was clad in a ridiculously outdated and outmoded brightly colored uniform in a world where Stealth and maneuver is a far better advantage, was well past his prime militarily, as a commander, as a visionary, as a leader, and as a field agent. I understand the impulse towards anachronism, being something of an anachronism myself in some ways, but simply because you come from another age is no excuse for remaining trapped in the past. One cannot remain forever fixed in the past or one is unfit for the future.

Not that he couldn’t have adapted, not that he couldn’t have become a newer, more advanced, more capable, more strategic, better Captain America. He just never really tried. Which is a shame because had Cap adapted, had he thrown away the bright long johns and donned a suit befitting his athletic and physical skills, had he employed a wide range of technological tools, had he practiced and honed his leadership skills to befit the modern world, had he developed a strategic vision, had he made, maintained and succored the proper contacts, built the proper network of alliances instead of relying merely upon the personal admiration of others for him, had he built the proper teams instead of just personal friendships then he could have become the Batman of the Marvel universe. But his character never grew, never matured, merely antiquated.

Iron Man became the Batman of the Marvel Universe in most respects. He had the Vision, the resources, the leadership skills to properly employ modern agents, and the network of contacts to make things work. He had the Big Idea.

Whether Iron Man will properly employ his Strategic Vision in the future in the best possible way for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of people possible, that remains to be seen. He could easily become corrupted. Many modern people do. Modern men have little trouble developing the necessary ideas to encapsulate a Strategic vision of great scope and potential, they just often fail to maintain or even to grow in the first place those necessary ideals by which a great Vision can only be properly sustained. Cap had that ideal set, but he was an anachronism of another age that lacked any new ideas upon which to fix such ideals. Iron Man has all of the proper ideas but has often, in the past at least, shown the type of moral ambiguity that will make him subject to both overt and subconscious psychological and spiritual corruption.

It’s possible of course that Stark is now completely clean and sober, and will remain that way, and so will not be easily susceptible to the corrupting influence of either his own shortcomings, or the corrupting influence of those around him. But time will tell. In any case given the huge scope of his plans he will in all likelihood eventually need to find a new Captain America as a partner, friend, and guide to help him control his impulses towards overcontrol and to prevent the calcification of his own Vision.

Speaking of which as everyone now knows Cap is to be Killed. By an assassin. I can only say that I am sad to see the character killed, I wish he had been convicted, then pardoned, then gone in retirement since it was obvious he would probably never change and adapt to the current world. But in a way it is very fitting he died by hand of an assassin given the state of the modern world.

I can only hope that the next Captain America, or whoever assumes some similar mantle will be forward looking, will adapt, will have a vision, perhaps can even become a friend of Stark and assist him with whatever comes next. I really, really hope they do not resurrect Steve Rogers. Let him lie in peace, Hero of Another Age. Let him go proudly to his Fathers, and their Fathers. He was a man of another world, so let him go to another world and find some rest.

As for whatever new character arises to replace him, I can only say, “Welcome to the Party Pal. We’re living in strange and dangerous times. Ditch that clown outfit and suit up in something a little darker. Then we’ll talk about your next assignment”


By the by I thought Dave had the best overall write up of both the strengths and weaknesses of the Civil War as a comic book event on the Net.

Save This Page

Making Marriage Sound Queer, and the Good Child

The Glair - Making Marriage Sound Queer, and the Good Child

I don't care much for Orson Scott Card's fictional writings, but lately I've read quite a few articles by him and I've got to say, the man is often one helluvah essayist.

Take this article on Gay Marriage.


Now anyone who has ever been married knows that although the sport is a joyful exercise on occasion, and just downright fun and inspiring sometimes, that it is indeed a noble and good pursuit - it is also a tremendously gritty exercise in human suffering, patience, understanding, resentment, miscalculation, reversal, redemption, love, and can even often be terrifically hard work. One thing it rarely devolves into is gayness, in either the original or modern sense of the term.

Yet the way modern people use words nowadays you would think that the very best way to redefine anything, and then act on those newly invented redefinitions, is not through some historically fixed set of rules for human communications, but by the use of some misprogammed and viral-laden version of Babblefish.

At some point a person comes to understand that most problems on the face of this planet don't really stem from competing interests, but simply from the fact that people have decided that by redefining their interests in anyway they see momentarily fit, and then cloaking those misshapen and mutated malformations in the brightly colored fashions of public interest, and understanding, and tolerance, that they can reshape reality. Into what is another question, but why bother with questions when the sport is the thing.

A word by any other word would still smell as funny and still sound as queer, if not for the fact that in modern usage no one can hear you scream in cyberspace. After all, in the modern world, data is completely interchangeable with Truth, and if you don't believe that, then you've got a queer way of looking at things. Try refreshing your screen till it all becomes clear again.


Now for something completely different, Men coming home to be greeted by their neighbor's children. I've often wondered, since reading the parable of the Good Samaritan, what exactly composes the Good Neighbor. Is it in the head, or in the heart where fancy's bred? Is courage born of sacrifice, or does sacrifice breed courage in the passing man? Does it really matter nowadays?

When children decide that part of maturing is to wish their fellow countryman death and destruction when their fellow countryman is engaged in a pursuit designed to prevent death and destruction then I have to wonder who shepherds the shepherds, and when did the sheep gain control of the madhouse?

The thing about sheep is that they are not very smart, but try and tell the sheep that.

I am reminded of Animal Farm and for one brief moment my mind drifts back to a day when allusions, analogies, and symbols didn't have to be explained. To a time of youth when people, even the young, got the idea that a thing represented more than itself and that ideas had meanings even if some people drifted through life as if they did not.

Now what passes simply passes.

There is a sort of poetic irony to it all.

We've redefined things so many times that no one remembers the last definition long enough to care that we don't.




Save This Page

New Features

Pesharim - New Features

For the benefit of my Readers I am adding two New Features to The Missal.

This First is a Research Function. Every Day I will attempt to locate the very best and most interesting links I possibly can regarding subject matter I cover in the blog on that day.

Every day I cover different subject matter and every day I will summarize the best links I could find covering the same subject matter posted for that day.

These summations of interesting items and new links will include news, reports, Research and Development Projects, technology, etc. I will try to make the links relevant to current events but also will try to include items little covered or ignored by the larger and more standard media.

Every day of the week when possible, with the possible exception of Sundays and Holidays, I will try to post a new Research Summary. I will try to continually improve the quality of the Research Links I post. These summaries will cover the following subjects by day of the week: (see Publication Schedule)

Monday Political Appraisal – An Appraisal of State, National, and International Politics

Tuesday Science and Technology Abstract – A Summary of Scientific and Technological Advances and Discoveries

Wednesday Religious Assessment – An Assessment of Important and Major and Interesting Religious Affairs

Thursday MCW Briefing – A Briefing on Events and Developments concerning Military, Intelligence, Espionage, Terrorism, and Criminal Affairs, as well as covering War and the War on Terror

Friday Cultural Calculation – A Summary and Critique on Culture, the Culture Wars, and Modern Pop Culture

Saturday A&A Inventory – Developments regarding Art, Entertainment, Film, Music, Sports, Athletics, Gaming, and Hobbies

Sunday Summary – A Summary of Important Events during the previous week


In addition I am starting a Discussion Board. I will be suggesting subject matter for each discussion but my Readers are free to discuss any subject I have mentioned during that week or any other matter they personally wish to discuss. This will be a Free Flowing Discussion and anyone is free to comment as long as they do so in a civilized and respectful manner.

I will attempt to reply to each comment as often as I can but I also encourage my Readers to discuss any subject matter that interests them among themselves.

Speaker Pelosi and The Proud American Tradition of Retreat and Surrender

The Exchange - Speaker Pelosi and The Proud American Tradition of Retreat and Surrender

By Justin Wade Galahad
For The Missive
November 16, 2006
4:45 EST





The United States of America has a very long and proud tradition of retreat and surrender when faced with difficult and challenging situations. From our very earliest experiences the idea of retreat and surrender has been deeply engrained in American custom and culture. It is a part of our character, the nature of our people.

One need only look back in time to formative events like the American Revolution, when the Colonial Forces buckled under the tremendous strain of war against what was then the mightiest Empire on earth. The lack of supplies and proper housing, the constant frostbite, the tattered clothes, shortages of ammunition, the inexperienced and under-trained units, the hardships of starvation, and the rationing of basic goods, all were far too much for both her military and her citizens to endure. How could anyone expect Americans to rise under those conditions, to continue forward and persevere, to triumph against such overwhelming odds? The logical thing to do of course was capitulate. And so we did, at the first available opportunity.

The War of 1812 is another sterling example of American Victory by Abandonment. Because we were wise enough and had enough foresight to realize that expansion Westward was a grave mistake we abandoned any further attempt to move West and were furthermore quite satisfied to allow the British to burn our Capital. A great nation always admits any mistake it might have made in the past and bows out gracefully before the situation comes too close to any actual triumph. One can never be sure that if one continues forward that victory will result, but one can always be assured that victory can be grasped by surrender. Leadership is after all the art of knowing when to know that you don’t really want to try anymore.

The Civil War was another catastrophic and vicious war fought for no good reason. Fighting to preserve the Union and to eventually extend the blessings of liberty to all Americans were simply not sufficient reasons to excuse the losses and cost in blood and treasure. No same or rational person could possibly say that it was. That war, which relieved so many Americans of their lives was a senseless, brutal, pointless and by today’s standards a totally unreasonable and unnecessary war. So America did the right thing, the only thing that made any sense, we simply stopped fighting. Pulled our troops out. Negotiated the end of the conflict before anything could be permanently, and perhaps even disastrously, resolved. Why would any sensible nation do otherwise?

The First and Second World Wars were horrible tragedies. Not worth our time. Once casualties began to mount it quickly became obvious to all that the only way to win was to lose. Admit your mistakes. Sure, some argued changing tactics, but why bother? It really wasn’t our set of wars and it doesn’t matter what happens in the rest of the world. The rest of the world is for the rest of the world to lose, we have enough problems losing well right here at home.

Korea was a joke. The Chinese? Who wants to fight a billion Chinese? It is literally impossible to imagine any scenario in which the Korean War could have turned out to the benefit of anyone. Little slant-eyed yellow people, who cares about them? If they really wanted to be free then they would have done all of the fighting themselves and would have done it like we did, by retreat and submission. You almost always gain more by giving up than going on. Any shrink will tell you that.

Vietnam. We all know of what a tremendously successful war we had there, when we finally learned to let go and love the Tet. Vietnam stands as a shining example throughout all of human history of how to lose a war the right way, so that everyone prospers as a result. And we all know everyone did.

The Cold War. Thank God no one took that seriously. Over forty years of protracted conflict, competition, and war by proxy? Who wants that? We gave up early and we gave up often. You can’t win the freedom of a world by constantly exciting tensions and demanding that people everywhere be free. Be realistic, won’t you? The only Good War is a Lost War.

And now we find ourselves yet again embroiled in War, the War on Terrorism, in Afghanistan, and Iraq. Let’s start from the beginning. All Muslims are constitutionally incapable of desiring liberty. Now that we have that rough truth out in the public for open examination, let’s follow it up with an even more logical axiom. You win immediately, or you don’t win at all. If you can’t solve everything within the first forty-eight hours, like they do on television, then you’re in the wrong business. Best get out.

Three and a half years. Coming up on four. Three years and counting and what do the Iraqis have to show for themselves? They haven’t won a thing yet. Which means of course that they have lost more than they have won. Three years is an awfully long time in the modern world to have gone without fixing your most pressing problems, and defeating your most dreadful and persistent enemies. Suppose America had fought the Nazis that long, the British that long, the Soviets that long? Suppose it had taken three and a half (or even more years) to fix Social Security or to provide Universal Healthcare?

No, this situation is obviously ridiculous. Men are dying, women are dying, and children are dying. And it is the fault of the Americans. It is our fault. And the fault of the vast majority of Iraqis. The one group who cannot be blamed however is the enemy. The enemy is Muslim; they don’t understand these things, don’t perceive the wisdom and enlightened benefits of surrender and retreat like more hardy and civilized peoples. If the Iraqis were more like us, like real Americans, then this would have been over long ago in an early capitulation. As it is, alas, I’m afraid the Iraqis won’t really come to understand the full benefits of surrender, abandonment, and retreat as we do, until it is far, far too late. Thank God we do have that kind of foresight, that kind of wisdom, that kind of a Can’t-Do American Spirit. It’s the way we were made, from our very inception. Our Grandfathers were quitters, their grandfathers were quitters, and their grandfathers were quitters as well. Changing now would only be like changing jackasses in the middle of the Rodeo. And our jackasses are doing just fine, thank you very much. The Iraqis could learn a thing or two from the fine example of our American leadership. You don’t need freedom when you can have higher taxes, more unemployment, and Nationalized Healthcare.

So I say, “Thank you Speaker-to-Be Pelosi.” Sometimes it takes a special kind of female to remind men everywhere of just how much of a woman they can really be too, if they just try hard enough. And thank you liberal Democrats and American liberals everywhere. You have reminded us all of the very finest traditions of American Sacrifice Sealed with Honorable Retreat, and of how to achieve Victory through Abandonment without even trying. You make me want to leap to my feet and sing the French National Anthem even as I write these words. Deep, deep, down in your little hearts, you must want to as well.

Congratulations. You’ve finally made Europeans of Americans.
Now we can all sleep much easier at night, safe in the knowledge that you helm the Ship.

© JWG, Jr. 2006

Rumsfeld Aside, Realpolitik

The Glair - Rumsfeld Aside, Realpolitik

A very good summation by VDH of both political and military affairs.


Rumsfeld, Webb—and Being careful about what you wish for

Vaya Con Dios, Rummy!

Here is the record of Donald Rumsfeld. (1) Tried to take a top-heavy Pentagon and prepare it for the wars of the postmodern world, in which on a minute’s notice thousands of American soldiers, with air and sea support, would have to be sent to some god-awful place to fight some savagery—and then be trashed live on CNN for doing it; (2) less than a month after 9/11 he organized the retaliation against al Qaeda in the heart of primordial Afghanistan that removed the Taliban in 7 weeks, when we were all warned that the U.S., like the British and Russians of old, would fail; (3) oversaw the removal of Saddam in 3 weeks—after the 1991 Gulf War and the 12-years of 350,000 sorties in the no-fly-zones, and various bombing strikes, had failed. (4) Ah, you say, then there is the disastrous 3-year insurgency—too few troops, Iraqi army let go, underestimated “dead-enders” etc.?

But Rumsfeld knew that in a counterinsurgency (cf. Vietnam 1965-71) massive deployments only ensure complacency, breed dependency, and create resentment, and that, in contrast, training indigenous forces, ensuring political autonomy, and providing air and commando support (e.g., Vietnam circa 1972-4) is the only answer—although that is a long process that can work only if political support at home allows the military to finish the job (cf. the turn-of-the-century Philippines, and the British in Malaysia). He was a good man, and we were lucky to have him in our hour of need.

James WebbI received a lot of angry private email objecting to a pre-election syndicated column I wrote for Tribune Media Services, in which I criticized the Allen campaign’s attack on Webb’s shocking passages in some of his novels, along with the lamentable trend to confuse fiction with reality (http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson110606.html.) I thought the Allen tact was both silly and wrong to equate a novelist with his literary characters, especially in wartime landscapes where realism is essential to a chronicle of battle and its effects on men.
I also wrote that Webb had led an exemplary life, and it might be a good change to have a novelist as a Senator. I know the campaign was cruel on both sides, but it was both an ethical and practical mistake to go after the veteran Webb on his literary characterizations, especially when his record of public service had long ago proved that he was a principled person. If the Democrats are to recapture any stature as a serious party, it will be because of moderates like Webb, whom I have always respected and admired. So no apologies here.

Be careful of what you wish for

Liberals used to deplore realists—a James Baker (“F*** the Jews” or “Jobs, jobs, jobs”), a Brent Scowcroft (letting the Shiites and Kurds get mowed down by helicopter gunships in late February/early March 1991), or George Bush Senior shaking down the Japanese et al. to pay for the first Gulf War and then leaving Saddam in power to “balance” Iran. But now with Baker and Gates sort of back, and apparent greater reliance on the first Bush’s realism, it will be interesting to see what the Democrats in the House will do—especially if there is a realist-Right and anti-war Left convergence that gives up on Iraq and comes home.

Link to Full Article:

Redeployments and Realignments

Signal, Sygnet and Sigil - Redeployments and Realignments

Assuming this Article is indeed legitimate, I am very much in favor of this type of troop realignment and redeployment. And I have been personally advocating this idea for some time.

I think every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and those in Special Forces units (even those normally not spun up except for exceptional mission scenarios - such as Counter-Terrorism Rescue and Hostage Rescue Teams) should spend some active duty time in a combat zone or in a combat theatre, even if only for six months.

No Armed Force of the United States, especially an all-volunteer force should consist of those who have been in Combat Areas (Combat Veterans - whose deployments are usually far too exhaustive and exhausting), and those who have never seen or Know Nothing of Combat Areas (Combat Virgins). Even those in the Institutional Force should be serving some period of time in and around combat theatres. It will make them far better, far more experienced, and far more valuable trainers.

Of course you do not necessarily want every trooper who is transferred to a combat theatre to see combat (or even necessarily see the most dangerous areas of a combat theatre), but you do want them to at least gain a necessary education in, and to become acclimated towards, combat conditions. You also want those who do not directly engage in fighting to gain experience in offering logistical and close support to those troops who are engaged in active combat. And I suspect that it would greatly and beneficially contribute to overall force cohesion.


By the way, it looks like another great is Going Black.

You know, I'm to the point now of thinking about asking for legislative action to help address this problem.

I still think the problem could be easily addressed though through clever use of technological filters.

Civil War

Pesharim - Civil War


CIVIL WAR - This has split my family as well. It is undoubtedly the greatest, most interesting, and downright most clever thing Marvel has ever done.

The basic premise is as follows. For a long time the US government, some foreign governments and political constituencies have wanted to register mutants and superheroes so that they can be controlled and monitored by a governmental agency. This push has accelerated as a result of the War on Terrorism and because certain superheroes have conducted ad hoc and private anti-terrorism/anti-ICC campaigns of their own which many in the government, military and in certain agencies consider dangerous.

A short time ago a junior grade team of upstart superheroes decides they will recapture some known escapees and supercriminals who are on the lam, but whose location they have discovered. The attempt to take them into custody bounty-hunter fashion results in one of the supercriminals triggering a catalyzed fuel explosion on a school bus which also ignites and blows up an elementary school resulting in between 600 and 900 probable fatalities, most of them school children.

As a result of this lethal incident an immediate emergency legislative session is called and the Congress passes a mandatory pubic registration act for all mutants and superheroes, which the president is going to sign.

This splits the superhero community in half, some, siding with Tony Stark, Reed Richards and Peter Parker decided to go the registration route and to publicly disclose their identities, becoming governmental employees.

Others, backed by Captain America decide to try to maintain their identities and natures as vigilante operatives outside official legal and governmental control.It has become a fascinating series with extremely interesting points and arguments on both sides. I've never been a big Marvel fan, except for Spiderman, Daredevil, and sometimes Iron Man. I never cared for Cap until reading recent New Avengers. Since then I've gained great respect for the Cap character and his leadership abilities.

My wife, who before we married never read comics and also didn't like Marvel very much, (we're both DC fans, and for team or group magazines we prefer Justice League) has though become as equally enthralled by this series (Civil War) as she has with the New Avengers.

Her position is that no superhero should be forced to register, reveal their secret identities, or be forced to work for, be paid by, or employed by any government, the US government included.

Yet despite the fact that I Vad, often intentionally avoid the authorities, almost never operate in any way but alone, I cannot help but finding myself in general sympathy with Iron Man, Richards, and Spiderman that superheroes and mutants should register and be in some way regulated.

Now I think a compromise could be reached in which mutants and superheroes could be registered for legal purposes, information collected about them, maybe even genetic samples taken of them, and yet their personal identities guarded from general public disclosure, just as is the case with many Intel agents and operatives and even case officers and is the case with many Special Forces Soldiers, especially in active theatres of operation. I also don't think it necessary or desirable that such individuals would become automatic representatives of some governmental agency or directly employed by and paid by the US government. Some could form up as special paramilitary units, others as law enforcement units, some as Intel, some as special operatives and some could assist on a strictly voluntary basis. But, and maybe this is just age and experience on my part (when younger the thought of something like registration would have brought automatic revulsion for me), given those general conditions I would register if so approached. As a patriotic act and to assist others if I could.

One thing I really like about this series and storyline is that it asks some really interesting and difficult real world questions, questions I've faced before personally and other things I could easily imagine myself undergoing in such a predicament and situation, and I can see hard arguments both yea and nay on both sides. Also the series thus far has made no attempt to preach or proclaim a "right side" in such a conflict, as there is I think no right side in such matters. In any case I think this is the best comic myth storyline series I've read in over a decade.Excellent work and tough considerations. I like very much this Civil War.

I encourage everyone to read this series if they enjoy comics.


Addendum: Since the cloned Thor killed Bill Foster (Goliath) I have begun to have serious reservations about the manner in which the registration program is being executed. I still support the idea of registering superheroes, or at least of devising a compromise, but the very fact that Reed Richards, Tony Stark and others supporting superhero registration are involved in illegal cloning projects and that these clones seem to be under external control instead of possessing free wills of their own, and the fact that they would attempt to clone a character like Thor (who up until recently I did not like at all, I kinda do now) and deploy him in such a way that this cloned Thor ends up killing a man, that bothers me a lot. I think now the program should be suspended and negotiations begun and some type of compromise reached, as I outlined above.

I think though that the killing of Goliath and the introduction of the cloned Thor and deploying a team of super-villains to assist the Avengers against the Secret Avengers has made an absolutely brilliant set of plots and stroylines just that much more ingenious.

I highly recommend this series.

The Exchange - Threat and Victim

The Exchange - Threat and Victim

A friend sent me this article. I thought it so well written with such a great counterintuitive point that I decided to post it here.

The Real Islamic Threat

Friday, September 22, 2006
By James Jay Carafano

The greatest danger in the world today is not the threat from Islam, but the threat to Islam.

In the long war against terror, nations with primarily Muslim populations have suffered the most loses -- murder, instability, economic malaise and the degradation of religious faith. And it is all the fault of the terrorists who claim to be their champions.

On 9/11 and many times since, terrorists have tried attacking the West. But they’ve found the West isn’t an easy target. Britain foiled a major plot this past summer. The United States and its allies have struck back, adopting unprecedented security measures to stop further attacks.

In turn, the terrorists did what they have historically done: attacked the weak and avoided the strong. And the weak are in the terrorists’ own back yard.
Hezbollah’s adventurism offers only the latest example. Having finally emerged from decades of civil war and foreign occupation, the people of Lebanon enjoyed a brief false dawn of peace before terrorists sparked a war that killed hundreds of Muslim Arabs in Lebanon and Israel, displaced thousands more and dragged Lebanon to the brink of chaos.

The story in Iraq is much the same.

The Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism in Oklahoma City estimates that, to date, Iraq has suffered 5,771 terrorist attacks, totaling 14,680 deaths and thousands more in casualties. The country holds the current world record by a large margin. And it’s violence launched by Muslims, against Muslims.

Since 9/11, the institute has recorded 8,491 terrorist attacks in the Middle East and 16,269 fatalities -- numbers that by far exceed the losses in any other part of the planet.

In the last year alone, the government’s National Counterterrorism Center counted 8,223 victims of terrorism, including 2,627 deaths. South Asia, another region with large Islamic populations, runs second on the list with 5,401 total victims. In contrast, Western Europe suffered 339 victims and North America eight.

And it is not just the physical losses.

By virtually every index, many countries that are losing ground in the march to peace, prosperity and justice are Muslim. Terrorism is a key reason why. In The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, for example, Lebanon and Malaysia scored lower in 2005 than they did in 2004. Countries such as Afghanistan and Somalia were so chaotic they couldn’t even be scored.

According to the rankings of the non-partisan group Freedom House, in 2005 only one country out of 18 in the Middle East was graded as “free” (Israel). The region trails all others in the Freedom House rankings, and although modest gains were recorded last year (most notably in Lebanon), even that’s probably wiped out now.

Even Muslim charities are suffering from all the chaos, particularly in the United States. According to The Washington Post, charitable donations are way down. Religious organizations have been able to send only a paltry amount of aid for humanitarian relief in Lebanon. That’s because people know terrorists have used some Islamic charities as cash cows, so all charities are now suspect.
Terrorist propaganda argues that all the murder and mayhem is justified by religious sanction. That is simply a perversion of the Islamic faith. The use of “jihad” for what is essentially a political agenda is not part of Islamic tradition. In fact, when it has been used that way before, the results have usually been disastrous -- for Muslims.

The followers of al-Mahdi tried it in the Sudan in 1885; the result was 10 million dead Sudanese and a failed revolution. And the Muslim world learned a lesson. For almost a century, until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, armed jihad was virtually unknown. Now it’s back.

After expelling the Soviets, the Taliban used the excuse of jihad to turn the country into a wasteland, and Osama bin Laden tried to unleash this brand of armed fascism on the world. Not surprisingly, where it has worked, its worse effects were on the followers of Islam -- the easy victims.

The real victors when the long war is won will be the Muslim world. Its people will be saved from the suffering terrorism causes, and their religion will be saved from a secular perversion that tries to turn an act of faith into a justification for naked aggression.

The great common cause in this war would be for all of us to battle those who would intentionally murder innocents for political gain.

Groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and state sponsors of terrorism such as the governments in Syria and Iran are on the wrong side of history and religion, and they should be treated as the common enemy of all peoples.

James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security at The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org), and author of the new book “G.I. Ingenuity.”