Just for Jihad.

Osama bin Laden is in the news again, this time with a new video addressed to the American people in which he rails against capitalism, spouts Democratic talking points, and attempts to sweet talk Christians into converting by claiming that Islam venerates Jesus.

It's the typical "convert or die" message from the Jihadists, but his honeyed words are particularly repugnant. Hot Air has the video, and here is a transcript.

He's clearly addressing the anti-war liberals with his references to "major corporations" and global warming, but he has some harsh words for the Democratic Leaders in congress for not doing anything to stop the war after they won their majority. In this, he sounds remarkably like a diarist at DailyKos. His ignorance of America and American history shows in his references to Vietnam and Kennedy.

The video may be an indicator that Al Qaeda has an operation in the works against us, and it may be true, though he doesn't make an explicit threat. It's interesting that a bunch of Jihadi websites shut down once word got out that the US had a copy of the video.

Much has been made of Osama's sexy new look with the cropped, black beard, but it looks as if there's a reason besides vanity.

'As I noted here yesterday, the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence
forbids men and women to dye their hair black "except when the intention is
jihad...as a show of strength to unbelievers" ('Umdat al-Salik e.4.4). OBL is
not a member of the Shafi'i school; the Wahhabis adhere to the Hanbali school,
and the Deobandis (the dominant sect among the Taliban) are Hanbalis. But this
is not just a Shafi'i view: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, in his internationally
influential The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, says essentially the same
thing: "Some of the early Muslims, including some sahabah [companions of
Muhammad] such as Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, 'Uqbah ibn 'Amr, al-Hassan, al-Hussein,
Jarir, and others permitted the use of black dye. Some scholars, on the other
hand, do not consider the use of black dye as permissible except during time of
war, when the enemy might be impressed by the fact that all the soldiers of the
Muslim army look young."'

My own impression is that they are not as strong as they would like to be, and that our efforts are having an effect. This attempt to cajole the American people would be laughable, were the situation not so serious.

A Find for the Ages.

This story is nearly a week old now, but I just discovered it while playing around with Google News.

A rare find was discovered south of Siena: an undisturbed Etruscan tomb. The Etruscans were a people that inhabited what is now known as Tuscany in Italy. Often called pirates by ancient authors, the Etruscans traded with groups all over the Mediterranean, from Carthage to the Levant (modern day Syria and Israel). They dominated central Italy until the second century BC, when the Roman Republic grew in power. The date of this tomb is from this later time period.

Read the article for the details, but note what the author says near the end about local lore.

"In Civitella Paganico, residents have known for a long time that something
interesting was hidden in the woods.
"When I was a child, my father told me
there were strange holes in the ground around the woods," Marcocci said."

I spent a summer during college digging at a site near Siena called Poggio Civitate. That particular site was also discovered as a result of investigating local legends. "Poggio Civitate" means something like "civilized hill." The dig site is on a part of the hill known as the Piano del Tesoro, or "Plain of Treasure." Local legend had it that once someone had gone up to the hill and brought down a golden treasure. A team of archaeologists in the 1960s investigated this legend and found an Etruscan settlement from the 6th and 5th centuries BC.

The Etruscans have always fascinated me, and it is always interesting to hear about new finds.

Believing in Blue: Colts 41, Saints 10

Football season is officially underway and Colts fever has hit in a big way. I had to work last night, so I missed watching most of the game, but it looks as if the Colts are off to a good start.

The big concern in the media was the number of rookies that are starting for the Colts, but I didn't see where they were that much of a detriment. They played well for their first time out, and in some cases it looked as if they played better than last year's group. The defense did especially well against the run, and seemed to be tackling better than in years past. They seemed to run out of steam a little in the late stages of the game, though, and did not look quite as sharp on some plays.

The offense was its usual efficient self, and I think having a rookie to spell Joe Addai is not going to be a big issue. Keith ran well the few times I saw him, and the line is good at opening holes for anyone. I think we'll see a big year for the offense now that the ridiculous pressure of the media's "can he win the big game?" is off of Manning.

It's always good to start the year off with a win.

Link to Image Source.

It's Official: Fred's In.

Check out his announcement video. Very Reagan-esque production, though it's a lot to take in all at once.

I'm excited that he's in, and I'm excited by the positions he states in his announcement. I may be idealistic, but I like the idea of a candidate that says that the power of the federal government should be reduced and given back to the States and the people, as the Constitution says.

The attacks have already started though, and it will be crucial to see how Fred handles them. Some are predictably ridiculous, but others regarding his record and history are more serious. He didn't handle the revelation that he lobbied for a pro-abortion outfit very well. He'll have to be sharper on defense, especially since the media have hit him so hard for waiting as long as he did and for announcing in the way he has.

I'll be watching him closely the next few weeks to see if the reality lives up to the hype.

The Fox News Republican Debate

I know it's not the first debate, but in keeping with the style here at Back Home Again, I'm coming late to the game with my own thoughts and opinions. This debate seemed to me to be the real kick off to the campaign, especially since Fred Thompson also officially jumped in last night (more on Fred later).

Several bloggers kept track of the action last night. Hoosierpundit live blogged the debate, as did Michell Malkin. The NRO staff also followed along at the Corner, and Hot Air has video excerpts. My wife and I sat on the couch, watching and discussing.

I thought the debate was a pretty good one, and the questions were tough and honest, though like all primary debates which have more than two participants, it seemed more a debate between the candidates and the moderators than between the candidates. Fox picked a good group to moderate the discussion; they kept control, but not maniacally so. They allowed the discussion to flow, and they weren't afraid to question the candidates' statements when needed.

Here's my impressions of the candidates, then (since I haven't paid much attention up to this point):

Duncan Hunter: He sounded good and made some statements I liked, but his demeanor turned me off. I didn't like the way he leaned on the podium and smirked all the time; he seemed like a cocky boss.

Sam Brownback: I really don't know why he's in the race. He made some good conservative statements, and emphasized family values, but nothing about him really seemed inspiring. He seemed a little tired and dull.

Mitt Romney: This was my first real exposure to Romney, and I rather liked what I saw. He has good communication skill, and did a reasonably good job of articulating his position. I didn't like his hedging on whether or not the Surge is working (kudos to McCain for calling him on it), and I think he should have outright apologized to the gentlemen who questioned him from the diner regarding his comment about his sons' "service." He also didn't handle the illegal immigration question particularly well, and I thought it a little weak to dodge the sanctuary city issue by saying that the mayors were responsible for that. I'm sorry, but as governor of a state, you have some political leverage you can use on local governments; he should have used it.

Rudy Giuliani: I was really disappointed in Rudy. I thought he conducted himself well on 9-11, and I thought his statements to the media that day were more informative than the media reports themselves. But last night was one long repetitive litany of "I did this in New York." The focus group after the debate had it right: he bragged about his accomplishments ad nauseum without stating what he would accomplish as president. He (understandably) completely ducked the family values question put directly to him, and was notably absent from the abortion question. His response to the sanctuary city question was completely unsatisfactory; everyone knows that INS is dysfunctional, but to use that as an excuse for doing nothing is irresponsible. He pointed out that they reported all "illegals who committed crimes." What about the crime of crossing the border and working without permission? What about the crime of overstaying your visa? Did he report those too?

John McCain: A lot of people are calling him the winner, but I just don't buy it. He conducted himself well, as always, and he is clear and articulate as befits a long-time senator, but though he stuck to conservative statements, much of what he said contradicts his record and is the same sort of stuff we hear from the current administration. His attempt to explain his position on immigration as "enforcement first" was laughable. He was as steadfast on the war as always, and I think his directness on that issue is what carried the day for him in many people's eyes.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee impressed me as Romney did. He was clear, articulate, and eloquently (that word has shown up on the 'net concerning Huckabee a lot today) stated his positions. He actually struck me as more genuine than Romney, though he dodged the racism part of the question on immigration. His response to the abortion question was priceless: bravo. I also liked the way he went after Ron Paul when Paul clearly had wandered into the giggle-weeds. In addition, he comported himself well during the post-debate interview with Hannity and Colmes.

Ron Paul: What can I say? Paul was definitely the entertainment of the evening, and despite the clamor in the auditorium during his statements, he obviously has almost no chance of being elected. but amid the shrill isolationist babble, he did have one or two gems that I think are worth noting. He pointed out the ineffectiveness of the federal government at protecting citizens, and points out that if people on the planes on 9-11 had been able to carry guns, then things might have turned out differently. His views on war, though, are completely unrealistic, and his understanding of the government's power to make war is wrong. He stated that the president should go to Congress and inquire "if there is a legitimate national security threat," in accordance with the Constitution. Incorrect. If there is a threat, it is the President that must determine it and explain the threat to Congress and ask them to declare war against the threat. Congress has been derelict in its duty the last seventy years by issuing permissions to use military force instead of war declarations. The anti-war crowd would do better to couch their argument in those terms rather that decrying the war as immoral.

Tom Tancredo: I like Tancredo's willingness to point out the enemy in the war on terror as Radical Islam, and not take the myopic view that Iraq is the beginning and end of the war. His position on immigration is also strong, though he turns many people off by subscribing to fears about the "North American Union." He seemed to be a strong conservative, but he also seems to be a one or two issue candidate. He beats his two drums, and you really don't hear much else out of him, granting that the two issues are the two most important. I don't think he'll get the nomination, but he'll be the guy to articulate the reality that everyone else believes but won't dare state out loud.

In summation, I'll have to split my vote between Huckabee and Romney, with Huck having the slight edge for taking on Ron Paul and for dodging less questions than Mitt did. But both passed the "he looked Presidential" test, whereas the others fell short.

A Walk Along the Canal.

Sometimes the greatest pleasures we experience in this world are the simplest, and some of the greatest adventures we have are the least eventful. I gained an understanding of this contradictory truth during my semester at Harlaxton College near Grantham, England.

The Gregory Arms was a popular hangout for the college students, and many of us could be found sitting at the bar on weekend nights, chatting with the locals and sharing pints. My regular conversation partner was an old Canadian ex-patriat with an interest in history and a degree in mathematics. We talked about anything from the origins of the Etruscans to the Japanese economy. One night, however, he told me about something different.

"If you want a nice walk," he said, "follow the Grantham Canal to Woolsthorpe, and have lunch at the 'Mucky Duck.' It's not far, and makes a nice stroll for a Sunday morning."

The next morning dawned and I rose early, determined to take his advice. I donned my trusty work boots which had served me well from Poggio Civitate to London. Slipping into my denim jacket to ward off the morning chill, I made my way into Harlaxton to find the canal. One had to walk past some of the more ramshackle dwellings to a small bridge, then turn sharply and descend, passing beneath the span to put your feet on the old tow path. After successfully navigating this course, I found myself experiencing one of those quintessentially simple pleasures that it's almost impossible to experience with someone else.

The canal was narrow, and here and there a boat was pulled up to the bank, paint faded and tarp-covered. The waterway wound through the countryside, autumn fields rising up on either side of me as I casually walked along, enjoying the sight of the occasional lock with it's black gates and immense wooden levers. The weather was perfect, with just enough sun to drive away the gloominess of autumn, and enough clouds to keep you from squinting. Groves of trees and water plants broke up the landscape, giving you the sense that you were actually going somewhere as you moseyed along.

Just as the sun was drawing to its peak and I was starting to feel warm, I reached my destination. The Dirty Duck (its real name) was that wonderful mixture of quaint traditional and cool modern that typifies English pubs. It seemed fitting, like my solitary walk, that I was the only patron there at this particular lunch hour. I had a sandwich, of what I don't remember, and a pint, probably John Smith's Bitter, my staple while I was at Harlaxton. Both were good, and after a relaxing break and a casual glance around the pub, I stepped back outside to the canal.

I paused for a moment as the warm October sun shone down on me and I looked down the path, first one way, then the other. I felt full of energy, as if I could cover the entire 27 miles to Nottingham in the remainder of that day. The Midland country air tends to have that effect on you, and will tempt you if you let it. But I had funds for lunch, not a hotel, and the magic would surely wear off with the setting of the sun; and I had classes the next day.

I resisted temptation that time, and turned back to the now-familiar way that led back to school. The sun was warmer, so I doffed my jacket and bounced along, not caring that I had forgotten my camera to chronicle my excursion. Such a device would have stolen the soul from the day, and I did not miss it. I had plenty of drawing paper in my room, and could capture my memories well enough in that fitting medium.

I walked along into the afternoon, nodding to the old scows as I passed, my only companions on that special journey. I climbed the bank to the bridge and made my way through the still quiet village, though the gates and in the door of the manor, back to the world of dart games and British Studies.

Release: Final Thoughts on the South Korean Hostages.

It's old news now, but I didn't want to leave the subject of the South Korean hostage release without a few final thoughts. Eugene Cho and Michelle Malkin have the details of the release as it happened, so I won't rehash it here.

Firstly, don't forget that there are still hostages being held by the Taliban, a German man and four Afghans which the Taliban want to exchange for their jihad goons.

Second, it's possible that South Korea paid a ransom for the hostages release. As I noted a few posts ago, that only encourages the Taliban to continue to target aid workers and other innocents. Each instance of capitulation by allied governments increases the Taliban's political clout, as well as providing them much-needed funds.

I'm glad that the Korean hostages are free, but I don't like it that their freedom was bought, either monetarily or with concessions such as the withdrawal of all of South Korea's aid forces (which, incidentally, had already been proposed; why the change of heart, Taliban?). Even more outrageous is that now, the hostages feel compelled to apologize to their countrymen and government for putting themselves into danger in the first place!

"'I've had sleepless nights, thinking of what we have caused the country. I
am deeply sorry,' Yu Kyeong-sik said at a press conference."

Excuse me?! The South Korean government caves like a wet lily to a group of criminals, and the hostages are to blame? Yes, they should have been careful, but venturing into an unstable country is a risk that missionaries and aid workers take. The Bible illustrates in several places that spreading the Gospel is dangerous. I'd like to think that if I were in their place, I would be willing to accept even death in the effort to spread the word about Jesus, rather than have my homeland buy my way out.

This is not to condemn the hostages for wanting to be free, or for apologizing now, but Christians should not be ashamed of those who have given or will give their lives for their faith. We must remember that there is more than this life here on Earth, and though evil may seem to grow stronger, the victory of the Lord is already assured.