The Razor

I’ve written extensively about the military and the Stepson in The Corps. But true heroism comes in all shapes and sizes and isn’t limited to police officers and firemen. In November 2007 Readers Digest captured a few stories of heroism that, not being a RD reader myself, I missed.

Take for example the story of Moezeldin Elmostafa, a cab driver in Durham North Carolina who immigrated to the US from Sudan in 1999. Shortly after midnight on March 14, 2006 Elmostafa picked up two college boys, took them to an ATM and a drive thru, then delivered them both to Duke University’s West campus. After a decent tip from the boys, he thought nothing more of the ride until a month later when he was contacted by one of the boy’s lawyer. Reade Seligmann and two other Duke students had been accused of raping a dancer at a party. At the time of the alleged crime Seligmann had claimed that he was in Elmostafa’s taxi.

Even though he didn’t want to get involved, and feared that his involvement in a criminal case would jeopardize his chances for citizenship, Elmostafa imagined how he would have felt had his son been falsely accused. “I will testify,” he said. “I will stand up and tell the whole truth.” Elmostafa swore out an affidavit testifying to Seligmann’s whereabouts that night, showed his phone bill with a call from Seligmann’s phone to back up Seligmann’s story and was interviewed by the case detectives.

His reward? Elmostafa was jailed two weeks later on a two year old misdemeanor charge of larceny for driving a woman to a store, waiting for her while she shopped and driving her home. It turns out that she wasn’t shopping: she was shoplifting. The case had been settled soon after the charges were drawn up, but that didn’t stop Durham DA Mike Nifong from resurrecting the charge to pressure Elmostafa to change his story about the boys. Elmostafa didn’t roll over: he hired his own attorney and faced down the charges three months later in court, where he was acquitted.

But Elmostafa stuck by his story and testified for the defense. The boys were acquitted of all charges as the case fell apart, and Durham’s District Attorney was disbarred in June 2007.

Elmostafa could have taken the easy route for himself and simply not gotten involved. Had he not done so nothing bad would have happened to him, although the chances are good that three innocent young men would be behind bars today. Even though he was scared – and his fear was based on reality judging by the actions of Mike Nifong – Elmostafa showed true bravery, proving Rickenbacker’s adage that “It ain’t courage if you ain’t scared.”

Elmostafa is the kind of immigrant that makes America great, and the sooner he gets his citizenship, the better. He was voted “2008 Hero of the Year” by an online Reader’s Digest poll and it’s clear to me that he deserves the honor.

In the book Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. created a list of common cult characteristics. It’s not intended to serve as “cult scale”, but it does serve as a layman’s scorecard for deciding when a religion has cultish tendencies. After reading the list I was struck by how many on the list applied to social and political fads like Global Warming. Is Environmentalism a religion? Could Global Warming be considered a cult within that religion? Let’s take a look at Lalich & Langone’s cult characteristics and see for ourselves.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

In a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2003 writer Michael Crichton called environmentalism “one of the most powerful religions in the world” of today, claiming it to be the “religion of choice among urban atheists.” In the speech Crichton noted the similarities between environmentalism and religions. Both share an idyllic Eden where humanity and nature exist in total harmony. But a “fall from grace” follows and humanity and nature are separate and in conflict; Man pollutes and nature responds with hurricanes, droughts and floods of biblical proportion. But as with Christianity, there is the possibility of being “saved” although it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Instead Humanity must sacrifice $45 trillion in prosperity between today and 2050, the cost of cutting CO2 emissions by half in order to prevent a warming of the planet by 3.6 – 4.2 degrees.

The environmentalist movement in the United States has its roots in the mid-19th century in the writings of Henry David Thoreau and John Muir. However the movement remained fractured for most of its history with little agreement between philosophies, organizations or movements. During the past decade, however, the global warming movement has taken center stage and garnered more attention and funding than other groups. It often finds itself at odds with these groups due to the seeming deaf ear shown when proposing the building wind farms that kill birds and solar plants that pollute water.

Perhaps a case of success leading towards greater success, the Hollywood elite has attached itself to the global warming movement since it became trendy to do so in the late 1990’s. Unfortunately for the less important and well heeled “true believers” who are told to fly less, these rules do not apply to them.

Green activist Leonardo DiCaprio reportedly flew his family from Paris to Rome on a private jet in 2006; he also reportedly declined a journalist’s challenge that he never fly private again, though he has vowed to fly commercial as much as possible.

It’s not only the Hollywood elite. When the United Nations decided to hold a conference to discuss the topic in 2007, they held it in one of the world’s remotest locations: Bali. At the time I estimated that air travel to the site alone would pump 40,000 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, slightly less than the actual figure of 47,000 metric tons reported by the Seattle Post Intelligencer. At the very least the conference could have been held in a central location – like New York City or perhaps even Iceland to lower the carbon footprint of the European attendees. Even better would have been if the conference had been held by video or online conferencing as business is often harangued to do. Evidently the attendees felt polluting the planet in order to save it justified the conference location.

Global Warming activists including Al Gore and Laurie David have come under scrutiny by global warming skeptics and activists alike. Gore’s $30,000/month electric bill has been pilloried by the skeptic community, and Ms. David’s use of private jets has been attacked by Gregg Easterbrook, a skeptic turned proponent who wrote that one cross country flight in a Gulfstream jet produced as much carbon into the atmosphere as a years worth of Hummer driving. Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the University of Tennessee and Instapundit of the blogosphere, has pithely summarized his view of the global warming issue: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.” Clearly by this standard the Global Warming proponents have a ways to go before converting Mr. Reynolds to their cause.

The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

Most cults tend to control the reproduction of their membership. Some may encourage large families, viewing procreation as an easy way to add numbers to the cult’s membership base, while others promote abstinence for the rank and file, limiting procreation to an elite.

The latter appears to be happening in the global warming community. Al Gore encourages people to lower their carbon footprints, while he enjoys the comforts of his 20,000 sq. ft mansion – claiming that he buys “offsets” to make up the difference. Note that he never mentions what those who can’t afford carbon offsets are supposed to do: do without.

Since the 1960s there has existed a strain of alarmist environmentalism that emphasizes family planning and limiting family sizes. We find this at work with the GWC, with some like this UK commenter in the New Scientist:

As someone who believes in shouldering a high level of personal responsibility for reducing carbon emissions I find it comforting to know that I can potentially make a difference. However, what seems to me to be the most obvious way of reducing carbon emissions has been missed off Pearce’s list: limiting the number of children one has.

I recognize the economic problems that population limitation or reduction lead to, but if the population reaches the point that Earth cannot support it, economies will collapse anyway.

Others have gone so far as to sterilize themselves or have abortions:

“I didn’t like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.

While the reproductive life of the rank and file of any cult are tightly controlled, notice that the elites of the cult never are. David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidians:

Up until [1986] Koresh had been teaching that monogamy was the only way to live, but suddenly announced that polygamy was allowed for him…In September 1986 Koresh began to preach that he was entitled to 140 wives, sixty women as his “queens” and eighty as concubines, which he based upon his interpretation of the Biblical Song of Solomon.[14] Koresh then built up an entirely new theology around his “marriage” to Doyle. This theology was called the “New Light”, with a doctrine of polygamy for himself, which he called “The House of David”.

Paul Ehrlich, author of the Population Bomb, predicted over population leading to massive famines between 1970 and 1985. Yet the threat of overpopulation didn’t stop him from having a child with his wife.

The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

NASA climatologist and “climate advisor” to Al Gore James Hansen has made a name preaching the imminent doom of biosphere while claiming persecution for his global warming beliefs. However one’s left to wonder why that persecution didn’t include dismissal from his job at NASA; perhaps the financing of his defense by billionaire left wing activist George Soros helped. With the backing of Soros, Teresa Heinz Kerry and Al Gore James Hansen can rest assured that he is accountable to no one else but his wealthy supporters.

Although an active environmentalist for most of his life, Al Gore did not move to the forefront of the global warming movement until after his 2000 election loss. In effect the loss made Gore unaccountable to voters, unlike the situation prior to his 2000 election loss. To the criticism that Gore could have done more while in the #2 position in the United States for 8 years, Gore has said that he hadn’t realized the danger presented by global warming. This is a bit farfetched considering climate change is a prominent theme in his book Earth in the Balance published in June 1992.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Anyone who questions the theory that “climate change” is occurring and if it is that Man is behind it is labeled a “denialist”. Wikipedia notes “the terms “denialism” and “denialist” are therefore generally used pejoratively, carrying the implication that the person or group so labeled denies established scientific or historical truths by dishonest means.” Robert Samuelson noted in a rebuttal to his own magazines cover story on climate change skeptics that “journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a
morality tale—as NEWSWEEK did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.”

‪

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

We have mentioned the ends of fighting global warming justifying the means of holding conferences on the opposite side of the planet for most attendees already. But does cooking the books also count?

The discrepancies in data collected on the ground and reported by James Hansen’s NASA are increasingly at odds with the temperature measured by satellites in space. Look at the two graphs below:

The first graph is the data used by NASA to conclude that March 2008 was the third warmest on record. The second is data for the same month compiled by satellite readings. Note that the first graph omits Canada and central and southern Africa – continents that experienced cooling for the month. It also omits most of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans that cooled that month as well. By intentionally skewing the data pro-global warming climatologists are cherry-picking their data in order to prove their theory. It’s bad science that would be laughed out of the local science fair, yet because the scientists are unaccountable – and scream “persecution” to the sympathetic media, it becomes evidence for public policy.

The group is preoccupied with making money.Investors Business Daily noted in an editorial that “the driving force of the environmental movement is not a cleaner planet
— or a world that doesn’t get too hot, in the case of the global warming issue — but a leftist, egalitarian urge to redistribute wealth.” The method of doing this is levying carbon taxes on the industrialized nations like the US and redistributing the funds through a UN bureaucracy.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” Emma Brindal, a “climate justice campaign coordinator” for Friends of the Earth Australia, wrote Wednesday on the Climate Action Network’s blog.

In this case, redistribution would be handled by the Multilateral Adaptation Fund, an agency that would use the carbon tax receipts to help countries that are having to deal with climate change.

“In a carbon-constrained world, a permanent, essential feature of U.S. policy must be a carbon tax that reduces the emissions that are driving global warming,” the Carbon Tax Center states. So at the core of the movement we find that it’s really not about saving the environment from global warming, it’s saving the planet from the United States. Yet what this would mean has not been well thought out by proponents, probably due to their own cognitive dissonance preventing them from understanding that their own activity contributes to the problem they supposedly solving. The largest and most well-funded environmental groups are all based in the United States.

There are more cult characteristics and these will be visited in a future post.

Congratulations to the following winners of this week Watcher of Weasels nominations:

Council: Done With Mirrors -”Memorial Day”
Non-Council:  US News  – John McCain Prisoner of War

Full results here.

One thing I’ve found quickly as a member of this council is how tough it is to choose just two from each category every week.

After work the Kid & I hit the range tonight. He’s had his eye on the cx4 Storm by Beretta for awhile. The futuristic design appealed to him and I was curious about its composite body so we picked one up and fired that.

The composite design felt “substantial” in the hands – not like plastic at all – and the gun seemed a bit lighter than I expected. The version we fired shot 9mm bullets although the gun comes in .40 and .45.

The Kid liked the gun and I was impressed with its accuracy. We were able to shoot very tight groups standing unsupported (the only position allowed at the indoor range). The accuracy was mostly due to the sights – what I can best describe as pinhole-pin. The backsight is so small that it indeed feels like looking through a pinhole; however because the aperture is so small, wherever you place the pin – front sight – on a target, that’s where the bullet is going to hit. It is a much tighter sight than the AR-15 or MP5.

On the downside this thing kicks. When you pull the trigger you feel there is nothing between your shoulder and that round. I don’t know much about the mechanics of the gun, but it seems simpler than the AR-15. Firing the AR-15 feels like the “kick” is translated into the loading of the next cartridge. As a result the AR-15 is much easier to keep on target when firing fast. Not so with the Storm. I had to bring the gun back down after each shot, and after about 50 rounds my shoulder started to hurt even when I was doing my best to hold the gun tightly against it. On the plus side being less complicated may make it easier to keep clean.

Overall I really liked the gun for what it is and will shoot it again sometime.

UPDATE: 06/08/08

I notice that Chris Muir incorporates the Px4 Storm handgun in his Day By Day strip.  After reading up on this gun I’d like to try it out at the range next time. I don’t know whether it’s just my limited exposure to guns so far (after all prior to this past January I had shot just once in my entire life) but I’m developing a taste for Berettas.

UPDATE: 08/28/2008

The Kid and I decided to give this rifle another go tonight, and I think that after learning more about the gun it is now my favorite 9mm rifle so far – beating out even the AR-15. This time I held the gun tighter to my shoulder and instead of bringing the rifle up to my eye to sight, I brought my eye down to the rifle. I then shot a tight half-dollar group at 7 yards with ease.  I think my earlier trouble with the rifle was due to inexperience with the basics; since then I’ve found videos on the web helping newbies like me.

Honestly, I love the feel of this gun a lot. Holding it with one hand just feels natural, which is amazing considering the use of composites in the gun’s frame and stock.

I’m developing a bad case gun-lust for Italian firearms thanks to the Beretta line. They might not look as tough and boxy as a Glock, or as old-school cool as a Smith & Wesson, but they feel good in your arms and shoot accurately.

My father was a devout Catholic until he died in 1977. In about 1962 or 1963 he got into an argument with the pastor of his parish, Father McGuire, another Irishman, over the changes the Church had begun instituting that culminated in the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II.

My father was what we would call today a traditionalist. For him being a Catholic meant masses in Latin said by a priest with his back to the faithful. Father McGuire was younger and held that the Church needed to modernize. Part of that modernization meant masses in the vernacular with a less authoritarian role for the priest. My father was active in the parish since he had several kids in its school. Evidently he used to have some heated arguments with McGuire over church doctrine. My dad didn’t argue politely; he argued passionately as did McGuire from what I’ve learned.

I’ve been thinking a lot about my old man over the past few weeks, and the recent controversy over Scott McClellan’s tell-all book brought my dad’s actions 45 years ago into focus. One response to the McClellan’s book really resonated with me. Bob Dole wrote an email to Scott McClellan where he calls him a “miserable creature”.

There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

Bob Dole gets it. If Scott McClellan truly believed at the time that the decision to go to Iraq was wrong, then he had a moral obligation to speak up or resign. When a man finds himself doing a job that he deep down believes is morally wrong, than it is his moral duty to himself and if he’s religious, to his God, to do what he can to change the situation and failing that, to quit.

McClellan wasn’t in the military. He wouldn’t have been court martialed for disobeying orders. If he had voiced his disagreement with administration policy at the time, the worst outcome would have been the president demanding his resignation. There would have been public statements of wishing him the best, and he would have landed a cushy job at a university, thinktank or lobbyist firm.

Similarly Barack Obama’s recent announcement that after 20 years he was leaving the Trinity United Church of Christ where Rev. Jeremiah Wright has preached his paranoid and racist beliefs meets Dole’s “miserable creature”criteria. If Obama disagreed with the pastor, it was his moral duty to either confront him and if that failed to temper Wright’s ravings, to quit the church. There are thousands of churches in Chicago, and had Obama truly disagreed with Wright as he now claims, he should have quit the church years ago. But he chose to stay.

My feeling is that Obama belonged to Wright’s church because it gave him “street cred” – something in common with the African-American community that his elite upbringing couldn’t provide. I suspect that he never believed what Wright said, which would explain why he seemed so incredulous at first when outsiders looked seriously at the pastor’s statements. Why should the press and the rest of the country take Wright’s rantings seriously if he didn’t?

If on the other hand he did believe Wright’s rhetoric, throwing him under the bus now shows that Obama will steamroller anyone who stands in his way. At this point Obama can’t win on the issue, and why he decided three months after the Wright controversy started making the front pages shows that once again Obama is a poor decision maker. The controversy was dying down – except among people like me who aren’t going to vote for him anyway. Yet inexplicably he decided to fan the flames again by cutting ties with Wright.

For the final 15 years of his life my father refused to step foot in a church except to walk his daughters down the aisle at their weddings. He considered himself a Catholic up to his death, but for the last decade and a half he refused to attend mass or take sacraments.

Unlike McClellan and Obama, my father didn’t have a choice. There was no Catholic church that maintained its pre-Vatican II traditions. He spoke up and fought for what he believed in and when that failed to change Church policy, he stopped going to church. From what I understand it wasn’t an easy choice for him, especially for a man as deeply religious as he was, but he did it.

Like Bob Dole my father was a war veteran; he knew about choices and honor, how it was often necessary to make hard from the former in order to maintain the latter. My father finished school in the tenth grade, served in the military and spent the rest of his life working in the trades, yet he understood something that neither McClellan nor Obama do not after all their university degrees and experience at the very pinnacle of our society. Did he and Dole pick it up on the battlefield, or was it a product of their generation? Perhaps it isn’t something the Greatest Generation had but that their children the Baby Boomers lack.

We are confronted by such choices every day of our lives, and over time our choices stand as a measure of our character. My father was not the greatest; for most of his life he had a drinking problem and our family suffered as a result. But it gained from his work ethic that kept food on the table through troubled times, as well as from the protection of a man “blessed” with 4 daughters growing up in the 1960’s. All of my siblings are decent people with one glaring exception – my 2nd sister who turned her back on us and took to her husband’s family instead of her own. We have all become successful, and my father played no small part in that even if he died when I was a kid.

McClellan will become wealthy from his books, and Obama might yet become president. However both men pale in comparison to my father when it comes to their character, and Dole’s email says why.

McClellan and Obama won’t understand it and neither will their supporters for whom “character” is a meaningless term. But one day McClellan will wonder why his fame has been fleeting, and if Obama fails to win in November – or perhaps even if he does – why History has judged him so harshly. And when this happens perhaps they will read Dole’s email and see what the former senator from Kansas and World War II hero understood that they did not.