UFC 94: Georges St-Pierre vs. B.J. Penn, the Rematch

My Pick:

Georges St-Pierre via TKO, in the 3rd. GSP is just too good to lose to BJ Penn. It's tough to go with the French-Canadian over the American, but GSP represents all that is right with the sport of MMA. He is ferocious in the cage and an ambassador for the sport outside of it.

A Message From My Warm, Living Hands- Rifle Rationale: Reasonable Realities

Recently, I drove a few buddies to dinner. On the way, one of them noticed the NRA sticker asphyxiated on my pickup and asked if I had another sticker. He felt bad, as a member of the NRA, for not having a sticker on his truck. Another guy in the back asked what we actually received from the NRA.

It bears repeating, the NRA’s function. Too often I hear the same, tired arguments… “Outside of hunting,” the detractors ask-as if that’s some sort of consolation, “What function has gun ownership?” “Why would someone need more than one shotgun or rifle?” “What purpose do handguns serve outside killing people, anyways?”

The NRA protects private citizens and their inherent right to bear arms. More than just hunting or personal protection, there is one primary function of private gun ownership many liberals ignore and conservatives are afraid to voice-because it sounds “extreme.”

That is, the citizenry needs the right to own guns because, should the government become too oppressive, we need the ability to overthrow an illegitimate rule. Liberals see the government as the main source of good in the world and fail to see why it may need to be “afraid” of the populace. In fact we, at foundersporch, believe it’s the opposite. Government, outside its very limited legitimate functions, is a great source of evil. Should it become too overbearing, the threat of overthrow must exist. Hopefully, just by that possibility existing, it will never have to be exercised. But, throughout history, profound examples of precisely this exercise exist.

More than just a lobbying body, the NRA is a civil rights organization, advocating for the preservation of the Second Amendment. That right is essential to the continuation of secure, stable governance.

Today, I passed a test on proper rifle safety and use. A few minutes later, as I was looking down the scope of my rifle, I thought about what a rifle is… It’s a mass of metal pieces, put together in a beautiful fashion, unable to inflict damage on its own. It needs an operator.

Most people I know who are anti-gun are not gun owners. This does not, logically by itself, omit their criticisms of private gun ownership, but it is indicative of an overall disconnect. Not being brought up in a culture accepting of guns, they are afraid of them. Afraid of the unknown.

Overall, it’s important to remember the historical magnitude of the Second Amendment, why the Founding Fathers recognized it and the NRA’s legitimate function in protecting it. This argument must be repeated to other conservatives to remind them. It must be repeated to liberals to educate.

An Open Letter

Let me address the points of a comment left from “Heidi” on my piece about John McCain. Here is an “open letter” to the critic of my thoughts.

Dear “Heidi”:

I’m flattered that you would take the time to raise an issue with my opinions. Before I begin, permit me to say a kind and genuine “thank you” the reader for her comments. However, I must respectfully and firmly disagree. In the spirit of debate, I hope you aren’t offended by the vigorous defense of my points and a vehement attack of yours.

When I started reading your critique, I shrugged with indifference. By the time I reached the last paragraph, my stomach churned and I choked on my own disgust. I’ll grant your initial points without a second thought, for they offer no damage to my claims. But your final arguments are in dire need of attention.

On your first point: You claim that John McCain lost because the circumstances (and the odds) were against him. Even if I fully concede this point, it does not harm my argument in the least. But allow me to take issue with anyway. The logic inherent in your claim implies that John McCain could have won the election had the circumstances been different. Perhaps you are right. Apparently it doesn’t take much to win an election under the right circumstances. My point is that McCain should not win, regardless of whether he could or couldn’t. I took issue with his ability to judge and act with principle, his leadership qualities, and the content of his message.

In the end, you are right. The odds were against John McCain. Unfortunately for you, conceding that amounts to nothing towards my argument. Statistically, John McCain (as you dutifully noted) could have won the election if the circumstances were right. However, my original points assert he is not what is best for the country. Regardless of McCain’s ability to win, my point remains he doesn’t belong in office; he’s not a political leader, he is not principled, and ran a weak campaign. Take my mild concession and cherish it, it’s the only one you’re going to get.

And now to your next (and far more unsettling) contention: you argue “moderates are what the Republican Party needs”. And frankly madam, I don’t give a damn what the GOP needs. I am preoccupied with a far nobler task: fighting for what our country needs. You close with the patronizing and dramatic “country before party, my friend”; ironically that is exactly the point I was trying to make. However, you speak as though I should take for granted your ideas, your moderate concessions, are good ideas. I reject your reasoning. Just because they are moderate does not make them good.

Apparently, there has been a misunderstanding. To avoid talking past each other, I would like to point out where we differ. We both seem to value country over political party. We both want the best for our country: prosperity, liberty, and justice. The area in which we differ is on how to obtain the best for our country. I firmly defend limited government, personal liberty, free markets, and moral laws as the means to achieve the best for our country. If you would like to have a debate over the best way to achieve prosperity, liberty, and justice let us do so. But that is another argument entirely.

My complaint remains that for years, Republicans have been drifting left-ward along the political landscape. The cause of this drift is two separate yet equally pernicious reasons. First and more recently, GOP leaders, congressmen, and the like noticed the unpopularity of their president alongside the advent of the opposition’s marginally radical and socialist darling, Barack Obama. They interpreted this swell in the left-wing movement as a turbulent wave threatening to capsize their fragile vessel. Instead of standing tall and holding fast (as I argued they should), they abandoned ship.

The second reason is far more frightening. Government has a malignant quality about it: it grows and can only be removed with arduous and surgical effort. Congressmen realize it is easier to take their cut of the legal plunder rather than oppose wasteful spending. Arguing for complex issues like morality in law and free-markets becomes a burden too daunting for who were once conservative politicians.

In sum, my point is this: the Republican Party was a movement conceived in and thus cultivated an exclusive set of principles. For the most part they are known today as conservative principles. Among them are limited government, personal liberty, free-markets, and moral laws. I believe these foundations are the best way to achieve prosperity, justice, and freedom in this country. I believe the Republican Party is still the best vehicle in which to convey these principles, hence my protests. Therefore the good of this country is contingent upon the degree in which they remain dedicated to these ideals.

The Republican Party is resurrectable, its victory gained from sticking to its conservative principles. And vindication will come as this country becomes great, society prosperous, and the people free.

The prodigal son returns

I am as impressed with the ACLU today as Lloyd was with Harry in Dumb and Dumber: “Just when I thought you couldn’t get any dumber, you go and do something like this…and totally redeem yourself!”

Minnesota’s ACLU is taking on Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inner Grove Heights for using public funds to promote Islam with prejudice. The ACLU has long feared pestering Muslims with lawsuits, so I commend this prodigal son for attempting to be principled on the Establishment clause. I wrote an article about Islam’s preferential treatment in America over a year ago, so I’ve added it below to provide context to how important the MN ACLU’s lawsuit is. As Christopher Hitchens often quips, “Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall.”

(I’ll be at OCS Jan 22 to March 21, but I’ll give Rob some throw-back articles to post if something in the news like this comes up again to make them relevant.)

The Most Equal Religion
Pat Knapp, November 2007

“All animals are equal,” declared the communist pigs of Orwell’s Animal Farm, “but some are more equal than others”. Human-run apartheid thrived on this motto in Boulder, CO and Berkeley, CA until the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) replaced pet “owners” with “legal guardians”. It still thrives in Postville, where, despite PETA filming the “horrific cruelty” of the throat-cutting without stunning at a kosher slaughterhouse in a 2004 sting, the slaughterhouse rabbi insists the shtick is perfectly kosher.

While US law permits Kosher and Islamic “Halal” slaughter – both involving throat cutting – PETA has not yet reported a Halal sting. Nor has PETA protested a Deereborne, MI McDonalds’ decision to serve Halal McNuggets, even though this involves unnecessarily noisome throat slashes rather than the PETA-prescribed painless gas poisoning. Its website reports that Michael Vick is taking its “Developing Empathy for Animals” course as penance for dog-fighting, but it has nothing to say about Islam’s notorious “unclean” status for dogs, nor about the Islamic Republic of Iran’s recently revamped efforts to confiscate the unclean mutts from their Persian guardians.

Whether PETA fears or reveres Islam too much to call it out, it is not the first interest group to treat Islam more equally than other religions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes crosses and Christmas carols in public schools, nativity scenes on public grounds, and Louisiana’s authorization of public funds for a church in August, but it has been remarkably silent in response to the fad of publicly funded Islamic ritual foot-washes. As the University of MI-Deerborn and airports in Kansas City and Indianapolis race to spend taxpayer dollars on these Islam-friendly facilities, the ACLU has not once this year filed a separation-of-mosque-and-state complaint. Instead, it has defended the rights of public officials to wear headdresses, witnesses to swear on the Koran, and a single Muslim student to not have to endure a graduation ceremony in a Baptist Church.

Minnesota extends Islam a special equality. The Minneapolis Community and Technical College allocated public funds for foot-washing facilities last spring. In response to the local Muslim American Society chapter’s 2006 fatwa against cabbies transporting alcohol, the state briefly proposed funding a cab-roof light apparatus to help bottle wielders identify friendlies. Some Muslim cashiers at local Target stores refuse to scan pork. If Target retaliates, the ACLU, not to mention the MN legislature, will be ready to pounce. In Minneapolis last year, when six imams on an airplane demanded seat-belt extenders, denounced America, and chanted “Allah Akhbar”, frightened passengers requested the takeoff be canceled. Little did they know, Minnesota would not immunize them from lawsuits backed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) avenging the Imams’ detainment,.

CAIR endorses equality under the law, but primarily for Muslims. Though CAIR’s chairman Parvez Ahmed served as a board member of Florida’s ACLU, he once warned CAIR defamers that “The First Amendment does not protect defamation.” Nor, according to CAIR, does it protect anti-islamist Dr. Robert Spencer’s right to give speeches. Yet judging by CAIR’s silence, it protected Ahmadinejad’s right to speak at Columbia University last month.

Students wore black on September 20th to support the Jena 6 (or was it 7?), but few regret Stanislav Shmulevich’s plight – the Pace University student arrested and awaiting trial for putting a Koran in a toilet. And none wore black for the peaceful anti-Islamist protestors arrested in Brussels on 9/11/07.

If Catholics had protested Burger King for making blasphemous ice-cream desserts, as have Muslims, would they be recalled? If the religious affiliations had been switched in the case of the Your Black Muslim Bakery employee shooting a Catholic investigative-journalist point blank with a shot-gun, would CAIR have spoken out? When Amsterdam threatened to revoke anti-Islamist politician Ayan Hirsi Ali’s citizenship and Islamists publicly murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh and politician Pim Fortuyn, where were the “Dutch 3” rallies? If the United Nations requested that the press and Hollywood portray Christianity in a more positive light – as it intends to do for Islam – who wouldn’t call it censorship? Communism is dead, but Orwell’s pigs live on.

Got to find a reason

Russia, I dare say, is a nightmarish caricature of the Left: an abortion addiction, few smiling faces, one of the world’s gauntest birth rates (must do wonders for their carbon footprint though), an AIDS epidemic, and such murderous suppression of free speech as to make the Fair Doctrine seem fair.

But the most fundamental similarity is that neither takes reason to be supreme. Just as Russia substitutes a Nietzschean power-drive for reason, The Left never bothered to harmonize its ideals with the logic of the universe and human nature.

The Enlightenment thinkers saw reason as nature's universal language. Baruch Spinoza’s determinism logically calculated that nature acted reasonably and in accordance with its laws. His “ethics” urged men to use reason to promote natural harmony (I regret that I’m the only deterministic disciple of Spinoza at Founder’s Porch, though I suspect the other two would be if they carried their respect for reason all the way to its logical conclusion).

John Locke endorsed reason’s natural appeal too:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.

Thus, reason was a means of securing man’s natural rights, which is conservatives’ justification for government.

Reason reflected man’s natural equality, since anyone could access it. “Every man carries about him a touchstone, if he will make use of it,” wrote Locke, “to distinguish substantial gold from superficial glittering, truth from appearances. And indeed the use and benefit of this touchstone, which is natural reason, is spoiled and lost only by assuming prejudices, overweening presumption, and narrowing our minds.” Reason requires the “ceaseless effort to understand” that Spinoza pledged to it.

With this disproportionate preface, I want to commend a few instances of President Bush’s “ceaseless effort to understand” our enemies in the Middle East without assuming prejudices.

Bush rejected multiculturalism, a writ that prevents its patrons from spotting the “superficial glittering.” As Mark Steyn put it:

The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn’t involve knowing anything about other cultures – the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malaysia, who cares? That’s the stuff the old imperialist wallahs used to be well up on. But multiculturalism just involves feeling warm and fluffy about everyone, making bliss out of ignorance. If the guy’s rich vibrant cultural tradition involves standing over you with a scimitar shouting “Allahu Akhbar!” well, you can’t complain you’re not getting your share of cultural diversity.

Bush differentiated between the “substantial gold” of western democracy and the “superficial glittering” – if we may use such a generous term – of the Sunni apartheid in Mesopotamia and the bigotry throughout Araby. Lebanese-born writer Fouad Ajami, one of the most articulate critics of the Arab status quo, was right: “An Arab world that could not keep its terrors, and its terrorists, at home could not claim full and absolute sovereignty.”

When Bush retires to Texas, we’ll expect elaborated acknowledgment of his Iraq mistakes, won’t we? The “with us or against us” bravado was a bit heavy, the “axis of evil” a bit childish,” the disbanding of the Iraqi army a bit foolish, we’ll say. But know your song well before you start singing: Arabs aren’t post-modernists – “us” versus “them” clicks! Believe it or not, there are places in the world where people still believe in terms like “good” and “evil,” and the Arab world is such a place. And I guess the only logic I’ll offer for the Bremer regency and the army disbandment is that Iraq’s national psyche was like that of a girl beaten her whole life and attracted only to aggressors. The US had to take charge.

This is not to deny the horrors of post-invasion Iraq, but to recall that Iraqis aren’t Americans. On the one hand they’re known for their sculpting and poetry. On the other for their savagery and paranoia. Some Iraqis say the ambulance sirens are their national anthem. In George Packer's "Assassin's Gate," Iraqis spoke of garbage collectors singing songs in the back of trucks: “They loved garbage.” Anothe Iraqi said, “I don’t know anything. There’s day and there’s night. I don’t even remember my own name.” Iraqis are not Joe-the-Plumbers. The multiculty writ spits on their terribly unique fears and sorrows.

General Petraeus matches Iraq’s poetic melancholy with his mantra “Tell me how this ends.” I don’t know. But something in Arab culture had to end indeed, and give Bush his due for understanding it enough to begin to change it.

You talking to me? Calling me a neo-con?

Today, someone called me a "neo-con." I called him stupid.

Naturally, I was right, but there's a back story worth hearing.

All the news here in Virginia is about the impending Obama Inauguration. It's dominating everything. If I heard correctly, even NPR is having an hour-long show about the transportation issues surrounding the BIG EVENT. I told some buddies I may head up north to D.C. just to see the "left-wing crazies" and take pictures, just for fun.

After insulting me like that-calling me a neo-con, he then went on to respond to my earlier comment, and managed to insult the intelligence of everyone in the room."The problem with America are the far-left crazies," he said, "and the far-right, gun-toting religious neo-cons." I stopped the conversation and explained to him what a neo-con is. Rather than bore you with my particular wording, I'll quote the ultimate, authoritative source on, well, everything: wikipedia:

Neo-conservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States.
Its key distinction is in international affairs, where it espouses an
interventionist approach that seeks to defend what neo-conservatives deem as
national interests. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives,
neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state;
and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere
for overriding social purposes.

As you can see, being pigeonholed as neo-cons is considered a huge insult to us here at Founder's Porch. While there are certainly legitimate parts of neo-conservatism, I told this particular acquaintance, I was insulted to be considered so far to the left. At the risk of offending Pat-I know Steve will agree, I will say that Founder's Porch is often uncomfortable with the idea of interventionism in many regards. Often interventionism is not conservative. Often it is legitimate.

The neo-cons, simplistically speaking, have been on the correct side in some foreign policy choices the U.S. has faced. I am sometimes troubled with the idea of forcing a certain ideology on other nations in the name of diversity or democracy. It's inherently not. The neo-cons, though, seem to remain, largely, domestic liberals forced to adapt their liberal policies to global growth largely the result of people they disagree with.

One thing I will say for Founder's Porch is this: We certainly are not comfortable with a "minimal" welfare state. Having a "small" government is not the same as having a limited government. Limited government is what we support here at Founder's Porch.

Just because you put a "neo" in front of "conservative" does not make it more conservative. I always say words have consequences and ideas are made of words. Therefore, ideas have consequences. Be conservative with your word choices, you may say more than you intend.

Nota Bene: Sorry I was listening to NPR. I do it sometime to tune into the liberal mindset and to figure out what wavelength they're on.

14th-ranked Marquette Basketball

Earlier this year, the talk amongst Marquette basketball enthusiasts was that we should lower our expectations. A new coach, seniors that may not live up to the Final-Four hype of three years ago and a ridiculously tough Big East conference all forced us to temper our hopes.

But now, four games into the Big East season, Marquette has looked like the very tough squad we hoped they could be, very much in control against some impressive opponents. Easily handling Villanova on Jan. 1 and a later trouncing of West Virginia has given Marquette a 4-0 opening to the conference season. And along with that has come a rank of 14 in both the ESPN/USA Today and AP rankings.

This is where many fans believed Marquette should be ranked this year. This opening to the Big East season has many Marquette fans hoping another deep run in the March tournament may be possible.

Why has this occured? Senior leadership. In the past, Marquette has allowed opponents to linger in the game and had to fight hard for the win towards the end. This year. however, Marquette has been able to bury its opponents in the second half, leaving the casual fan with a sort of confident ease while watching a close first half.

We Are Marquette.

Interesting Note #1: Big East teams account for 6 of the top 14 teams.

Interesting Note #2: Minnesota is ranked 17th in one poll and 18th in the other. Tubby Smith has the boys playing quite well.

Interesting Note #3: Marquette, Notre Dame and Georgetown seem to be the dominant catholic schools this year with Xavier, Villanova and Gonzaga in the second-tier.

John McCain: Loser Extraordinaire

John McCain is a loser. He seemed to like straight talk. Well, I’m here to tell it straight. He is a loser. The man is many good things. He’s a war hero, loyal, dedicated, and bold. Heck, he’s even got a foxy wife. But he’s a loser. He lacked the leadership conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians, and this nation need. He was not a political leader, his campaign was weak (and even spineless at times), and his centralist politics are worthless.

Here’s my foremost complaint: John McCain ran for president billing himself as a “maverick”. But I don’t want a maverick for an executive. I want leader. Leadership and being a maverick are close to mutually exclusive. A maverick is one who is unpredictable, makes rash decisions, and acts on impulse. A leader has a comprehensive vision of what is good and acts on it. They execute decisions with principle, not emotion. Most importantly, a leader is someone you can follow. They are a beacon, standing out, fearlessly lighting the way. And even if you can’t see them in person, you can follow their well-lit path. Where did John McCain lead us? What did he stand for? What torch of truth did he passionately carry? He ran on being a maverick and his war record. He left us nothing to follow, no principles to fight for. He may have been a leader in war. But in politics and ideas, he was rash and unpredictable: the last thing a leader can afford to be.

On a second note, his campaign was painfully weak. The outstanding example is his use of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. He poised himself to jump-start life into the conservative movement. He found a leader (way up nort dere, ya) to fight for what he could not. At the first sign of trouble, his campaign stuffed her away, hiding her as though they were ashamed. After Palin’s painful stumbling with haughty (and embarrassing failure) Katie Couric, she was never allowed to recover. The McCain camp had her on such a short leash she wasn’t able to come back swinging.

Furthermore, McCain had yet another opportunity to hit a home-run and really stand out. When talk of the Federal “bailout” plan started toxically seeping out from D.C., the people were outraged. The American people spoke clearly and correctly: we will not plunge into the socialist, half-witted plan to give the Treasury a $700 billion check book. McCain could have stood proudly against this asinine asset recovery plan. It was economically absurd, it was not just, and it was sorely foolish. It doesn’t take a genius to ask, “so all these companies who foolishly managed their finances, we’re going to help ourselves by giving them more money to flush down Paulsen’s toilet?” Missed opportunities sting in politics. McCain had an opportunity with Palin and—ya, you betcha—he blew it. He had a pitch in the wheelhouse with the bailout and whiffed pathetically.

Finally, the politics of moderation don’t work. This speaks to my earlier point about leadership. It doesn’t motivate anyone to vote when you brag about reaching across the aisle. It doesn’t motivate the people who have passion for principles. What do we have to fight for? Compromise? That’s not worth getting fired up. The logic is flawed: people who like compromise aren’t interested in winning!

The larger point here is that McCain didn’t get a message out to those who would campaign for him in the lunchroom, at the water cooler, or at a dinner party. If you can capture the power of those who have a passion for good laws, economic freedom, and limited government they will make the most eloquent arguments for you. But I for one had nothing to say other than, “well, I like that he doesn’t support pork-spending”. That’s not inspiring. That’s not about principled governance. It isn’t passion.

We won’t see victory again until we have a leader: a leader that stands for what we passionately believe and will fight vigorously for. It may cost an election once or twice. But when the politics of socialism, elitism, and eco-repression fail, the voters will turn to the opposition. And what if they can’t tell the difference between the governing and the opposing parties? What will be left? That is the road we are on. That is why we failed. We need those who will stand tall, hold fast, and defend what’s good and right in this world: principles know no bounds and fear no failure.

We’re not in Hibbing anymore

The anti-Orleanist republicans of 1830s France, like their revolutionary grandfathers, never cared much for ambiguities. Recall the blood-pumping verses of Les Miserables’ black-and-white “Red and Black”:

It is time for us all
To decide who we are…
Have you asked of yourselves
What's the price you might pay?...
The color of the world
Is changing day by day...

The color changes century by century, too, and France’s color has dulled. President Nicolas Sarkozy gazed at this Gaza invasion with pallid restraint, and revealed who he was and the price he would pay in his conclusion: “the violence must stop.”

The US’s only Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, seconds that, and by the way knows how to shamwow away the decades of murderous hatred in Gaza. Here ye and let it be known, “the ability to eradicate the extreme elements fomenting war will be done so with jobs, food, water, medical supplies, schools, books – and not bombs.”

Nay, it will take much more than French beckonings, bottles of Evian, and croissants to please the bright green banners of the party called “Zeal.” Hamas proudly kills Jews, Americans, apostates, and infidels out of bubbling religious conviction. Schools and books are powerful indeed, especially when the schools are Islamist madrassas and the books are Korans. No need for Curious George when you have imperfectable and ultimate holy texts. Hamas celebrates, teaches, and legislates these texts’ creepiest, most disturbing death-passages.

Last month Hamas gave legal sanction to Islamic punishments. Caught drinking Merlot? Forty skin-ripping lashings. Caught stealing Merlot? Off with your hands. Getting over-romantic up on Jihad Ridge with your girl? Public stoning. Decide you’re gay? Public hanging. Decide being an atheist is more fun than being a Muslim? Crucifixion.

Israel isn’t invading Hibbing. It’s invading a backward society governed by enemies of civilization. No doubt Israel’s attack humiliates Palestinians, but how drastically more humiliating it is to consent to a society that stones hijab-less women! And how humiliating to take terrorists for heroes!

Of course Sarkozy and Ellison don’t take them for heroes, but do they view Hamas and Gaza’s rotten culture as enemies? Author Melba Beals inaugurated the freshman class at my Luther College to the gray world of “who am I to judge?” relativism last year. She talked about the inspirational determination of female suicide bombers and the Taliban, and concluded that “the answer” was:

to love and to care and to see everybody as your equal. No they don’t do the same things you do, they don’t want the same things you do, but you know what, they are so wonderful if you just open them up like a flower.

Gaza’s Islamist society is not loveable, not equal to Western democracy, not a flower to be saved from violent winds by Sarkozy and nourished with water by Ellison.

Hamas is our enemy. A man recently asked writer Christopher Hitchens why he wouldn’t foster a dialogue with Islamists to help them realize he is not their enemy. “I am their enemy,” he replied. “I hate my enemies, I think the enemies of civilization should be killed.”

Israel need not apologize. The colors of Israel and the colors of Hamas stand starkly in opposition. Hamas has asked itself what price it will pay for the victory of a backward society enslaved to the harshest words of the 7th century infidel-mutilator Muhammad, and that price exceeds the worth of innocent lives. We in France and America have yet to “decide who we are.” But Israel doesn’t have the luxury to visualize suicide bombers as “flowers,” and it has decided that violent victory against Hamas is a victory for civilization.