The Pendragon's Hall

In an effort to correct what seems to be a misunderstanding, I would like now to give my views of an event that will be of interest to about three of my readers. The rest of you can stay or not, just as you please. Tomorrow, hopefully, I will be back to more interesting news. My college, which I shall call Have-It University to protect the guilty, has recently announced the release of several highly popular faculty members, on the plea of needing a balanced budget. Because the most high-profile of these delivered a highly-suspect chapel sermon in which he told Christians to let the rest of the world go to Hell if it wanted to, and also pushed his Demcratic liberalism in a fashion not wise for a supposedly spiritual experience, some have assumed I would applaud his release, or that people like me would agree with it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Bean, as I shall call him, as far as I can tell, is a man who takes his faith seriously. I strongly disagree with his politics and pretty much all of his ideology, but this much I can't deny: he is a man of great integrity. Beyond this, he is a stellar teacher. I have never taken any of his classes, but I roomed with someone who did and have many friends who have, and I have yet to hear any review of his class that has anything negative about it. He is an intelligent professor with a skill for teaching and relating difficult concepts in easy-to-understand lingo and this is hard to come by these days. Finally, he is one of the most friendly, outgoing people on campus, and this is a big deal to me, following my experiences in Europe. He doesn't know me from the first Adam as far as I know, but he always smiles as says hello when I pass him in the halls. He doesn't look too happy these days, and who can blame him? Nobody was consulted, as far as I can tell--it was a shock to the rest of the faculty. But then again Have-It's administration has never been much for discussing moves; don't let me get started on their chapel scanning policy. It's their way or the high way and because one of the three-member committee who run the school decided it was necessary to balanced the budget, big faculty cuts are forthcoming. To me, this seems wrong. Dr. Bean has done nothing to deserve being released: he is a capable teacher and blends faith and learning (in his own way) in a way I would think most liberal art schools would appreciate. Furthermore, Have-It has announced as its goal a bigger student body, about the size of 1400 students, by 2010. They have taken steps towards this goal by expanding buildings on campus, meanwhile firing popular faculty, making campus life miserable for current students, and obliterating majors. Yeah, that makes good sense. I am sorry for Dr. Bean and others, who are, as I see it, victims of an oligarchical regime, making arbitrary decisions at a supposedly Christian university. Good show, fellows.

Well, it's Christmas time and some of the headline news coming out of Iraq these days is the death of a young soldier from Pennsylvania, ten days from being discharged and about to be married to his childhood sweetheart. Immediately the chorus of "When Will This Cruel War Be Over" begins to rise from the bleeding hearts and most people assume we who supported the war are heartlessly chuckling over the rising costs and untouched by the tragedy of it all. I would like to take this opportunity to correct this misunderstanding. I have supported the war and I still support the war but that does not mean I glory in casualties. My heart aches for the family and fiancee of this young hero. I too look forward to a time when wars cease and our young men and women can grow to fulfill their great potential in a time of peace. The unfortunate thing, and the cause for real sorrow (not crocodile tears shed for political purpose), is that this world is not a peaceful place. There are evil men at work here, and men like this young soldier who stand for the triumph of justice and righteousness, and like you and me and everyone, must stand to correct it. It is an awful, awful thing when even just one soldier dies and no one should make light of this. Instead, we need to be thankful this Christmas that there are those willing to follow the example of the Baby in the Manger and lay down their lives for their friends and for innocent people anywhere. Our prayers should be looking forward to a time when the whole world shall be brought under the rule of He who was called the Prince of Peace.

I am as much annoyed by the pointless airline "security" as the next person and I tend to think liberals prefer situations where Americans are placed at maximum inconvenience with minimum protection, but the new easing of security restrictions for the holidays is just ridiculous. The airlines have defended themselves, saying that they want to focus on bombs and so have decided to stop refusing to allow passengers to take scissors and razors on board with them. "We need to focus on explosives," a spokesman said. I don't know where he was on 9/11 but obviously not anywhere in this world. A handful of terrorists hijacked planes and slaughtered over three thousand Americans with, not explosives, but box cutters!!! Should airline security molest passengers and unpack their suitcases in search of a long, pointy object that really is the passenger's toothbrush? By no means! But it would be nice to think that they are working hard to prevent another 9/11, not handing the terrorists the means to do it again.

The war in Iraq is still getting a flap in the news lately. You'd think they'd have found something new to holler about by now but the argument still rages over whether or not the war was justified. At risk of giving away the ending, those who claim it does not meet the standards for a just war show not their knowledge of the facts but rather their ignorance of just war theory. For example, the first plank in the just war platform is what's known as "just cause." Here it is normal for defenders of the war to declare that nothing is more just than removing an evil man from power and for its detractors to argue that the war is all about oil...which explains the high gas prices we've been suffering, but I digress. There is more to it than that.

Just Cause is a little more complicated than whether or not the aims are justified. First, just cause can be "the protection and preservation of value." This has a rather broad meaning, as I suppose even Saddam Hussein could say he invaded Kuwait in 1990 to restore the Babylonian Empire and protect his culture and his oil (the actual war for oil in the Middle East). But the United Nations Charter declares irrevocably that human rights are a value to be protected and preserved. So it would seem that war made on a government blatantly guilty of anti-human rights action would meet this requirement easily. Furthermore, the case must rest on "defense of the innocent against armed attack." This case was easily made in the Gulf War when "innocent" Kuwaitis were overthrown by unprovoked aggression on the part of Iraq. Anti-war protestors sniff that the "innocent" Iraqi people are suffering from the US invasion. But, it is simple to point to the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of "innocent" Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds who were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq's reckless pursuit of WMD (yes, I am still emphasizing that because it's still true) endangered many others. Innocent Israelis, Jordanians, Turks, Iranians, Saudis, other Iraqis, Egyptians, even into eastern Europe and beyond would have been in danger had Iraq been capable of going nuclear or of using chemical or biological weapons. Hussein had the capabilities and the will to use them. Would it be wise to wait till he did? The third plank is "retaking of persons, property, or other values wrongly taken." This one is not quite as involved in the Iraq War as some of the others, but it is necessary to point out that no proponents of just war theory ever argue that a war must meet all the requirement to be a just war, only that you must do your best to meet said requirements. The fourth plank is "punishment of evil." Iraq's mass graves speak for themselves. If you don't want to call Hussein evil, neither was Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. Also, I can't help you. No one can. Later variations of the theory posit the power of positive international law, entailing "national or regional self-defense against armed attack," "retaliation for armed attack" and "international response to threats to international peace." The last is so obviously met in this war it needs no introduction. The other two are cited by opponents as proof the war is not justified. They sneeringly deride President Bush's plea that times have changed as him trying to change the rules to give himself a war he wanted. But the fact remains: he's right. The original just war theory was evolved in a time when attack meant moving an enemy army into the territory of another, something that involved time, both for the invader and the nation under attack. Nowadays, with technology exploding worldwide, a terrorist in a camp in the mountains of Afghanistan can engineer an attack to kill thousands of civilians...and nobody has any idea it's coming till its too late. Self-defense does not assume you wait until attacked. It actually plays into a later element of just war theory--"proportionality of means"--but more on that later. For now, just realize that under the first rule of just war--"Just Cause"--the Iraq War passes with flying colors.

I feel sorry for President Bush. Newsmax announced this past week that the figures are now in and Bush has spent more money in his four and a half years in office than the famous leftist Lyndon B. Johnson did in his five years in office. Perhaps this is the jolt he needs, however. He really needs to start spending like a fiscal conservative if he wants to begin trimming the deficit at all.

Another thing that really amuses me is the inconsistency of college students. Some people feel like their so all-fire cutting edge because they put a poster of some extreme leftist former presidential candidate in their room. So they should have lived in the 60s. Big deal. It's like college students today thinking that wearing seventies-style clothing makes them cool and cutting edge. Earth to nerds: it's what your parents wore. The same people, however, would consider having a poster of Joseph McCarthy or Richard Nixon in their room or directing all their talent for research into "redeeming their honor" a pretty silly thing to do.