nowlook

Thoughts on the War

2006-10-11T23:56:00.000-04:00

If I had to reduce the War on Islamic Terror, and the value of this war, to its essentials, and I could say it to the enemy, it would be this:

"No culture can be allowed to survive that treats women the way it does. We simply cannot tolerate the existence of any culture that enslaves people. Its own people, at that, based on gender. The fact that you will slaughter people to maintain this evil privilege cannot stand."

That's a violation of minimized qualification for the word "civilized" number One.

Minimized qualification for the use of the word "civilized" number Two is: We cannot permit you to kill people on religious grounds. This isn't a polite society issue - it is a matter of world survival. You are killing (and genociding) all over the world, and you must be stopped. Mankind simply cannot progress with you in charge, and so you therefore become a deadly diversion. If you fight on, you will simply fight until you are extinct as a cause, another historical footnote at best.

Your violence doesn't make you religious. Your kind of sacrifice doesn't put you in heaven. I do not know Mohammed, but I do know you don't represent him.

Swift Boating the "Swift" story

2006-06-26T17:42:00.000-04:00

To hear the conservative bloggers and pundits, The New York Times has "yet again" committed treason through its recent story about the US monitoring international banking data to find terrorism links. Ropes in hand, the lynch mob is ready to hang the First Amendment over the revelations

in this NY Times Banking Story.

Part of the reason these "19 low-tech assholes" (credit to my friend Jack Petche for that phrase) were able to do so much damage stems from our consistent practice of underestimating our enemies. Say what you will about the deluded ideology of Al Qaeda and their ilk, but these people are crazy, not stupid. Assuming that they don't already know we're listening in to their phone calls or examining their banking records is both crazy and stupid. We're dealing with a group of operatives originally trained by the CIA for Christ's sake! That's one of many reasons those evil bastards are so dangerous. Castigating the media for revealing that we are using common sense tactics, like wiretapping and following money trails, against them is a waste of time at best, and dangerous.

I also question why every failure of the Bush administration is supposed to be the media's fault. Someone had to leak this to the media in the first place, likely officials in the Bush administration, but the media gets crucified time and again for reporting what is in the public interest, especially using anonymous sources. Yet this administration communicates largely through officials who speak, "only on condition of anonymity."

I, for one, am glad that the New York Times, reported the domestic eavesdropping story and don't think Lichtbau and Risen should be given blindfolds and cigarettes every time they write an article this administration doesn't like. I don't think this current financial records story is the cruel blow to the War on Terror we're being told it is.

The Bush administration came into office with the mentality that the very concept of a free press should be treated with disdain, and that attitude has only grown worse since 9/11. The press is not meant to operate merely as the PR arm of the White House or the Republican party... that's why they have FOX News. I'm so tired of the rhetoric that spews forth every time the media reports something this administration thinks should be kept secret, like, you know, almost everything (Cheney's energy task force meeting comes to mind...).

There is no America-hating agenda in the press, and this new story is not the moral equivalent of telling the Germans in World War II that we'd decrypted the Enigma ciphers. Yes, there are occasionally irresponsible members of the media out there, just as there are irresponsible members of our government. But, there is no vast conspiracy in the media to undermine America, and I'm sick of being told to think that by people who complain about the media "telling us what to think."

I have a hypothesis, based on nothing more than gut feeling and my observations on how this administration operates, that this story was leaked on purpose. I think that this administration, in its continuing quest for more power, hopes to undermine the media through this story. Their efforts to prosecute journalists under the Espionage Act will certainly receive a boost now that the "America-hating NY Times" has "undercut" an essential and "pretty solidly legal" (am I the only one depressed that we're to the point where that needs to be added as a qualifier?) program to fight terrorists, instead of one of highly dubious legality like warrantless wiretaps.

The stories about possible torture in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, the wiretapping story, etc. have all met with the "treasonous media" lynch mob before, but this story might just piss off enough people to give the administration leeway to start prosecuting (Very public hearings coming soon to TV. I propose a drinking game where you take a shot every time a Republican says "treason," "9/11," "America-hating," "putting Americans and our troops in danger," or "emboldening our enemies."). Look for the Republicans to further stoke the fires of outrage about this one and try to pass some kind of law to "protect Americans" from the trecherous media. They will almost undoubtedly "Swift Boat" the press to score political points with their base. This will dominate the coverage before the mid-terms, and perhaps only The Onion, "The Daily Show," and "The Colbert Report" will notice the irony of televised public hearings repeatedly chiding the media for revealing this super-secret program that is "crucial to the War on Terror."

The media cannot properly operate as the fourth estate of government when it is only permitted to report government-sanctioned "leaks" and official spin. The concept of an informed public is so anethema to this administration that they would gladly reduce the media to glorified gossip columnists. They refuse to be accountable for their actions, wage wars of disinformation through competing backdoor "leaks," and treat the media as a punching bag; but they don't understand why that same media isn't happy with staged photo-ops and tired talking points. We have a President who says with pride that he doesn't read the newspaper, and tells reporters to their faces that they annoy him! I might also mention that this administration actually bombed a foreign news organization, Al-Jazeera. That same administration had previously praised Al-Jazeera's reporting when it was directed at other countries.

I cannot and will not buy into the argument that any government, especially this government, should be easily able to tell the press what the public is "allowed to know." The logical extension of this argument ends in the government telling the public what they can and can't say. Open critique and criticism of our government and its actions are part and parcel of ensuring that we still live in a democratic country. It is the nature of government to seek to consolidate power and to seek to stifle dissent. If we allow our government to set the terms of acceptable discussion over here, what the hell would we be fighting "to protect" over there?

We all feel safer now...

2006-06-05T21:09:00.000-04:00

USATODAY.com - Bush to back gay marriage ban amendment

The cynicism with which the press generally has regarded the issue of President Bush supporting a bill which is doomed from its inception has been a little refreshing, but is misdirected. This isn't about the Constitution. It's about who votes what way. It's dividing the issue mathematically, and is all a part of the November races.

The greatest issue in the land for any 2 party legislative body is one where both sides can raise great funds for many years without ever truly approaching a solution. Keep the threat level as high as possible, keep the passion level always simmering, keep the balls of both sides in play. Ahem.

Anyway, we've had abortion, gun rights, smoking rights, and more big-ticket, never-resolve themselves issues become such a font of cash contributions, and it's time for a new one. (I wonder if that means they resolve an old one? I doubt it.)

What does the very consideration of this amendment do? It makes people, of whatever proclivity, reach for their wallets. The very numbers dictate that this be a long-term battle - no Democratic sweep will change this fact. There is simply too much to be gained by everyone in politics to let this issue be resolved. At least, for say, another 10 years or so.

That being done, they can move on to something else now.

Hey, I've got a great idea...

2006-06-03T02:02:00.000-04:00

Dynamist Blog: The National Kidney Foundation vs. Open Debate and Increasing Kidney Donations

Why don't we make the price of a kidney the exact same amount as the US Citizenship buy-in being proposed?

Boy, that would sure solve a lot of problems.

I finally have something nice to say about Noam Chomsky

2006-06-01T23:56:00.000-04:00

The Israel Lobby?, by Noam Chomsky

Amazing, isn't it, how the world's foremost expert on linguistics doesn't seem to understand the effect of his own words. Here's a guy who could be (or should be) dropping linguistics bombs into the language that grow into new understanding patterns 20 years down the road, and all he wants to do is be Maureen Dowd in drag. What a waste of talent.

Anyway, that nice thing I promised to say about Noam: His article has a classy font selection. I hope he had somthing to do with it.

Ward Churchill Verdict of His Peers.

2006-05-16T23:24:00.000-04:00

"If there is one crucial pattern that most affects our assessment, however, it is a pattern of failure to understand the difference between scholarship and polemic, or at least of behaving as though that difference does not matter."
- From the Report of the Investigative Committee UC/Boulder

Harsh words directed right to the heart of Churchill's problem. He's the guy of "little Eichman's" fame right after 9/11. But this report only mentions that to kind of say "None of this would have happened if you'd shown just a little friggin' restraint."

I understand that we need loudmouth college professors that take extreme positions. I generally like rabble-rousers. But in my opinion, the guy didn't even apply a sanity test, let alone academic standards. And that's what this report says - that he isn't being honest academically in regard to his own beliefs and works. That's pretty pathetic.

Here's a good link: http://pirateballerina.com/

Powered by Qumana

"Illegal Wiretaps". Right. You betcha'

2006-05-13T19:41:00.000-04:00

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross on NSA on National Review Online

I thought they were doing this since the '80's. If it's commercially available, it's fair game for the government as just another purchaser/consumer.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

The long-ass letter in question

2006-05-09T18:35:00.000-04:00

I had to go to an Iranian website to find this damn thing. Way to go, American journalists...We don't need to read the letter, we just need the spin on the letter from both sides...

Anyway, they split it up into what seems like 7 parts. It's a little difficult to navigate because the "MORE>" tag at the bottom of each page doesn't work. You have to click on each part separately from here. I don't know how long the letter will be up, but here are the links:

Full text of President Ahmadinejad's letter to George Bush

By the way, (PBUH) stands for "Praise Be Upon Him." I honestly don't know what to think of the letter. In some ways it is still defiant, and full of crap. As expected, there's a diatribe about the illegitimacy of the existence of Israel, but it seems more hypothetical than the rhetoric we usually hear, which I guess could be considered progress.

The Iranian Congress was apparently pissed off that AhmadiNejad sent this letter without getting their approval first (maybe our Congress and their Congress could get together and complain about their unilateral leaders together). The only reason I could think that they would complain is that it seems a little reminiscient of Khrushchev's first letter to Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't know if the English translation is accurate, but there is a certain desperation to the letter.

It seems like AhmadiNejad might want to step down from the brink but he's got political reasons at home for not doing so. Regardless, we shouldn't brush off this letter so quickly, even if it's not what we want to hear. We need to sit down and talk with Iran before both sides start assuming that armed conflict is inevitable.

17 Pages?

2006-05-08T23:02:00.000-04:00

From Myway News:

Rice: Iran Letter Doesn't Resolve Standoff

We don't yet know, of course, what this letter from Iran to our President says. But a couple of things about this strike me as funny. First, Condi & Co. are brushing off the importance of the letter almost immediately - as they should. We have to let Iran know that this letter isn't going to buy them time.

Meanwhile, we've got to figure out what the hell that letter means. 17 pages is one long pissed off memo - I can't maintain a rage that long. A committee certainly would not agree to 17 pages of everything, unless you want it to look like an act of congress with everyone's pork amendments (no pun intented to the Iranian goverment) added to it. And President Bush is not likely to have just "briefed" on the letter. This is the kind of thing a President reads himself. Then gets advice. And then makes judgment calls with. If only Washington can slow down just a bit then people can have time to actually think. Hell, if only Washington can slow down enough to allow the damned thing to be translated, let alone analyzed.

We are starting to work with Iran. Maybe we are starting to deal with these people. Maybe Bush can get to Iran after all. Sell them some nuclear plants. And make history.

Why do I vote?

2006-05-02T17:34:00.000-04:00

For the amount of time I invest in caring about an election day, I figure there are thousands of people out there voting that just do not give a damn or know about who or what they are voting for. If they bother to show up at all. So why bother?

Reason No. 1: Idiot neutralization. See above.
Reason No. 2: Moral Superiority. I vote, therefore I am better than those that don't. Those who intentionally don't vote to make a statement are excempt from this rule.
Reason No. 3: Distrust of Government - The less important the election seems, the more chance you will end up screwed. That's where they hide all the local tax initiatives.

My strategy for voting would be a very long post. Let's just say I work hard to promote deadlock.

The Price of Gas

2006-04-28T01:28:00.000-04:00

I can't decide who is acting the bigger collective idiot today, having listened to the Democrats and Republicans trying to outblame each other and try to pile on relief for the rising price of gas. Talk of sending everyone a $100.00 check from the Republicans is well, just embarrassing.

Gas is 3 bucks, people. Get over it. It may drop here and there, but it will continue to arc upward for the 30 something year remainder of my life. Accept it. Quit whining.

"Profiteering" is a curious word for the government to slap on the oil companies. I have no sympathy for oil companies. But if they make 9 cents per gallon, how the hell can a government that shakes down 30 - 60 cents per gallon (the states are in there too) DARE have the fecklessness to scream about how much Exxon & Company make? I mean, does Tony Soprano get 75% of the take from one of his capos ventures? Only a government can take a cut like that and bitch about the other guy.

The problem here is that while I always knew the economy was dependent upon oil, it just now occurs to me that the government itself is a little too dependent on the tax money it derives. Not a "healthy economy means a healthy government" kind of dependency, but rather a "oh shit, a huge chunk of the tax base is threatened" type of fear.

The oil companies smell blood and have launched a full-fledged "hey, just drop that huge friggin tax and gas will be cheap again". This is guaranteed to make the Congress scatter to the wind. Much ado will be made for a little while, but it will go away.

Any permanent solution to this requires 20 years. Stabilize the region and build the nuke plants. We're five years in. So far so good.

Powered by Qumana

Nuclear Options

2006-04-15T20:20:00.000-04:00

Stop The ACLU » Did Clinton Give Nuke Plans To Iran?

I just wanted to repeat this headline, knowing it will drive the Bush haters _and_ the Bush lovers insane. Both sides will flash this as some kind of trump-card in an argument.

I've been thinking about our nuclear options: We are dealing with essentially an 80 year old technology. How the hell are we going to stop a nation from obtaining any 80 year old technology? It would be like trying to keep Steam Power a state secret until we owned the world's rail lines. It just isn't going to work.

We have the technology, and we have it for sale. We can do it better, cheaper, safer, and we can make the market such that no one could compete with it. We should offer to lease Iran uranium. However much they want or can pay for. In a manner designed to slow down any "upgrade" to weapons-grade materials.

We know we really can't, forever, keep anyone from getting nucler power who has the financial resources to do so. I mean, gun control doesn't work anywhere in this country, how the hell can we expect it to work between countries. (Personally, I think letting kids play with guns is the individual equivalent to letting Iran have a nuclear weapon. I am trying to see into their wisdom but just see an arrogant little prick jumping up and down and saying "I want it". I still think the "Sandbox" theory of international relations is the most accurate. But I digress.)

So here's my deal on behalf of the US: Should any nation in the world want nuclear fuel, they can lease all they want from us. We'll even give them good financial terms.

Condition 1- They must accept some nano/programmable/chemical identifier or nuclear watermark built into the goods so that the original can always be identified. In other words, you take it, try to refine it, and we will know. Period. No guesses where the material came from. Batch 332 belongs to Iran. Or Batch 334 belongs to General Electric.
You are responsible for these materials, any theft of which means you accept, as a precondition to the lease, the immediate entry into your nation of a UN or US fighting force with absolute military authority to recover said goods.
You can't nationalize it. You can't keep it. You can't even move it. It stays where we put it.
The UN must agree to go in within 30 days of notice of the theft of the goods - no vetos, asshats, not even ours - and immediate authority is granted to the UN to go in if any identifier of weapons grade plutonium points to a particular nation as source.
Condition 2- We bring sealed containers that plug into our GE/GM/Haliburton comptetively designed nuclear fuel standardized containment systems. We'll tell you standard plug sizes and you build any kind of power plant you want around that. You, nation or corporation, will run the plant yourself - it's on your land, and you aren't going to launch it at us, so we don't care - and every 2 years or so we bring them a fresh batch by swapping in a new container. We retrieve and reuse the containers and dispose of/recycle/neutralize/store whavever the spent fuel.
*Note* - This is certainly _not_ an environmental post. We will of course figure out the cost to our environment and pass that cost on to the consumer - which is the nation and its citizens.

Condition 3 - Should you design your plants poorly that they blow up we shall not be obligated to clean up your mess. We reserve the right, however, to go in and pick up any recoverable material. Or leave it in a steaming hulk. Our call. You would be well advised to hire our advisors for the cleanup job, nontheless.

Final Condition: You pay a tax of 10% for the power you produce to the UN to help developing nations finance their power projects.

There you have it. They want it bad enough, they can pay for it. It's got to be a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to do it from scratch - even with plans. We're the capitalist society with the technology, they want to keep their oil money in the ground. Sounds like something ripe for a deal, eh? Think of the economics of spending for a "re-invent the nuclear wheel" program no longer needed.

We beat the Russians and Chinese to the nuclear market with India. Time to press the economic advantage this creates. We could hardly object to Iraq having the same type of deal with Russia as we do with India. But why can't we have the same deal with Iraq? Or any other nation in the world.

Some wild speculation

2006-04-13T01:21:00.000-04:00

Wikipedia article about neutron bombs

"The neutron absorption spectrum of air is disputed, and may depend in part on absorption by hydrogen from water vapor. It therefore might vary exponentially with humidity, making high-altitude neutron bombs immensely more deadly in desert climates than in humid ones. This effect also varies with altitude."

For some reason, I had an odd feeling that when we give up on Iran, neutron bombs might be involved. Nothing to back that up other than a weird feeling... I still think we can avert a crisis if we cut the same deal we gave to India with Pakistan, in exchange for them taking out Iran's nukes.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

2006-04-12T10:43:00.000-04:00

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War (Printer Friendly)

This is the kind of crap that makes people distrust the Bush administration's claims. They continue to cherry-pick and attempt to discredit anyone who disagreed with them. If these scientists had gone public with their findings, which were mysteriously classified, you can bet that there would have been political retribution against them. Their scientific credentials would have been impugned, their names would have been dragged through the mud for more than a year, etc. This pattern is what has ruined the Bush administration's credibility.

It also appears that they're using the same playbook to try to box in Iran, which is a shame, because the case against Iran might actually be legitimate. Unfortunately, by engaging in this kind of crap, we will have no credibility when we eventually attack/invade/bomb the shit out of/sanction Iran. I would argue that the Bush administration has done more to undermine our nation's security and the security of the world through its actions in Iraq than they have done to help. They cried wolf on Iraq, and now, IF they're telling the truth about Iran (which right now seems to be the case, since Iran is playing the "Hey, we enriched uranium today" game), no one wants to believe us. I just hope we're not stupid enough to let Israel do the dirty work (barring a draft, or Iran attacking us, that seems to be the prevailing option) and spark World War III. -kev

My Shameless blog plug:In Need of Therapy

The "Nuclear Option" for Iran.

2006-04-11T01:31:00.000-04:00

A couple of simple points about the rumors of Bush considering plans for going nuclear on Iran:

1. I certainly hope he's considering them. I mean, using nuclear devices to stop the construction of nuclear devices by an aggressor would only be considered unfair if the US does it. Anyone else, with the possible exception of Israel, would get a pass.

That's not one of my reasons for not doing it.

2. There's going to be fallout anyway. If we use conventional bombs, and sprayed their radioactive material all over, we'd be accused of dropping the big one one 'em . Why? These guys would deny anything radioactive ever existed. So we must have nuked em.

Seems to me that's a reason for doing it, since the above scenario works both ways - we can deny having used them and any fallout must therefore be the result of their having manufactured the goods.

3. We have conventional bombs that are more powerful than some of the tactical nukes we have. To me a bomb is a bomb but a nuke is a bomb plus fallout. I don't want to wake up 30 years from now watching deformed Iranians on TV and believe we really did that.

So what's my problem with using nukes? I don't want to hear the bitching. Forever.

by Qumana

The flip side of Parental Involvement

2006-03-21T08:26:00.000-05:00

Putting Parents In Their Place: Outside Class

We are constantly preached to by the teachers of the world how the lack of parental involvement is the reason some children just can't be educated. After beating this drum forevever, we now see that, well, the parents that are involved are basically a pain in the ass.

I guess we can't win.

Here are the Democratic talking points for the next month

2006-03-19T13:25:00.000-05:00

Political offensive targets Bush - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Some Astute observations on the Democratic Party

2006-02-17T23:07:00.000-05:00

Backroom Battles

Can it be a blog if comments are not allowed?

2006-02-10T20:00:00.000-05:00

When is a Blog Not a Blog...

Should Google take heat over China deal?

2006-01-25T23:33:00.000-05:00

FT.com / World - US congressman takes Google to task

Google seems to be getting it from both sides these days, as it agrees to restrict search results for China while it simultaneously denying the US government search request info in order to track down criminals.

While this has been spun as anti-American, I think Google is doing the right thing. In the US case, the government is on a fishing expedition and wishes voluntary cooperation and help in doing so. Other web search engines have complied with this request. Google has chosen to fight it. Good for them. Make them get a court order.

As for China, I don't see where they have a hell of a lot of choice. The are selling a product here, and while some might argue that restricting search results at the demand of the Chinese Government is effectuating censorship, the Chinese control the market within their borders. We may not like it, but the only way to get into that market is to play ball by their rules. I truly believe that it is a temporary situation, as the Chinese, despite their hopes of controlling the internet, cannot possibly hope to do it for long. It's a losing battle. The very empowerment the net brings will simply undermine the Chinese efforts, and Google won't have to worry about it for long. Hell, we censor here, but the net is the greatest tool for the distribution of illegal material ever invented.

Result: Google gets in ahead of the market, and acts as an instrument of the natural subversiveness of the internet.

Homeless Fish in Cleveland

2006-01-24T18:44:00.000-05:00

Cleveland has plenty of homeless people, so why are we talking about a new Aquarium?

Iran explores deeper levels of idiocy...

2006-01-09T00:43:00.000-05:00

IRAN: HOLOCAUST CONFERENCE SOON IN TEHRAN

This is incredible in so many ways. While we (the white hats) pound away in two neigboring countries, Iran ignores the United States in order to take a cheap shot at the Jews - and Europe!

Not to imply that they are bunch of ingrates toward Europe for trying to spare them (Iran) from a two-front war.

This presents a minor shift in the foreign policy from the pre-impotent Iran, where they go from telling the Jews and the United States to go fuck themselves (all in a very, proper, mullified way, of course) to a new foreign policy focusing on telling the Jews and Europe to go fuck themselves. This new "pivot" in policy may present a number of interesting possibilities.

Ahmadinejad actually thinks he has a point: Since Europe caused the "Jewish Problem" via the Holocaust - which never happened- why did you give them "our" (meaning arab) land? It's an irrelevant point though, since Europe actually did give up it's own land (Palestine was in British hands, after all).

What will the effect of this be? Why, they'll tick off their protectors. You know, Europe - who have always claimed to have a, well, special affiliation with middle eastern nations.

All which boils down to: This guy is a danger to his people by playing the part of the petulant child.

Wow. A "Bush Lied" inquest.

2005-12-28T23:13:00.000-05:00

Chicago Tribune | Judging the case for war

This is some real analysis. The Chicago Tribune has taken the Bush position before the war and compared it to what all the monday morning quarterbacks (ie, the Democratic Party) now say was said. This is a nice place to see who actually lied... and who is putting out spin.

Movie Review - King Kong

2005-12-26T22:22:00.000-05:00

I took my wife and daughter to see King Kong last week at a second tier theater (First tier being stadium seating, etc...).

I don't know why, but I let the pre-release hype actually get me excited about this movie. I had that much confidence in the director Peter Jackson. The man knows how to tell a story.

Getting excited about a movie is normally a recipe for disaster - and almost assuredly will result in a letdown or a sort of "something's missing" feeling.

That was not the case in King Kong. It was exceptional from beginning to end. Jack Black does a dead-on young Orson Wells, our latest scream queen Naomi Watts is more memorable for her acting than her screaming, and Kong is, well, The Man.

This is a movie that packs a lot into its three hours. I'm impatient at best, but aside from sneaking out for more popcorn at what I hoped was exposition, I don't remember thinking the movie slow at any point. If anything, the action scenes were of exhausting length. OK by me.

The fall from the Empire State Building was beautifully done - almost silent, with you suspended with Kong and Ann Darrow (Watts) for a half-second of peace before the fall. One of the classic scenes from the first Kong, where he hits the side of the Empire State building while plummetting, is not duplicated here. While I would have liked to have seen it for the coolness factor, it was a wise choice on Jackson's part. You do not leave this movie thinking anything is missing.

A big Purple Thumbs-up to:

2005-12-15T16:13:00.000-05:00

The Iraqi people. They do indeed know a good thing when they see it.

The United States of America. For giving them hope of having it.

To everyone wishing their best - even when they have grave misgivings about the venture.

Are you listening, Iran?

Some of my Comments to the Cleveland Homeless Grapevine

2005-11-29T23:54:00.000-05:00

The Poem that Keeps on Giving

I still believe there are and were WMD's

2005-11-29T23:35:00.000-05:00

Air Force Family: Lies My Congressman Told Me (special by airforceguy)

I'm sure we could argue about it, but seriously, too much was going on. Here's a post by a guy who says he was there. Long, but more than one view is set forth - maybe even indicative of different intel rivalries.

And, quite honestly, the very _thought_ of the genious-midget weapons inspector chief is just too friggin cool. Now all I'll think about is the guy in Threshold.

String City

2005-11-22T23:41:00.000-05:00

Been spending a lot of time playing with google earth, and took a good look up close at the cities I know well. Via highways, our cities are collapsing at the core and spreading out.

Since I spend a lot of time in the car I watch the landscape go by and find that, more and more, while neighborhood character is hard to find, the ability to get what I need has improved. My lifestyle is not really dependant on any city I live in. In fact, I identify more with the these long highway generated neighborhoods. They go where the homes go. As a result, we are no longer crowded in to a center which defines our space, but actually live in a "string city" spread out as far as 20 miles in each direction from where I live.

Whoever (Yeats?) said "the center cannot hold" could have been talking about our cities today. But the city isn't dying - it's turning into threads - a type of suburban string city. Via infrastructure, car culture, convenience, what have you, its more than just "the mall" now. It's everything you need within 3 exits.

Bout Friggin' Time

2005-11-20T17:50:00.000-05:00

Al-Zarqawi's Jordan family renounces him

I would have felt better if they had denounced him _before_ he blew up Jordanians. But hey, before that it was just Americans and shiites and jews (oh my!).

Al_Zarqawi now claims, of course, that he didn't intend to kill any Jordanians, but that "Jews and American spies were about" and that they were the target.

I say this now, with all seriousness: If the arabian peoples are stupid enough to buy into a lie like this, then they derserve to be left to their own devices.

Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

2005-11-17T17:46:00.000-05:00

Historian Charged With Denying Holocaust

Hey, time for another trip down memory lane with Mr. Irving, a favorite of many a jew-hater...

Remember the "What is the Prime Directive" Star Trek Episode?

2005-11-17T17:37:00.000-05:00

Plame's husband wants Post to probe Woodward

Where Kirk destroys a computer by confusing it into execute itself as being violative of the "Prime Directive".

Imagine the teeth grinding of reporters everywhere as Bob Woodward reveals what everyone knew about Plame, and giving a great boost to Libbeys defense. Right now Reporters are going "How can we destroy Bob Woodward when he brought down Nixon? It just doesn't seem right". If they don't attack Woodward, they are violating the prime directive against Bush. If they do attack the guy who brought down a sitting republican, they also will violate the "Prime Directive" by, once again, eating one of their own ala Judith Miller.

No doubt some heads are going to explode

Edwards says he was wrong - why?

2005-11-14T21:07:00.000-05:00

An email exchange I jumped into between my son and friend, regarding Edward's "I was wrong about the war" speach. It's in reverse order of posting, starting at the bottom with a copy of the Edwards speech...

On Nov. 14th, Ed Cleary responded...

Hillary needs to support this war. She'll continue her move to the right.

As for Edwards, while I respect has admission of being wrong, this is a political speech. Period. It's calculated and cold. This whole "unfiltered" differentiation (being what info the White House got and what he got) is bullshit because no one has or can name any information that would have changed their minds. They are speculating. They _think_ they have something, but they must not be sure. For example, Howard Dean called Bush everything but a liar on Meet the Press today, but just didn't have the guts to cross that one line. I guess the Democratic cover will be plausible deniability, wherein, after they find nothing of merit, they each say "Well _I_ never called the president a liar."

Reread Edwards speach and you will note that he never says Bush lied to him - but he immediately _implies_ that the President lied to you, the great republic. Read the weasle words: " * * [t]he information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community * * *" conjoined in the same phrase . Why would Edwards write it that way? Wasn't Bush talking to Edwards as well when he was talking to the nation? If he lied to the nation, Senator, say so. Still, why make a distinction between the type of information you recieved as a Senator from the type of information POTUS gave to the public.

I'll tell you why. Because, right or wrong, as a nation-state there are a thousand good reasons to fight this war, and we don't need to complicate issues. Maybe you think no one issue is worth going to war about, but here we are trying to reduce the entire reason for the war on WMD. That was the major selling point. There were other reasons, I am sure, but what did Edwards know or hear that he is not telling us?

The US as nation might want a war, but it isn't going to get it in this democracy without a _cause_. The cause was WMD - problem dealt with. Now the cause is freedom of oppressed people throughout the middle east. It wouldn't be the first war that was transformed ideologically. Lincoln did not engage the civil war as one against slavery - at least not openly. We entered Vietnam with the best of intentions, but it was transformed in the opposite direction, turning into a bitter seething conflict that seemed to have no connection with what we, as a nation, wanted to believe we were.

My fear is that this transformation is necessary for success in the Middle east - but that the Democrats have decided to poison the well to prevent any such transformation. The reason is simple - the people behind this hate Bush more than they love their country.

So undermine, undermine, undermine. Edwards line about intelligience that is "in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda" - notice it doesn't say that Bush did it or what the agenda is. He simply _implies_ it as a nefarious act. Now, follow that up with a few lines about how American leaders shoudn't lie to the world, and you get Edwards accusing Bush (indirectly, of course) of lying not to him, but to the American people and to the World.

Jack Petsche wrote:

> Kevin, Good speech. A politician who admits he made a mistake. I admire that. I hope more democrats who voted for this war come out and admit their mistake. Until they do they have no credibility with me. I mean specifically Hillary and Kerry. The white house had access to unfiltered intel unlike the Senate. Its clear from the evidence that has come out that the White House buried intel that showed al-Libi was a liar and al Qaeda was not being trained by Iraqis as the Pres falsely claimed, that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for centrifuges as the DIA and State Dept knew well before the war, that Iraq had no nuclear program as nobel prize winner el Baradei told us well before the war, and Iraq was not trying to buy uranium in Africa as the CIA knew well before the Pres said it. And UN inspectors were in Iraq in Jan and Feb of 2003 and found no WMD. There are very good reasons that 54% of the American people now believe that the Bush Administration deliberately misled us into this war, not the least of which is because it is true. We have to make them pay for that by voting out of office all those who got us into this war and continue to not admit their mistakes ala Edwards. Jack
>
> "Kevin E. Cleary" wrote:
>
> I'm convinced that he would be President right now if he'd been at the top of the ticket in 2004. Here's hoping he gets the nomination in 2008...-kev
> washingtonpost.comThe Right Way in Iraq
>
> By John Edwards
> Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07
>
> I was wrong.
>
> Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
>
> It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
>
> The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.
>
> While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
>
> The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
>
> George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.
>
> Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.
>
> The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.
>
> What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
>
> A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.
>
> First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.
>
> We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.
>
> That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.
>
> Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.
>
> Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.
>
> Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.
>
> America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.
>
> The writer, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.

Once again, Krauthammer nails it.

2005-09-30T11:04:00.000-04:00

One of the best logical voices out there, Sir Charles gives a great analysis of Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement. Needless to say, it's better than my just calling her a "whack job'.

Krauthammer- Cindy Sheehan

Tom DeLay Indicted - September 28, 2005

2005-09-28T23:41:00.000-04:00

Linked is a copy of his indictment.

OpinionJournal -Who is to blame for Katrina's response failures

2005-09-08T18:00:00.000-04:00

It's way too early to start issuing blame, and there will apparently be plenty to go around. But why are we wasting time on this now?

Condi Rice Nominated as Secretary of State

2004-11-17T12:40:00.000-05:00

You go girl!

Blaming Moral Values - 2004 Election

2004-11-15T22:48:00.000-05:00

The dems are busy finding some morally reprehensible way in which the republicans won. Rather than admit they just got it wrong on the major issues, or taking some honest to god risks with their coalition, they repeated the same fearagogy and personal greed issues they have for the last 20 years.

Unfortunately, they are so well invested in the labor movement they are going to ride it into the dirt. Seriously, why do they still insist that they are the party of the working man when the working man has decided that republicans care more for what they think than the democrats?

Here in labor locked Cleveland times couldn't be worse, the democrats couldn't be more entrenched, and things just get worse for the workers because big labor won't even talk to the republicans. Not even the courtesy of an interview for endorsements. Believe it or not, there are pro-labor republicans - just not the way labor officials want to hear. Meanwhile the jobs bleed to the free labor market elsewhere . What's that leave them - minimum wage increases? Those have the benefit of not costing the government much. But hell, only the young worry about that - and they don't vote. Fools.

The dems are also losing the senior citizens. These people are loaded. The voted and continue to vote themselves huge benefits. Now they are set, and vote republican. As recently as a year ago if you had told me that AARP would endorse a republican plan I would have said you were insane. In fact, I would have said that right up to the point I heard about it.

Social Security has been overplayed until people have begun to realize something should be done about it - which deprives the dems of the old favorite "sky is falling" scenario. And really, who would you rather see revise Social Security? Only a second term president can mess with it, and dealing with it now rather than 8 years from now is much better.

Feminism is its own issue, and is changing. Apparently, some women have the nerve to want to stay home and raise a family and vote republican, or, god forbid, be pro-life. The feminist cause, as defined by its leaderesses will certainly be advanced as gay and lesbian "rights" evolve. These issues cross party lines, but the dems don't want to admit it. Their core here is fragmenting as well.

What does that leave? The war - they could have taken the other route - and campaigned to escalate the war. Might have won some respect. Might have sold us on the "better war management" thing. Kerry should have tried to convinced me that he could manage it better - but he was only going to manage us out of it. It would have been a complete sell-out. I believe that is the single greatest reason he lost the election.

So afraid were the democrats afraid of offending one of their core groups they've fallen short, once again, of serving any of them. Someone needed to tell them Kerry that these issues peaked with Gore once 9/11 came along, and just didn't friggin matter right now.

The Democratic core groups will continue to bleed off to the Republican party as it "sells out" a consituency, such as gay rights, thereby making no discernable difference between the parties on this issue. Yet it continues to ignore groups it thinks has had no place else to go - such as blacks.

Yeah, it was "moral issues" which decided this election. Anything is better than admitting the possibility of a real problem.

Post election thoughts

2004-11-09T22:11:00.000-05:00

It's been as good watching the post-election spin and the 2008 positioning. There's been a lot of action since the election on a ton of fronts - Fallujah, oil prices dropping, job reports up. I see Bush setting an intentionally unrealistic agenda in the hopes of accomplishing at least two major projects - Social Security and Tax restructuring. Actually, maybe even just a social security fix. A war and a fix for Social Security are an impressive legacy.

It's fun to watch the democrats haggle with us over what teeny-tiny error they made. Like "morals issues". Right now they are trying to quantify what a moral issue will do for them in the vote department.

They already got caught with their pants down over prescription drug coverage for the elderly. Who'da thunk AARP would have climbed into bed with the republicans on that one...

Anyway, it's time to decide what the trade-bait is; i.e. what each party will sell off to get what they want. Righ now, the democrats need voters, so I say they will sell out gay rights - again. And say they now have reclaimed the high ground. Lot's of luck with that one....

The republicans, meanwhile, are in a position to either do a great deal of good for or a great deal of damage to the country. Expect a whole bunch of outrageous demands ( tort reform, etc.) while they look for a few good supreme court candidates. I can't imagine this country going back to illegal abortion - but then again, it was only illegal in certain states before Roe v. Wade.

Swift Boat Dog and Pony

2004-08-25T14:04:00.000-04:00

Max Cleland just rolled his wheelchair out to condemn Bush, saying the the President was behind the Swift Boat ads, the county is a mess, Iraq's a mess, bash Bush, bash Bush, but that this wasn't a political dog an pony show.

I used to put his wheelchair and honor first, now I have to put him down as simply a politician.

Here's my thoughts on Swift boat -

I hated them, but as more and more of Kerry's bullshit is revealed - his _admitted_ bullshit, by the way, I have to wonder if these guys have done all of us a favor. I mean, let's presume they are lying for a moment. Kerry's reaction to these lies have revealed more about the guy to me than any convention appearance.

I'm not going to get between a bunch of guys from a different generation fighting over their hatreds. I would imagine combat creates lifelong friendships and hatreds, and I leave all that up to the guys involved, and the veterans (all veterans) who could analize the situation better.

But since there appears to be some streatching of facts from the Swift Boat guys, selective memory, and intentional taking of matters out of context to create lies, I have to ask one question - -

Will these ads be nominated for an Acadmy award for "Documentary"?

Uh Oh.... Terrorists screw up again...

2004-06-27T12:13:00.000-04:00

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Ok, what are the terrorists thinking here? That if they attack the Muslim world they are more likely to win?

Gee, now there's an Iraqi-North Korean connection.

2004-06-20T17:37:00.000-04:00

Naturally, I'm sure after the fall of North Korea and the "blame" we must take for that, said "connections" will be ignored.

International News Article | Reuters.com

Bush should chide the Pope over kiddie rape

2004-06-04T23:44:00.000-04:00

Newsday.com - World News

After all, let he without sin....

Editorials disguised as News.

2004-05-30T13:36:00.000-04:00

New Zealand News - World - Iraq's interim Prime Minister cosy with US power elite

Proof that control of news flow is a valid military objective. Note the presumptions. Note the assumptions based on those. Note the lack of facts. This is opinion.

If this was mean to be an editorial, I hereby apologize to the New Zealand News. I'd back off to say that it was a lousy editorial.

Another victory in the war on terror.

2004-05-30T13:29:00.000-04:00

Bloomberg.com: Top Worldwide

Does anyone think that OPEC does not support the war on terror?

The question is whether they support the a) short term instability and the risk it brings to oil prices; or b) the concept that this is not a good time to screw with the US.

Had OPEC run the fuel for oil program instead of the corrupt UN we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Opec, after all, is capitalistic. And Hussein was just getting to be too - expensive. Hence the present support.

Speaking of Michael Moore...

2004-05-29T16:52:00.000-04:00

Thank you, judges of the Cannes film festival, for putting the politics back in judging the merit of art. Thank you for reminding us that truth can be irrelevant as long as your political message is framed properly.

I remember how it used to be, when politics governed art. Why, Cincinnati involved politics in the Mapplethorpe display, and "sculpture" such as "Piss Christ" were in vogue. All after telling their sponsors that not paying for the obscene was censorship, and to screw off and just give us more governemnt funding for "Art's sake".

Do what you want - just don't ask my mothers tax money to pay for it. And if Michael Moore can make money off his propaganda, well god bless his black little mercenary heart.

Nick Berg in Michael Moore film?

2004-05-29T16:49:00.000-04:00

Newsday.com - AP Regional

Does anyone else think this guy just keeps popping up in the most mysterious places? I hope he was someone's spy, for if not, surely the Darwin Awards need a nomination.

What the hell is Michael Moore doing with film of this guy? I mean, can it be that much of a coincidence?

Oh yeah, the Libyan's were going to give up anyway....

2004-05-29T16:37:00.000-04:00

International News Article | Reuters.com

Gotta love those that say this war on terrorism is ineffective. Ghadaffi surrenders his program, and everyone says how his program was long defunct, so we (being the US) got fooled again.

Keep dreaming. This article shows how Libya was still working on a nuclear program right up to the day of "surrender".

God Bless our Vets - World War II Memorial Dedicated

2004-05-29T16:32:00.000-04:00

The New York Times > National > Veterans Gather to Dedicate World War II Memorial

The Connection

2004-05-29T01:48:00.000-04:00

The Connection

Anyone who thinks Iraq and al Qaeda were never in bed together is either a liar or an idiot. Anyone who thinks Iraq is not a valid military target in dealing with terrorism doesn't own a map.

This is a crass race to beat the proof. As if it were needed. Or even relevant at this point.

A question of minutes

2004-05-18T00:04:00.000-04:00

What do you think has received more coverage - the Iraqi prison "scandal" or the number of senseless killings by these terrorist animals scrambling for supremacy over their brethren?

I refuse to believe there is equality of coverage. Take all the TV news minutes or column inches devoted to our "prison management" issues and compare them to the number of minutes/inches devoted to these whackos sending a child in with a bomb to kill American soldiers and what do you think would win?

I'll even give a handicap to the press: We'll even count the latter stories when the press blames us. You know the routine: "They only attack us because we desecrated their holy city".

Hey, is there a friggin city in Iraq that isn't somehow "holy"?

Ed C:\>