Hypoxic Mutterings

2008-03-24T14:50:00.001-07:00

A response posted to Megan McArdle's blog, in response to this post:

Children are no more of a 'resevoir for infection' than adults. Adults get sick, so do kids.

Please check recent research to validate the 98% figure.

An enormous 'public health detriment' has been autism. Hannah Poling will be the first concession in many more. Vaccines are the 'WMD' of the health industry.

Whatever your opinion of me and my comments, you have a right to them. Try, however, to keep an open mind as this issue unfolds. I think we are all in for unpleasant surprises.

Posted by palmrita | March 24, 2008 10:44 AM

Ok. I have to respond to this with what will amount to a basic primer in Immunology. Please bear with me.

At birth, our immune system operates on the principal of a random number generator. You see, it produces all of these defensive cell types without any real knowledge of what is needed. It is untrained. Unexposed to the real world of pathogens. So it uses its ‘random number generator’ to create antibodies to random protein structures that may or may not invade host.

This is a recipe to get us all killed, but luckily as infants, our immune system is bolstered by something called Transferred Immunity. Basically some of our mother’s antibodies carry over from pregnancy explicitly to bolster our untrained immune system. Even better, breastfeeding bolsters our immune system by transferring some of our mother’s antibodies allowing us to better identify and deal with foreign threats. (Insert long tirade about the benefits of breastfeeding here).

So how do we gain immunity? Or rather, what is the process that produces Acquired Immunity? Natural Selection (Danger! Forbidden concept alert!). Remember the random number generator I mentioned above? Well it doesn’t work alone. Our immune system works not only randomly, but also as a catalytically induced Positive Feedback Loop. Exposure causes an increased antibody production response, and this ‘trains’ the immune system to better handle antigenic threats.

To put it another way, our Immune system relies on Natural Selection to train it for Acquired Immunity (I know, I know. Natural Selection is only a theory. Never mind that it underpins all modern biology. Anyway…). The random nature of Immunity becomes ‘weighted’ toward those things it has been exposed to and has successfully repressed. Natural Selection trains our immune response to be better respond to those challenges to which it has been previously exposed.

With all of this in mind, how to vaccines work? They jump-start this process. A denatured or attenuated invasive microorganism artificially introduced into our system will trigger a response to that antigen. The reason we don’t die due to this exposure is due to the fact that those microorganisms have been artificially damaged or killed prior to their introduction. In other words we are artificially inducing a natural process in a way that increases the odds of the subjects survivability at initial and subsequent exposures.

As to linking thermisol to autism there have been repeated studies undertaken to explicitly confirm this hypothesis. No linkage has yet to be demonstrated.

In conclusion, I am all for open mindedness. But there can be a terribly short path between an open mind and GIGO. I’m all for people finding out the utility of each individual vaccine allowing them to make an informed decision. But to decide to forgo all vaccines due to ‘research’ is the height of irresponsibility. Your decisions impact far more than you. You are significantly increasing the odds of your children having an untrained response to a potentially high morbidity infection, and allowing them to act as a vector to a significant population of people who may not have the ability to effectively resist the infection for a variety of reasons. Children are no more a ‘reservoir of infection’ than adults are. However, they do not have the acquired immune response of an adult either.

Failing to vaccinate your children significantly skews the odds against them. Personally it strikes me as an extraordinarily foolish thing with which to gamble.

2007-03-13T22:03:00.000-07:00

Filed under Some people try to parse language when they
shouldn’t

USCode TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all
 able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,
 except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
 under 45 years of age who are, or who have made
 a declaration of intention to become, citizens
 of the United States and of female citizens of
 the United States who are members of the National
 Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the
   National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of
  the members of the militia who are not members
  of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

2006-11-27T17:49:00.000-08:00

The Counter Revolution begins.

The New York Times calls for anti-democratic counter-revolution in the Middle East in a current editorial .

The editorial begins strong:

It is too early to know who ordered this week’s assassination of the Lebanese cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel, but there are many reasons to suspect Syria. Mr. Gemayel opposed Syria’s unrelenting campaign to dominate Lebanon’s fragile democracy. If the cabinet now loses even one more minister, through intimidation or worse, Lebanon’s pro-Western government will collapse — a collapse that Hezbollah, Syria’s ally and henchman, has been publicly seeking.

But it then, sadly veers toward the Baker ‘Realist’ view of the Middle East:

This page believes that the United States needs to begin a dialogue with Syria, about Iraq and regional peace. But President Bashar al-Assad needs to understand that neither the tribunal nor Lebanon’s independence will ever be on the bargaining table. Europe, Russia and all of Syria’s neighbors need to join Washington in delivering that message.

What is the ‘Realist’ view? Stability. Stability at any cost. Unfortunately this is what got us in this mess in the first place. What started the brouhaha in Iraq 15 years ago? A fear of carrying the ‘Kuwait Liberation’ top its logical conclusion: the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Why? Because it was cause ‘instability’ in the Middle East, just like we are seeing now.

How will Iraq turn out? I have no idea. It may go the route of Yugoslavia and break up into its component tribal / ethnic boundaries. And while the process is horrific for the population (and still ongoing in the area, look at Kosovo and Macedonia), at least the issue can be RESOLVED (see Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, etc). So while the Realist, counter-revolutionary policy can bring ‘peace’ and stability in the short term, it inevitably leads to something worse down the road. Every time. Just like it did in 1848 when Metternich tried to suppress nationalistic movements in Europe. Just like in 1914 when the Gerrymandered Empires collapsed. Just like the current Kurdish insurrection in Turkey. Just like the secretarian conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq.

Dictatorial Oppression to achieve ‘Peace’ may work in the short run. And in fact, this is what Syria requires from its dialogue, and Baker proposes in his ‘realistic’ plan. But the end state will be worse. It will give more power to the Muslim Brotherhood (again). It will reduce our influence in the region as we sell out the Liberal Muslims in the Middle East (again). And It will prove us the ‘paper tiger’ everyone has been talking about (again).

The brilliance of the Democracy First policy in the Middle East is that it had the chance of maybe solving the problems of the region in the long term. It NEVER implied things would be ‘easy’, or ‘stable’. To have held such an expectation was foolish, and to give up on it now would be even worse in the long run.

At the end, labels don’t matter. What people want to do does. As we see the ‘Left’ embrace ‘Realism we realize that they are not Liberal in any meaningful sense of the word. Modern Progressive Socialists are Reactionary, Opressive and aliberal. Case in point: Jonathan Chase from the LA Times thinks we should bring back Saddam in order to restore stability. Why not simply suggest we perform a Roman Decimation in Iraq (kill every one person in ten). It’s what Saddam would do.

‘Peace in our time’ for all.

Orson Scott Card on the Middle East

2006-11-05T19:13:00.000-08:00

You know, I’ve been trying to explain my feelings on our current relations with the middle east for some time now. Leave it to a professional author to present the eloquence for me.

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html

2006-10-21T23:36:00.000-07:00

What's Next?

In response to the Lancet study. Originally posted in response to a thread on Iraq the Model

What I find amazing about the firestorm this study has caused is the complete inability of people who are now calling for the Coalition to ‘pull out’ to think through the consequences of such an act.

The argument is not, nor can it be about wither we should have deposed Hussein or not. That entire line of entire argument is absurd. One does not support Ted Bundy simply because he is the Head of State. The world is down one more Thugocratic Tyrant. Go team Humanity! More importantly, this change has broken the stasis that was Iraq. Instead of the Terror of Murder to impose control, we have the Terror of differing opinions over how Iraq is to be. This, in of itself is a vast improvement in spite of the horrific cost – whatever the actual number may be.

So what we have now in Iraq is an extreme form of debate over how the future of Iraq will be shaped and by whom. We must therefore ask ourselves a simple question: Does the presence of the Coalition alter the form of this debate in a positive or negative manner?

All things being equal, and if there were no other external influences to this debate, then quite clearly our best course of action would be to withdraw and let the Iraqis sort this out.

Unfortunately the astute among us can see the problem with the above: all things are NOT equal. There ARE external parties influencing this debate to the cost of the individual Iraqi (and yes, that obviously includes the US – for we don’t want to see another Hussein).

Therefore the only reasonable answer is that we must stay until Iraq can defend herself from the external influences that are trying to impose their will on Iraqi society. And the idea that such a state was achievable in a mere 3 years – no matter what level of competence (or lack thereof) the current US administration exhibits is laughable. After all, one can argue that it took the United States nearly 100 years to sort out her internal ideas of what exactly the US was about anyway.

And Iraq hasn’t seen the equivalent of a million or so Tories taking ship and heading for points elsewhere because they lost.

Let’s give the Iraqis a chance, as we have seen what ‘pulling out’ does. No more boat people. No more Pol Pot simply because the alternative was ‘hard’. Nothing worth doing is ever easy. The people of Iraq are most definitely worth our best effort.

Irony I dub thee Islam

2006-09-18T21:59:00.000-07:00

So. Let’s see if I get this straight. The Pontiff gives a sermon in Germany in which he quotes an Emperor of Byzantium – which was conquered by Muslims (Been to the Christian Church known as the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople lately? Hmmm) – and basically states that conversion by the sword, or Jihad, is not exactly a rational way of convincing someone of your viewpoint.

The response of the Muslim World?

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- An al Qaeda-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters raged across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.
In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."

Protests also broke out in Iraq, where angry demonstrators burned an effigy of the pope in Basra, and in Indonesia, where more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, waving banners that said the "Pope is building religion on hatred."

The pope on Sunday said he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his speech last week in which he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam's Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman" and referred to spreading Islam "by the sword."

Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," he said during his weekly appearance before pilgrims in Italy.

The statement of regret -- the pope's second in two days -- helped ease some tensions.

In Turkey, where outrage against Benedict's remarks had been swift, Catholic bishops decided Monday that no changes were necessary in his upcoming visit in November -- his first to a Muslim country, Vatican spokesman George Marovic said.

Marovic said the trip was expected to go on as planned, and the bishops had discussed the details of a religious ceremony the pontiff is to lead in Istanbul.

However, State Minister Mehmet Aydin, who oversees the religious affairs in Turkey, said he expected Turkish authorities to cancel the visit if Benedict does not offer a full apology.

"We are expecting the authorities to unilaterally cancel this visit. The pope's coming to Turkey isn't going to foment the uniting of civilizations, but a clash of civilizations," he said.

The secretary-general of the Turkish HUKUK-DER law association submitted a request to the Justice Ministry asking that the pope be arrested upon entering Turkey.
The appeal by Fikret Karabekmez, a former legislator for the banned pro-Islamic Welfare Party, called for Benedict to be tried under several Turkish laws, among them obstruction of freedom of belief, encouraging discrimination based on religion, and inciting religious hatred.

A prosecutor in the ministry will evaluate the request and decide whether to open a case.

Angry reactions also persisted in other corners of the Muslim world, where many demanded more of an apology by the pope than Sunday's statement of regret.

"Muslims have all this while felt oppressed, and the statement by the pope saying he is sorry about the angry reaction is inadequate to calm the anger -- more so because he is the highest leader of the Vatican," Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said.

Sit-ins at Damascus shrine

More than 200 Muslims staged a sit-in at a shrine in Damascus, Syria, heeding a call by the Damascus office of Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A statement issued by the office urged the pope to "openly and plainly apologize for his remarks."

Protesters also rallied in the city of Muzaffarabad, in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. "His apology is not sufficient because he did not say that what he said was wrong," said Uzair Ahmed of Pasban-e-Hurriyat, a Pakistani political group.

Morocco's King Mohammed VI sent a letter to the Vatican in which he implored Benedict to show "the same respect for Islam that you have for the other religions," Moroccan media reported. Morocco withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican over the weekend.

Even in China, where the government exerts tight controls over religious activities, a top religious official said Benedict had insulted the nation's Muslims.

"This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen Guangyuan, president of Islamic Association of China, was quoted as saying in an interview with the Xinhua news agency.

In the Middle East, where Muslims threw firebombs at seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the weekend, Christian leaders posted guards outside some churches.

"We are afraid," said Sonia Kobatazi, a Christian Lebanese, after Mass at the Maronite Christian St. George Cathedral in Beirut, Lebanon, where about a dozen policemen carrying automatic weapons stood guard.

Anyone else care to play ‘spot the irony inherent in the system’?

2006-03-24T09:09:00.000-08:00

Lies, Damn Lies, and More Damn Lies

ABC News has released a compilation of some of the information gleaned thus far from the documentation captured in Iraq after the gulf war. I'm going to reprint their analysis in full, as the implications for the 'Bush Lied, People Died' argument should be evident.

In short, the documents translated so far quite clearly paint a pictuer of deceit, corruption and hostility toward the west. Once again, my thesis for this war has never been 'should we' but rather 'when will it happen'. War with Iraq was essentially unavoidable when we failed to remove Hussein from power in 1991. The only variable was the date.

March 23, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of seven documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which the U.S. government has released.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.

"U.S. War Plan Leaked to Iraqis by Russian Ambassador"

Two Iraqi documents from March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

Document written sometime before March 5, 2003

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

Document dated March 25, 2003

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk." The information was obtained by the Russians from "sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar," according to the document.

This document also includes an account of an amusing incident in which several Iraqi Army officers (presumably seeking further elaboration of the U.S. war plans) contacted the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and stated that the ambassador was their source. Needless to say, this caused great embarrassment to the ambassador, and the officers were instructed "not to mention the ambassador again in that context."

(Editor's Note: The Russian ambassador in March 2003 was Vladimir Teterenko. Teterenko appears in documents released by the Volker Commission, which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, as receiving allocations of 3 million barrels of oil — worth roughly $1.5 million. )

"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"

Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

"Election Campaign Laws in France"

Documents dated July-August 1999

Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France. This includes a document from the Iraqi intelligence service classified as "secret," ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France. It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached. The attached translated report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France. Translation was done by someone called Salam Abdul Karim Mohammed.

(Editor's Note: This is an intriguing document that suggests Saddam Hussein's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians. Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the U.N. Oil for Food program.)

"Hiding Docs from the U.N. Team"

Document dated March 23, 1997

A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the U.N. team, including:

Removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons (proposals, research, studies, catalogs, etc.)
Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored
Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents
Removing files from computers.

The letter also advises them on how they should answer questions by U.N. team members. It says the intelligence service should be informed within one week about the progress made in discarding the documents.

(Editor's Note: This document is consistent with the Report of the Special Adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence, which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam Hussein's government toward the U.N. inspectors in the mid to late 1990s. Hussein halted all cooperation with those inspectors and expelled them in October 1998.)

"Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq"

Document dated August 2002

A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.

The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as a comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6.) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.

(Editor's Note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)

UPDATE:

Aristides over at the Information Processor has a nice retrospective of the evolving memes behind the opposition to Iraq Sanctions following Gulf War 1. Anyway. Go read the press clippings yourself. And here is some further exposition from Wretchard at the Belmont Club. Finally, Mark Stein at the Jereusalem Post has some interesting thoughs that I think encapsulates much of what I've thought abotu Iraq for some time now.

2006-03-21T13:19:00.000-08:00

Chaos in Iraq, part whatever

Just a little something for everyone who is convinced that Iraq is all chaos, violence and civil war.

The Other Side of the Story by Bill Crawford. Lots of good snippets and links to stories that no one appears to have heard in amongst the paper selling headlines of Fear and Loathing in Mesopotamia.

2005-06-30T12:12:00.000-07:00

Half right is better than all wrong

In this I ruminated about the attractiveness of closer ties with India (I also babbled about the Russians, but it looks as though Tzar Putin may have decided on a different tack).

Anyway, Winds of Change has a huge article on the new 10 Year Defense pact just signed between India and the United States, the geoplitical ramifications vis a vis the Middle East and China will be explored for years to come.

Go read it, as it is well worth your time.

2005-05-02T11:47:00.000-07:00

Happy May Day! (if a day late)

And just so everyone knows what we're celebrating, here is an excellent collection of articles regarding the effects of Communism on the various nations which gave it a go. Perhaps May Day should become the international day of celebrating the discrediting of Communism. Or, perhaps even better, a day to remember all those who were murdered in the name of the 19th century's ideal 'Worker's Paradise'.

http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/05/01/may-day-2005-a-day-of-remembrance/

2005-04-04T12:27:00.000-07:00

Syria pulling out of Lebanon, by April 30th

Not much more to add to this story. Other than after 25 years, I suppose better late than never.

2005-03-28T08:05:00.000-08:00

IP patents, abused. Again.

In cause you haven’t heard, Immersion Corp successfully filed suit against Sony Corporation alleging IP infringement for controllers that vibrate as synchronized with game data. The result is an injunction against further sales of the PS2 platform, a future licensing agreement, and $90 million in damages.

Never mind that Sega’s Outrun had vibrating controllers in 1986, which was well before Immersion Corp. existed.

Why didn't Sony present this Prior Art in the proceedings? If they did why wasn't Immersion Corp's patent voided? What on earth is going on here?

2005-03-10T16:10:00.000-08:00

The New Indentured Servitude

One of the principal means by which many poorer people came to the American Colonies was though a concept knows as Indentured Servitude. The basic idea was that an individual would present themselves as a steerage passenger to a ship captain, who would then sell a bill of labor to a purchasing agent in to colony to compensate the ship owner for the price of the passage. The servant would then owe their contract owner a debt of labor equivalent to the price of their passage. In short, a form of voluntary, not quite, slavery. Once the individual had worked off their passage they would be released from their contract and be able to do whatever they desired.

We also see something along these lines in the illegal immigration business of today. The émigrés are placed in local sweat shops where they work to pay off the cost of their transport. Unscrupulous contract holders charge ever increasing fees such that the Indentured Servant can never work their way out of their debt.

Much like what credit card companies are trying to do to low income consumers today with late fees and service charges.

Over four million pre-approved credit card notices are sent to American consumers annually. These are sent without regard to the income and debt risk of the recipient, and frequently do a poor job of adequately explaining the consequences of overdraft and late fees.

Case in point Josephine McCarthy:

According to papers in her recent bankruptcy, McCarthy discovered at about the time of her husband's death in 2003 that the couple had a $4,888 balance on a Providian Financial Corp. Visa card and another $2,020 balance on a Providian Mastercard.

Over the two years from 2002 until early 2004, when she filed for bankruptcy, McCarthy charged an additional $218 on the first card and made more than $3,000 in payments, the court papers show. But instead of her balance going down, finance charges — at what the bankruptcy judge termed a "whopping" 29.99% rate, together with late fees, over-limit fees and phone payments fees — pushed what she owed up to more than $5,350.

In the case of the second card, the papers show that McCarthy charged an extra $203 and made more than $2,000 in payments, but again fees and finance charges pushed the balance up.

In other words, because she couldn’t maintain the schedule as imposed by her creditor, he balance increased relentlessly, forcing her into bankruptcy just to get ahead of the ball.

The current Bankruptcy bill would remove this option from Mrs. McCarthy, and those like her. It is not terribly difficult to imagine a scenario in which an individual could loose all of their assets in this sort of a scenario, and eventually be forced to having their future wages garnished to pay off their debt.

Just like what is detailed in the current bill.

And what is tremendously not-shocking about this is the widespread bi-partisan support which exists for this bill. If this bill passes Congress will have utterly failed to represent their constituents, unless, of course, Congresses constituents are comprised exclusively of Providian, Chase et al.

2005-02-28T12:28:00.000-08:00

Liberalism, and a crossing of the Rubicon.

What does Liberalism mean anymore? Many appear to claim the mantle of Liberalism without apparently understanding the formulation of the concept. Once Liberalism encapsulated the idea that humanity should move away from the rule of elites and toward the vox populi, vox deus – The voice of the People is the voice of God. Or, to adopt an overused slogan, power to the people. However, somewhere, somehow, this became lost by later day adherents of Liberalism who identify themselves as ‘Progressive’.

Recent events are casting a new light or who or what Liberalism may be. There are those figures who are openly calling for an end of stability, and end of the status quo, for change. And then there are those who are appealing to their ‘friends’ to help maintain stability. Individuals like Bashir Assad. What is stunning to me is that in spite of everything, despite being damned behind the ‘Stability’ of the Cold War, Liberalism is still alive and well in the world:

Walid Jumblatt:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Even better is we all ready have a ‘proof of concept’ that Liberalism can win over tyrrany.

Claus Christian Malzahn of der Spiegel:

Yet three years later, East Germany had disappeared from the map. Gorbachev had a lot to do with it, but it was the East Germans who played the larger role. When analysts are confronted by real people, amazing things can happen. And maybe history can repeat itself. Maybe the people of Syria, Iran or Jordan will get the idea in their heads to free themselves from their oppressive regimes just as the East Germans did. When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989 when the Wall fell.

So what exactly is the stated principle of 21^st century Liberalism? To state it simply, by the person you’d probably expect to be the last proponent of Liberalism;

GW Bush:

"the false stability of dictatorship and stagnation can only lead to deeper resentment," and that "lasting successful reform in a broader Middle East will not be imposed from the outside. It must be chosen from within."

In other words, the best way to save ourselves and the Arab world from the cul-de-sac that have placed themselves in is through the rigorous application of Liberalism.

One thing that we can’t argue is that during the Cold War we became a Conservative power, pursuing the status quo, propping up odious but ‘friendly’ regimes in the name of containment. But after events that have unfolded since that September, it became hard to ignore a recurring theme: the Rose revolution in Georgia. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Iraqi’s voting by the millions. The people of Lebanon demanding that the Syrians stop oppressing them. Demonstrations against Mubarak in Egypt and his stunning response.

Can all of these things be a coincidence? I find that unlikely. Perhaps, a better explanation is that the fist nation born of the Humanist Enlightenment has returned to its roots and is demanding the world change, instead of it changing for the word. That vox populi, vox deus matters. And the people of the world are listening.

None of this is settled. We still stand at a Crossroads of history. The Middle East may yet fall apart into an orgy of violence and repression. We may yet turn away from Liberalism and toward fear and repression at home and abroad. But today, at this moment, things haven’t looked this hopeful since Berliners scaled the Wall, dancing, singing, hammers in hand. And the world cheered.

Update: The Governmet of Lebanon has quit because of mass protest
Update 2: And what is this? Discontent in Syria?
Update 3: Azerbaijan!?!? With more from the BBC.

2005-02-23T08:28:00.000-08:00

Kelo v. City of New London

Or, eminent-domain, Property Rights and wither you actually own anything.

One of the more serious questions we face as citizens is where Individual Rights end for the sake of the Community. In the case of Kelo v. New London Connecticut, eminent-domain is being utilized not to clear the traditional eyesore, but rather to complete a development parcel for private industry.

The relevant justification for the definition for eminent-domain comes from the Fifth Amendment, the relevant portion being:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The key element of this statement is ‘public use’. So, what comprises public use? Normally the exercise of eminent-domain occurs when a developed parcel has degraded to the point that it is lowering the value of surrounding parcels, or if a public work requires the land that is occupies by said development. However, in the Kelo v. New London, neither of these is the case.

Apparently, the city of New London has decided it is acceptable to exercise eminent-domain on a piece of well maintained, developed property for undetermined private use. A business park of some sort. So this begs the question, does a potential economic benefit outweigh private property rights.

Now the justification for all of this comes from a 1954 case before the Supreme Court, Berman v. Parker, which ruled that governments can seize blighted property and transfer it to a developer who can build something clean and modern in its place.

But what if the property isn’t ‘blighted’? Or does a potential increase in sales tax revenue from a business development when compared to private dwelling constitute ‘blight’?

A market economy ONLY works when property is clearly defined in a non-volatile manner. If a municipality can override property rights for any reason whatsoever without limit, then property no longer is any such thing.

At the end of the day, we should all know how this turns out in the end of June.

UPDATE:
In case anyone is still paying attention, 'blight' is now officially defined as 'whatever we want'.

2005-02-23T07:44:00.000-08:00

Wherefore art thou, Mercurio?
For those of you who may be wondering about my silence of late, it comes from two sources: life, and the fact that much of my rambling has been occurring over here. Does this mean my blog experiment is dead? No. I just haven't had much to write about. Oh, I suppose I could be gleeful about Iraqi elections, and Ukrainian elections and the protests in Lebanon, and the fact that honest to God Liberalism (not the common term appropriated by 'Progressives', but rather the Liberalism of the Enlightenment - Humanist Liberalism vox populi et al) is on the march. Maybe. Hopefully. But life must come first.

Hmm. Perhaps I need to take a stab at defining Liberalism. We shall see.

2004-12-30T09:07:00.000-08:00

It's time to pony up and help
https://www.redcross.org/donate/donate.html
Amazon.com

2004-12-03T08:49:00.000-08:00

It's about damn time

Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/ (See also S 2389)

United Nations Oil-for-Food Accountability Act of 2004 (Introduced in House)

HR 4284 IH

108th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. R. 4284

To require the withholding of United States contributions to the United Nations until the President certifies that the United Nations is cooperating in the investigation of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 5, 2004

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. PENCE, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. PITTS, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Ms. HART, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. HERGER, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KLINE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mr. TOOMEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `United Nations Oil-for-Food Accountability Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Allegations have been raised of substantial fraud and corruption in the administration of the Office of the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program of the United Nations.

(2) The United Nations received 2.2 percent of the proceeds of the sale of the oil exported from Iraq under the oil-for-food program, representing approximately $1,400,000,000, to fund the administrative costs of the program.

(3) The General Accounting Office estimates that during the period from 1997 through 2002, the former Iraqi regime received $10,100,000,000 in illegal revenues from the oil-for-food program, including $5,700,000,000 received from oil smuggled out of Iraq and $4,400,000,000 received from surcharges on oil sales and illicit commissions from suppliers exporting goods to Iraq.

(4) Any illicit activity by United Nations officials, personnel, agents, or contractors, including entities that have entered into contracts under the oil-for-food program, is unacceptable and should be thoroughly investigated.

(5) Documents in the files of the former Oil Ministry of Iraq indicate that Benon Sevan, the Executive Director of the oil-for-food program, and other senior United Nations officials may have been connected to an illicit scheme in which approximately 270 prominent foreign officials, business people, and political entities received the right to trade in Iraqi oil at below-market prices.

(6) On April 21, 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1538, which established a high-level inquiry into allegations regarding the administration of the oil-for-food program. The inquiry will be led by Paul Volcker, but the investigators will not have subpoena power.

(7) The ability and credibility of the United Nations Security Council to act in matters of war and peace is threatened by the alleged influence of politically connected individuals, companies, and institutions of the permanent member states who received Iraqi oil contracts.

(8) The ability and credibility of the United Nations to convey legitimacy to the new Government of Iraq and assist in the reconstruction of postwar Iraq is hampered by these allegations of United Nations corruption and mismanagement in the oil-for-food program.

SEC. 3. OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM DEFINED.

In this Act, the term `oil-for-food program' means the program established and administered pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 986 (April 14, 1995) and subsequent United Nations resolutions to permit the sale of petroleum products exported from Iraq and to use the revenue generated from such sale for humanitarian assistance.

SEC. 4. PAYMENT OF UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNITED NATIONS REGULAR BUDGET CONTINGENT UPON PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION OF UNITED NATIONS COOPERATION.

(a) Withholding of Portion of Assessed Contributions- Until the President submits to Congress a certification that satisfies the requirements described in subsection (b), amounts shall be withheld from amounts appropriated for contributions to international organizations as follows:

(1) Of the funds appropriated for contributions to international organizations in an Act making appropriations for fiscal year 2005, 10 percent of the amount available for United States assessed contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations for such fiscal year.

(2) Of the funds appropriated for contributions to international organizations in an Act making appropriations for fiscal year 2006, 20 percent of the amount available for United States assessed contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations for such fiscal year.

(b) Certification- The certification referred to in subsection (a) is a certification made by the President to Congress that--

(1) the United Nations has in effect procedures that provide the General Accounting Office access to all documents relating to the oil-for-food program so that the Comptroller General may perform nationally mandated reviews of United Nations operations;

(2) the United Nations Secretary General has formally confirmed that the United Nations will not assert the inviolability of United Nations papers and internal records that concern the oil-for-food program or a sanction imposed on Iraq related to the oil-for-food program;

(3) the United Nations Secretary General has authorized the release to the law enforcement authorities of any member state of the United Nations authentic copies of any document in the possession of the United Nations, including any document in the possession of a person who was engaged on a contract basis to provide goods or services to the United Nations, that in the judgment of the requesting authority directly or indirectly concerns the oil-for-food program or a sanction imposed on Iraq related to the oil-for-food program upon request by such law enforcement authority;

(4) the United Nations has waived any immunity enjoyed by any United Nations official from the judicial process in the United States for any civil or criminal acts or omissions under Federal or State law that may have transpired within the jurisdiction of the United States in connection with the oil-for-food program; and

(5) any United Nations official who benefitted financially from the oil-for-food program has reimbursed the Government of Iraq and any other entity affected by the illicit activity of such official the full amount that such official improperly received from the oil-for-food program.

2004-12-01T08:23:00.000-08:00

Sen. Norm Coleman on Kofi Annan in the WSJ

While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose.

2004-11-26T22:13:00.000-08:00

France, the same as it ever was
Is it hypocracy that there are no great, thundering marches denouncing the French unilateral action against one of their former colonies?

Well, of course not. See, not only were the French acting in a historically consistent maner in opposing the 'hyperpower' of America, but, well, they're France. And thereby, not the Damned Dirty Americans.

Thus, no cries of 'No blood for chocolate'.

Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.

2004-11-24T07:21:00.000-08:00

The Ukraine, Russia vs. Poland, and the unsurprising silence of the EU and the US press
It is of little surprise to me that a significant story involving a major European country, voter fraud, potential meddling on the part of the Russians, and in general, a nation at the crossroads between western ties with the EU and returning to the status of a Russian satellite is getting little to no attention around here. Perhaps we should devote a few more pages of ink about Dan Rather retiring thanks to Blathergate.

Anyway. Here are a bunch of useful links, and I hope the Ukrainians can sort this out, without any further Russian 'help'.
General Timeline
Cherenkoffs' summary of Poland's reaction.
BBC Coverage
Vaclev Havel
US Reaction
Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer's observations

UPDATE:
more observations from the Belmont Club
Ok. I take back my raspberry at the Press and the EU. It now looks as though things are starting to heat up. Here is the EU's reaction via The Guardian.

UPDATE 2: Daniel Drezner has a good summary of the latest.

UPDATE 3: the Independent rears it's very ugly head:

Look at all this, lastly, in terms of western Europe's interests. Do we really want to see the EU take in 50 million Ukrainians as well as 70 million Turks?

God forbid the EU take in some Turks. Or slavs. They just may dillute the ubermensch.

Update 4: It looks as though things might be settled reasonably.

Update 5: Timothy Garton Ash of the Guardian asks 6 very important questions to those who are critical of the 'Orange revolution' and pine for Metternichian 'stability' on the Continent - those whom he describes as the 'Reluctant West European'.

Update 6: Ukraine Supreme Court has nullified the election.

Update 23490-2:

Update 8: A history lesson.

2004-11-06T23:07:00.000-08:00

And the election post-mortems begin
I don't agree with every single detail of this post by 'Sad American', but it comes damn close for me.

2004-11-02T13:32:00.000-08:00

After the election results are in, I promise to:

Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him.
Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him.
Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.
Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better.

Furthermore,

ELECTION DAY REMINDERS: Let’s get a couple of things out of the way before today’s votes are counted.

You have the right to vote. You do not have the right to see the man of your choice in the White House.

If George W. Bush wins the election, the world will still spin on its axis. Canada will not grant you asylum. If John Kerry wins the election, America will still be America. Australia will not grant you asylum.

People who vote for the other guy aren’t stupid, brainwashed, or evil. They are your friends and family. Someone you love will almost certainly cancel your vote. (My wife cancels out mine.)

If, by some chance, everyone you know votes for the loser it won’t mean the election was stolen. It will only show that you live in a bubble.

If this thing is close (the victor could easily win by 0.1 percent) try not to read too much into it. We’ll still be closely divided.

If the election doesn’t go your way, don’t pop off as though America were Guatemala under the generals. You’ll get lots of attention, but it won’t be the kind you want. People will laugh, not near you but at you.

Michael Trotten at Instapundit.com

In conclusion, congratulations to the victor, whomever he may be, and may it all be decided tonight, without any of the nonsence from 2000.

2004-10-12T07:48:00.000-07:00

The great momentous and thunderous silence from Afghanistan
What story haven't you heard in the past couple of days from our media?

Massive explosions were reported throughout Kabul, Herat and other major cities in Afghanistan as the nation descended further into chaos. Representatives of the ousted Taliban regime struck polling stations across the country as the promised campaign of intimidation began. It is reported that several candidates for positions in the nation have died as well. After the initial reports of violence the turnout has been poor to non existent at polling stations across the nation.

A UN election observer was reported to state that so few people have voted there is no way the results of this election could possibly be considered legitimate.

Such a story would have worldwide front page headlines. People would be bellowing that this was the proof that the US abandoned Afghanistan for its ill-conceived adventure in Iraq.

Instead, silence. Little to no broadcast media seems to even care about the completely violence free election with "massive" voter turnout which occurred for the first time in Afghanistan.

Does this mean that the West can pack up and depart Afghanistan in victory? Absolutely not. We are going to be there for a very long time. But this is a tremendously important first step, and calls into question those who claim the Taliban is 'winning' in Afghanistan, or the nation is in 'chaos' or Karzai is the 'Mayor of Kabul at best'.

In my opinion this represents a small step forward for the entire Middle East. Once which I hope proves contagious.

2004-10-07T13:17:00.000-07:00

Hussein never was a good poker player
In Mariskova, I wondered indirectly if in reality Saddams WMD inventory was a giant bluff in order to keep us, the Iranians, the Kurds, any anyone else at bay. According Hussein, this is essentially correct.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saddam7oct07,0,6601102.story?coll=la-headlines-world

2004-10-07T07:00:00.000-07:00

Any Questions?

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war.

But the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which returned its full report last night, said Saddam was telling the truth when he denied on the eve of war that he had any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He had not built any since 1992.

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

Go read the rest of the article from The Scotsman.

2004-10-05T07:09:00.000-07:00

Software patents, Kodak vs. Sun, and the tale of something that is just plain broken.
In 1997, The Eastman Kodak company purchased a series of patents from Wang Laboratories for a bargain price of $270 million. And now we are seeing the fruits of this 'investment'. There are three patents in particular which are in dispute: 5,206,951; 5,421,012; and 5,226,161. These three patents basically 'protect' ideas of how certain types of software objects interface with each other. In other words it is a patent on an idea of how virtual entities may or may not interact.

Well, as it turns out, the Java language implements something very like this. So on the basis of their purchased patents, Kodak sued Sun for copyright infringement, even though Java ( a software language) has absolutely nothing even remotely to do with photography. In any event, on October 4th a Federal Jury ruled in favor of Eastman Kodak.

Now here is the real wrinkle. Java is a free language, which Sun does not seek compensation for use. So, naturally, Kodak is seeking $1.06 billion in back royalties based on Sun's operating profit of hardware sales between January 1998 and June 2001. Their justification? "Java provides the engine for such computer equipment."

In conclusion, a somewhat shady company (Sun) is about to be looted by an even more shady company (Kodak) because of some third party patents that really should not have been issued in the fist place.

The relevant patents:

Patent 5,206,951 covers the integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types.

Patent 5,421,012 covers multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types.

Patent 5,226,161 covers integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types.

As time goes by, it is becoming glaring obvious to me that firstly, the patent office does not even begin to understand technology and what is a novel, patentable implementation of something, and an unpatentable generic concept. Secondly, we are in desperate need for technology savvy Judges to be able to toss out this sort of case before it is heard, let alone before ruling. Finally, we need legislators who have a base inkling of how technology operates so we can even begin to address the fact that there is something very, very wrong with the current patent system.

These patents are absurd, this ruling is a joke, and together they amount to piracy in the corporate boardroom.

UPDATE: A miserable pittance, and Kodak gets away with highway robbery. From ITWrold.com:

Sun Microsystems Inc. has agreed to pay US$92 million to settle a software patent lawsuit brought against it by Eastman Kodak Co., Sun announced Thursday. The settlement comes just six days after a New York jury found Sun guilty of violating Kodak's patents, but before any damages had been awarded. Kodak had been seeking $1.06 billion in lump sum royalties in the case.

And, it is relevant to point out that

Developers and industry analysts had criticized the jury's verdict, saying that Kodak's patents covered techniques that had, in fact, been around since the 1960s.

"This is one of the things when you hit your head and say how can this possibly be valid...If Java does these things and infringes, then what doesn't," said Jonathan Eunice, an analyst with the research firm Illuminata Inc during a Monday interview.

In short, Sun settled to make this irritation go away, thereby exposing EVERYONE else in this industry regardless of prior art dating from the 1960's.

I guess all I can say is Good Game Kodak.

2004-10-04T14:03:00.000-07:00

How much has NASA damaged out pursuit for manned space flight?
On August 22nd, 1963, an experimental manned aircraft called the X-15 reached a speed of 6105 kph, and an altitude of 107,960 meters. This record stood until October 4th, 2004, when 'Space Ship One' reached an altitude of 112,166.4 meters. Two dates separated by 40 years. What happened between those two landmark events? Apollo and the Space Shuttle. Or, a 'Bread and Circus' event, capped by a large bus that putters around in Low Earth Orbit who's only seminal accomplishment was a repair mission for the Hubble Space Telescope.

What went wrong? What happened? How did we loose 40 years? Quite simply, JFK. Sputnik scared us, in spite of Eisenhower trying to downplay it as not important. After all, if the Commies could lob a beeping volleyball into orbit, how hard would it be to lob an atomic weapon up there as well? So what did we do? we copied their methodologies and created a massive government sponsored bureaucratic quagmire. And it worked, sort of. Well, it got us to the moon anyway. But once the established goal of NASA was achieved, what was the point? Skylab? The Space Shuttle? the ISS? All these programs simply proved that bureaucratic inertia can and will eventually a good thing.

But luckily, there are still people who believe in things: believe in the ability of the individual to overcome conventional wisdom and do it for a reasonable price. No, Space Ship One did not achieve Low Earth Orbit. But Space Ship Two will, wither it is built by Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, or someone completely different.

40 years of wasted time, effort and potential. But hey we got some rocks from the moon.

For me, the true significance of this event is larger than what it appears at first glance, because not only has Scaled Composites broken a 40 year old record, but it has also proven that distributed networks, 'the market' and people pursuing the mighty dollar ARE truly more effective than the old Command and Control style of problem solving. Space Ship One is not only a victory for 'capitalism' but it is a victory for the masses of individuals over ossified, siloed, cover your ass bureaucrats everywhere.

Lots of people trying, and some failing, will always work better in the long run than dictate from an 'expert'. And as we look at other social problems it would serve us well to remember this repeatedly demonstrated fact. Let us go forth and try. We may fail, but not all of us. So when our President calls on a Mars or Bust plan by 2050, I'll make certain to wave at the resulting 200billion dollar spacecraft from the Hilton residing at the LaGrange point between here and the moon.

"Once you get into Low Earth Orbit, you aren’t half way to the Moon, you are half way to everywhere"
--Jerry Pournelle

2004-10-04T13:04:00.000-07:00

Concerning Iraq
TigerHawk has written what I think is the most thorough and cognitive summary of why I think the Iraq war was inevitable. The only addition to his excellent summary I would make is that in '91 and '92 we promised aid to the Iraqi's if they would rise against Saddam. They did so. We completely and utterly failed to support them. If nothing else, we owe the people of Iraq for OUR failures in supporting them. Or, to put it bluntly, this latest conflict was inevitable due to the slowly collapsing status quo as imposed by the Cease Fire. 9/11 made it possible to engage Hussein on our terms, like it or not.

We broke out promise to the people of Iraq in 1991. We cannot afford to do so again, no matter how bad the situation may appear to be.

2004-09-28T07:56:00.000-07:00

The most vitriolic campaign in memory
It has been observed that his campaign has been the most negative, spite filled, vitriolic and generally nasty campaign in recent memory. And I think I've finally discovered why. A post entitled 'Vetran's Day' from the Mudville Gazette clearly demonstrates why there is a segment of the body politic that actually hates Senator Kerry. Not disagrees, not finds untenable, not ideological opponents, but visceral, personal animosity. Why has this been the most negative campaign in recent memory? Because Kerry is the most divisive candidate in recent memory for may of thos who served in Vietnam.

2004-09-24T09:30:00.000-07:00

Guess the political figure!
There's a new game in the blogosphere! It's guess who said it! Here is the quote of the day:

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians, We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

So who said this? Senator John Kerry, 1997 on CNN Crossfire. I guess we now know why Candidate Karry isn't running on his Senate Record.

2004-09-22T09:46:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Annan
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the delicious irony inherent in you lecturing in the United States on what is or is not legal.

Update: another criticism of Mr. Annan by Mr.Joseph Ghougassian, formerly of the CPA in Iraq and ambassador to Qatar.

2004-09-20T14:25:00.000-07:00

Unbelievable
You couldn't come up with a better farsical comedy if you hired Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis to write the script.

JOHN Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

2004-09-20T13:39:00.000-07:00

The Loyal Oppostion

WE ARE LOSING THE WAR ON TERROR. In the name of security, we deprive our citizens of their constitutional rights. In the name of democracy, we enforce a hostile occupation. In the name of human rights, we brutalize countless prisoners. And day by day, our soldiers get shot down one by one in the futile hope of winning a war we never should have started

David Adesnik, not commenting on George Bush and The US, but rather Vladimir Putin, and his latest 'security measures' in Russia. It appears that the old KGB arapatchik has returned to his roots, and decided that Authority is the only way to deal with insecurity and violence.

I find it incredible that we have people confabulating an equality of behavior between GW Bush and Hitler. For example, we have former Weapons inspector Scott Ritter comparing Iraq with Poland in 1939. Never mind the implicit insult to the Polish derived by equating then President Moscicki & PM Slawoj-Skladkowski of the Second Polish Republic to the thugocracy of Saddam Hussein in Ritter's assertation.

One fo the recurring themes of this election cycle is that Bush is trying to rule in a 'Climate of Fear', and yet, these very same people prey on Americans fear of the despot in their attempt to unseat the current President by equating him with one of the most vile figures of the 20th century and declaring his supporters 'morons' or 'idiots'. Is this the new norm for rhetorical flourish? Instead of presenting something concrete we simply paint an image that invokes an emotional loathing of the target or opposition?

No wonder this election of so hate-filled, vile and unparalleled in its vitriol. Neither camp is 'talking', rather they are creating self-reinforcing memes of loathing to encapsulate the caricature of the opposition. Flip-Flopper vs. Genocidal maniac. Dithering Patrician Ninny Fussbudget vs. Megalomaniac Overlord of the Universe.

I long for a 'loyal opposition' which will actually challenge the current administration on policy. Federal Marriage Amendment? Bans on certain types of research driving scientific exploration overseas? What the hell sort of nonsense is this?

As Americans we must remain vigilant against anyone who would assume the role of a Putin. But the facts on the ground do not point to Bush being cast from that mold. It would be nice if someone in the opposition would debate reality as opposed to a straw man caricature of a monster.

"Those who would sacrifice their fundamental liberty for security deserve neither" -Benjamin Franklin - whose words are as true today as 200 years ago, but we can't address any concrete issues as long as the two camps are simply screaming at each other in invective.

2004-09-10T10:37:00.000-07:00

Lies, damn lies, and lots of hand waiving in the Main Stream Media.
A friend of mine recently asked an interesting and important question:

How can you support Bush/Cheney when they have effectively stated that a vote for Kerry supports further terrorist attacks?

I couldn't. Such a statement would be reprehensible. But then, no one ever said that.

Here is Cheney's statement according to the Nightly News

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

Pretty damning. But there is a small problem. Here is the actual quote by Cheney from the transcript of the speech

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Ok. One isolated incident. Not so bad. People make mistakes. Well then what about the latest explosion of the 60 minute story about Bushe's ANG service?

The short take on the subject is that documents were uncovered that demonstrate that Bush was derelict in his Air National Guard duty during Vietnam. Unfortunately for CBS, there is a small problem: There is significant ample evidence that the documents are a forgery, from Donald Sensing pointing out that the documents make no sense from a military perspective, to Charles Johnson pointing out that the documents were written in MS Word, and exhibit characteristics not possible of a typewriter in 1972.

And what about the 'Bush supporters booed Clinton when Heart Bypass was announced' story? This also turned out to be a complete fabrication.

This brings me to my question. When did the Main Stream Media stop fact checking anything? How long have we been accepting outright fabrications from our media simply because they were the gatekeepers of news? Who declared CBS et al the authority on what is 'authentic' news?

At the end of the day, I think the astonishing thing about this story is that Bush is 10 points ahead of Kerry in spite of MSM highlighting every possible damaging story that passes their desk. If anything good comes of this election, it will be the end of the monoculture of the MSM, and a return to openly biased and competing news outlets compiling facts and presenting reasonable analysis - while openly advertising their slant on things. If we are to enjoy the benefits of a Free Press then let it truly be free, not a monocultural voice for a particular ideology. Neither party should lay claim over the MSM. And I look forward to the day when CBS and the rest report on all news, not just the 'news'.

UPDATE: The more things change, the more they stay exactly the same (Bloom County 1984).

2004-09-02T11:18:00.000-07:00

Zell Miller's Speech
It is unfortunate that a Democrat had to travel to New York, instead of Boston to make this speech - and that he had to endorse a different parties candidate at the conclusion of it. Zell Miller strikes me as the best example of the 'Jacksonian Democrat' in politics today. And there is something very, very wrong with the Democratic party if the only way a Jacksonian can be heard is by addressing Republicans.

As usual James Lileks summarizes at this point better than I could possibly do:

Look, over in Roosia y’all got a hunnert Islamic terrorists holdin’ schoolkids hostage with bomb belts, and they’d do it here in a heartbeat, and they might probably will. So can we talk about spendin’ federal money on carvin’ up embryos later?

Anyway, Here is the text of Senator Miller's speech:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

2004-08-27T07:20:00.000-07:00

Kerry as McGovern
It looks as though the Kerry as McGovern meme is officially out of the bottle.

Stanley Kurtz describes the basic battle in the upcomming election as a competition between two 'ideas'. In full:

1. Knowing President Bush has no positive achievements to run on, and desperate to prevent revelations under a Kerry presidency of the cooked intelligence and profiteering behind the disastrous Iraq war, the Republican attack machine has orchestrated a professional hit job on John Kerry's character and military record. The story of Kerry's wartime heroism puts the Vietnam-era cowardice of the president and vice president to shame. In doing so, the Kerry story exposes Bush's sham connection between "tough" foreign policy and patriotism. So to win the election, there was no choice for Bush but to destroy Kerry's reputation — by any means necessary.

2. Knowing that a post-9/11 America will never elect a president with his McGovernite views, John Kerry has deliberately obfuscated his beliefs on war and foreign policy (as he obfuscates nearly all his liberal views). To distract from his dovish Senate voting record and its origins in his radical antiwar activism, Kerry organized the Democratic convention around his Vietnam exploits. Kerry's fellow veterans had been stewing for years over the fact that he'd thrown away his medals and built a political career by accusing them of atrocities. The thought that Kerry might now become president by actually bragging about his medals, and his plucky band of brothers, was too much for them to take. With the help of the blogosphere, these vets are now forcing the truth about John Kerry's dovish views onto a liberal media that would rather change the subject.

Now forget about what you may feel about el Shrub and examine Kerry's Senate voting record. Now that you've read all of that, which scenario above appears to be more accurate?

2004-08-24T11:48:00.000-07:00

Shame
Is this real? I don't know. But if it is I expect lots of people to spend a long time in jail. We are better than this.

2004-08-23T09:44:00.000-07:00

The Mirror, Mirror Kerry.
This 'alternative historical fantasy' by Glenn Reynolds precisely illustrates what I wanted to hear from the opposition candidate. And you know what? There was a candidate making these sorts of noises: Liebermann. Unfortunately, the 'Deaniacs' and the 'Naderites' would have openly revolted at this message. What I wouldn't give for a Democratic party who's agends wasn't scriped by Michael Moore. Maybe if Kerry gets trounced the Democrats will remember again why Clinton worked, and Gore didn't.

Then again, maybe not.

2004-08-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

So who thought this whole Vietnam thing was a good idea for Kerry anyway?
Here is a timeline of the Kerry campaign for the month of August, collated by Chris Lynch. I think the term everyone is searching for is 'unmitigated disaster'.

I think Bob Dole sums things up effectively:

"One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons. The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran."

"Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam,"

More from Kerry, trying to 'help' I guess:

KERRY: "... in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties [in the Winter Soldier testimony], I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

2004-08-11T12:18:00.000-07:00

Endgame?
One of the constant themes of this past millennium was the conflict between Islam and Christianity on the world stage. The Crusades were and attempt at unilateral intervention by the western powers at the request of the Eastern Roman Empire against the Caliphate of Islam. The Ottoman Empire carried the banner of Islam to Vienna. The Reconquista of Spain was at the expense of Al'Andalusia.

For the past couple of centuries, things have gone rather downhill for Muslim polity. Central Asia was divided between China and the Russian Empire. The standard bearer for Islam for 500 years, the Ottoman Empire, was carved into statelets by the West. Even worse, Kemal Attaturk made Turkey into a secular 'western' looking nation by charging his military to control the extreme adherents of Theocracy.

But then, in 1979, the tide began to turn.

Throughout recorded history there is one Nation, one Empire, one region that has been the chief adversary of Westerrn civilization: The Empire of Iran and Not Iran, or Persia thanks to Herodotus. Agamemnon. Darius. Xenophon. Xerxes. Marathon. Thermopalyae. Later in history there was the first Cold War, between the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) and the Sassanid Emprire of Iran.

More important than the names, or the dates is the fact that the People of Iran remembered. And when Khomeni promised them renewed greatness by overthrowing the 'American puppet government' of the Shah, well, we know the results of that.

But in many ways, that single event can be considered the resumption of the war of ideas between Islam and the West that was the inheritor of a much older conflict.

Now things have changed again.

The other day, Iran delivered an outright ultimatum to the 'EU-3' group in regards to nuclear disarmament. Instead of halting their pursuit of Nuclear weapons in a negotiated, reasonable, 'nuanced' manner, they have effectively told the EU-3 group to take a hike.

Why would they do this? With the American military on all sides and an Israel ready to strike at the first sign of imminent danger? The only reasonable conclusion is that Iran all ready has working nukes. And now, they have a ballistic missile system that can hit Israel directly.

In my opinion, this means the Theocrats of Teheran are ready for their final gamble. A winner takes all roll of the dice. If they succeed, if they destroy Israel and survive the experience (we know that Israel will vaporize as much as she can as she goes down), they will inherit all that remains of the Muslim world. If Teheran declares war on Israel, every Muslim government that fails to do so as well will most likely fall to internal revolution, and join the jihad - and yes, I'm including Iraq in this. We may be about to witness a pointless orgy of destruction ranging from Cairo to Islamabad. And to be frank, I'm not certain there is anything we can do at this point. The IAEA has failed. Non-proliferation has failed. The West has ultimately failed.

I think, given time, the people of Iran would have removed the Theocracy that they stumbled into. But 'time to let things develop' is a luxury in the Middle East that may have just expired.

2004-08-09T14:32:00.000-07:00

McGovern makes another appearance on the National Stage
Tacticus over at Red State had dissected an interview of Kerry and Edwards by NPR. He clearly and convincingly illustrates Kerry's plan for Iraq: complete withdrawal.

Do people really think this is a viable plan of action at this point? That Iran will simply recork their nuclear ambitions? That because there is still violence instigated by Baathists holdouts, fundamantalistic jhadis and Sadar's militia that this is the 'Will of the Iraqi People'? In spite of all evidence to the contrary?

Iraq can and will be our greatest ally and asset in reforming the middle east away from pre-Reformation Islam. All we need to do now is Stay. The. Course. Anything else will simply prove what a paper tiger we are, and we should simply start taking lessons in Mandarin now.

2004-08-05T08:52:00.000-07:00

The beginning of the End for Kerry?
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has created a scathing 'political ad' about Kerry's Vietnam service. To say it is 'extremely damaging' for someone who has been so strongly touting their qualification based on their military service is an understatement to say the least.

I've been wondering for a while if Kerry's contributions to the anti-war effort once he returned from his service would 'come home to roost'.

The take-home quote from the site:

For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.

UPDATE: Aparently, the Kerry campaign has decided the best way to deal with this is through legal action. Developments to follow...

2004-07-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE REPORT:
Reason for Iraq War revealed!
My crack investigative team has recently uncovered a world exclusive! GW Bush and team invaded Iraq with the aid of Halliburton in order to construct....

The Death Star

Dum-da-dummmmm!

2004-07-27T14:58:00.000-07:00

Nihilism and abortion: what to do with triplets?
I read article by Amy Richards today. All I can say is what a fine example of the 'Me' generation. In short, Ms. Richards got bored of taking the pill, and got pregnant with her boyfriend (by mutual choice mind you). Then, when it came time for the initial pre-natal screening, she found out it was triplets. Her thoughts?

My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.

In all honesty, I have no idea to relate to this. Aborting two fetuses because they are ’inconvenient’? I cannot imagine a more self-absorbed, nihilistic waste of life.

For many reasons I think it is ultimately the right and responsibility of the woman to decide if she wishes to carry a child to term. I don’t know, maybe I’m suffering an unreasonable emotional reaction, but this strikes me at gut level as very, very wrong. And what really depresses me is the fact that I have no right to tell this woman that her choice was not valid.

But is it wrong of me to wish for a society where getting rid of two of thee fetuses due to the ‘inconvenience’ of the matter simply wouldn’t be part of the equation? Banning abortion all together is wrong. Anyway, later I read:

I had a boy, and everything is fine. But thinking about becoming pregnant again is terrifying. Am I going to have quintuplets? I would do the same thing if I had triplets again, but if I had twins, I would probably have twins. Then again, I don't know.

Becoming pregnant again. And what if she has to discard some of the fetuses because they don’t fit her schedule? Or her preconceived notions?

Parenting is in many ways a sacrifice of oneself for children. You have to give up some things if you are going to have kids. And maybe, just maybe, that includes your career for a time. If you can’t handle this, if you aren’t prepared for the fact that you become in many ways secondary, then stay on the damn pill! Anything else is a disservice to yourself and your kids. And killing off a couple of them because one is ok but three aren’t convenient right now isn’t a reasonable solution.

2004-07-26T14:48:00.000-07:00

Strategic Realignment? Some Hypothetical Ruminations
One thing that should be extremely evident to anyone that paid attention in the run up and the conclusion to the Iraq war is that certain 'Traditional Allies' are now anything but. France now shrilly opposes everything an anything we do, almost reflexively. Germany plays along. Spain seems to be lost due to the dilution of any sort of Spanish spirit in a sea of Hyper-pacifism. While I can understand Frances stand on thing (they are the masters of 'enlightened self-interest, and screw everyone else), I'm not quite certain what Germany and Spain gain from their positions. But more importantly, there are significant indications that the 'cornerstone nations of NATO' may be effectively no longer relevant in todays world.

So who are our 'logical' allies? Well first and foremost would be most of the nations of the 'Anglo-sphere', namely England and Australia. (Canada is an interesting special case. They are in many ways our best friend on the world state. But their self impost inability to do anything on the world stage effectively removes them from any equation other than trade. I'd love to see the Maple Leaf next to the Stars-and stripes out there in the world. But it just isn't going to happen at any significant level barring significant changes in Ottawa).

Next would naturally be Japan and the new members of NATO, the Eastern Europeans. Japan will, wither they want to or not, have their hand be forced by both North Korea and China into a more active posture of defense. Let's face it. The Greater Middle East Project is going to absorb much of our attention, perhaps at the expense of out ability to defend Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. However, Summer Surge 04 discounts this in a significant way. This doesn't change the fact that I feel Japan will soon be called on to shoulder a more active 'defense' of the Pacific.

As to the Eastern Europeans, they remember tyranny. Their support and friendship is a no brainier.

The same can be said for Israel.

Hopefully Iraq will evolve along these lines as well.

But all of these are sidelines. I think the coming months will reveal a closer relationship between the United States and two nations of note: Russia and India.

Russia has a strategic need to defend against two extreme threats: China and militant Islam. The short term thread is continued subversion in Chechnya and terrorist acts throughout Russia. But one thing I've pointed out in other conversations is that in many ways Russia has been shaped by her fear of foreigners conquering and wreaking havoc.

Anyway, the other reason for Russia's alignment with the US is Siberia. China has one of the worlds largest growing demands for oil on the planet. How long until their One - Party regime realizes that there are large quantities of it just a hop, skip and jump away from the PLA?

One of the more significant signs of this developing relationship was when Putin warned the US of Iraq's intent to persecute terrorist acts against the US. Another is the potential arrival of several Russian divisions in Iraq.

And then there is India. Unfortunately due to historical baggage from the cold war there is still some nervousness between the US and India. But as our two democracies achieve closer economic integration (explain to me how 'outsourcing' is bad again?) and as both nations continue to strive against Islamic extremism, I feel that cooperation and friendship will be unavoidable. Especially if Musharrif fails in his role of 'Attaturk' and falls to Taliban sympathizers.

In any event, none of these predictions have come to fruition. In fact there is only sketchy evidence for any of it. But it will be interesting to see what the next quarter century brings to the geo-political landscape. And making assumptions about out 'traditional allies' may be foolhardy in the extreme.

2004-07-26T10:22:00.000-07:00

The Polish know propaganda when they see it.
Believe or not, Eastern Europe is becoming my 'sanity barometer' when it comes to political discourse.
When Polish film critics start comparing Fahrenheit 9/11 to War propagandist Leni Riefenstahl, I think we all need to take a good hard look at the 'value' of this piece of film.

My fundamental issue with the upcoming election is that I really think that there is a segment of the electorate that doesn't hear how absolutely shrill they have become. There are significant and profound reasons to oppose Bush, but the Bush=Hitler people simply freak me out. I have no idea how to relate to their mind set, and frankly I have no interest in voting for someone who appeals to them. A reflexive rejection of the polarized fringe as it were.

I'd love to see Ashcroft and the fundamentalists wing of the Republican party given the boot. But why would I want to replace him with an equally odious group of ideologues?

Anyway. I'll make this my final post about Moore, and leave everyone with this link: The 59 (and counting) Deceits in Farenheit 9/11.

2004-07-19T10:02:00.000-07:00

And the Drumbeat against Iran gets louder
After much hand wringing about our removal of the ‘low-hanging fruit’ in Iraq, the final 9/11 Commission report is expected to clearly and explicitly outline links between the Government of Iran and Al’Qaida as a facilitator, but not as a direct planner.

There is significant evidence that Iran is harboring the leadership of Al’Qaida. This, coupled with the Iranian obvious pursuit of nuclear weaponry in contravention of the non-proliferation act, should strike everyone with an ounce of sanity as an intolerable risk to the entire western world, starting with Israel.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran—and through intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia—concerning the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowleded are in the country, including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S. official called al-Qaeda's "management council".

I think this report essentially guarantees that within 6 months, we will at the very least see Israeli strikes against targets in Iran, and a call for war by the United States against Iran in the next State of The Union (no matter who wins the election).

IMO, confrontation is unavoidable barring Iran abandoning their current nuclear ambitions in an open and verifiable manner and including the extradition of all members of Al-Qaida.

2004-07-16T14:50:00.000-07:00

The Unfortunate Rise of the Neo-Luddite Movement.
How the unholy trinity of junk-science, sensationalist reporting and eco-reactionary fundamentalism in the modern age is hindering progress and technological advancement across the globe.

The last decade of the 20th century saw an unparalleled global economic expansion driven through the wide dissemination of Information Technology. IT proved to be the heretofore ultimate productivity enhancement, allowing for innovations like Just In Time delivery and real-time inventory management control. These innovations created what may in retrospect be one of the most effective income redistribution mechanisms in history: the use of Venture Capital to found hundreds of IT businesses with little or nor profit plan.

These developments enhanced the dissemination of discovery in several of the ‘hard sciences’ notably in chemistry and biology giving rise to most of the controversies of today. Unfortunately, these advancements come just as what can best be described as a New-Luddite movement has gained traction throughout much of the western world. In many ways this movement is fueled by radical ecological groups that are anti-science, the presses inability to report real science, but delights in sensationalizing junk science, and the rise of reactionary fundamentalist faiths, as best represented by Evangelical Christianity. This alliance of detractors is resulting in absurdity trumping good data, and potentially helpful products and avenues of research being stunted due to potentially unfalseifyable concerns.

Nanotechnology can probably be best described as the new chemistry. In many ways Nanotechnology and biotechnology are going to the most fundamentally important sciences of the new millennium. People heralded the Human Genome Project as one of the most important advances of our time. But that is nothing compared to the ability to either artificially manipulate machines or to create custom peptide sequences to bulk produce novel molecules with a pre-determined goal.

Unfortunately, both of these fields are plagued by speculation of disaster and uncontrolled developments wreaking havoc on our ecosystem. One of the historical problems with any scientific endeavor is the inevitable doom-sayers predicting mass horror at the hands of some abuse of the knowledge, and how we should as a result ban it (Or regulate it to oblivion). We are seeing this in the US currently with Stem Cell research and Nanotechnology.

Another example of all of this is Gene Modified foods. On November 20, 2002, a collection of African nations issued what is called the Lusaka Declaration. In short, it declares GM foods non grata in the signatory nations. This occurred as Zambia was undergoing a famine. Now, I can understand concerns about foods that is programmed to not be fertile in the wild. And I can to a certain extent understand concerns about food that has engineered pesticides. But how does the EU’s GM Food Free zones address extremely beneficial advances like Golden Rice? Vitamine A is one of the fundamental necessities for human existence. Yet though vast swaths of the world people suffer from a deficiency in this material, causing blindness in Africa and Asia.

So what happens? It is derided as ‘not a silver bullet’. It doesn’t do enough. GM food is evil regardless. So instead of adding a new tool in the fight against poverty induced malnutrition, it is barred as an ‘evil GM food’ form those who need it the most.

Another striking example of Neo-Ludditry is the Bush administrations stance on stem cell research. Because of the explicit linking of Embryonic Stems cells with Abortion, we have entered a phase of Federal paralysis on this potentially important avenue. Luckily for biologists interested in this arena, States like New Jersey are providing funding, and other nations like the UK are moving forward rapidly.

The end of patents, and novel drug development.
One of the more recent developments that scares the hell out of me is the current idea that Drug Companies are Big Bad Evil corporations, and they should surrender any hopes of recouping research expenditures by giving discoveries away. As Communism clearly demonstrated, if you remove incentive, people will not do such a thing. Remove the ability for drug companies to turn a profit from novel research by confiscating their Intellectual Property, and you eliminate the drive to do new things. If it becomes more profitable to sell aspirin, then that’s all we will get.

But, not all hope is lost. There are still bright spots in our technological future, and some people most definitely get it, as exemplified in The Tale of the Dragon. I can only hope as a citizen of what is probably the most technology driven nation on the planet that the Neo-Luddites will have their say, and then be swept aside by history. Because personally, I like the fact that we have novel research and advancement in such areas as statin blockers. And that one day we may be taking a multivitamin that not only reduces our Low Density Lippopolysaccharide levels, but may be able to convert it to HDL, thereby increasing bone density, reducing the odds of stroke and heart attack, and on and on and on. Never mind the more stunning implications of other areas of research. But none of this will be possible if the Neo-Ludditry get their way.

2004-07-15T11:40:00.000-07:00

Wilson lied, and nothing happened: our press at work informing you
Anyone remember the big Joseph Wilson, Valerie Palm affair? Which so clearly demonstrated that the current administration lied to justify the war?

Turns out the Senate disagrees. A lot.

Here is a good round up on this non-story.

2004-07-08T15:28:00.000-07:00

Go read James Lileks

Why are you still here?

2004-07-07T12:37:00.000-07:00

Iran, our dear friends
In this news report (yeah, yeah, it is Fox, but bear with me) it has been reported that several admitted Iranian intelligence agents have been caught in Iraq with explosives. This, taken with the recent reports of several battalions of Iranian troops being positioned on the border with Iraq, and the recent capture of British sailors paints a troubling picture.

In my mind this has two potential meanings, either Iran is exploiting the inherit ‘weakness’ in our system in that Bush is extremely unlikely to respond to their provocations during the election cycle (barring a clear and unequivocal provocation involving WMD’s being used against us or an ally), or they all ready have nukes, and the IAEA has completely and utterly failed again.

My ‘hopeful’ take on this is that it is the former case rather than the latter. I feel that the mullhas are hoping to destabilize our elections against Bush by performing acts that make him and Blair appear weak, thereby increasing the chance of a Kerry win. This is also predicated on the idea that Kerry will approach the Middle East in a more ‘nuanced’ manner, through the UN for example. This election-induced paralysis would then allow Iran to create their nuclear arsenal their leisure and begin influencing Iraq directly. Because, let’s face it, Kerry won’t ‘unilaterally’ do anything against Iran. No matter what.

If what we are witnessing is a manifestation of them all ready having nukes, well it is only a matter of time before one is used against Israel, just as they have promised. Luckily the one argument I can muster against them all ready having nukes is that Israel hasn’t struck Iran. Yet.

2004-07-07T11:17:00.000-07:00

Jane Galt has managed to sum up why I find the whole Michael Moore campaign documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 so repugnant. Here is a little sample:

Politicians lie, and people know they lie, which is why their speech is so aggressively discounted by everyone except their campaign workers. But the reason I don't get worked up over this, the way I do about journalists and movie makers who lie, is that politicians lies are balanced. Every Republican out there alleging that he singlehandedly saved 90,000 orphans from forest fires while in office has an equal and opposite Democrat claiming that said Republican likes to eat babies for breakfast, and invented scurvy.

2004-07-02T10:08:00.000-07:00

Oh, but it’s not a ‘Stockpile’ of UN Proscribed weapons, see?
In a radio interview Secretary Rumsfield states the following:

Now what’s actually happened? Right now you have the Iraqi Survey Group, which is a multinational group that’s out there reviewing documentation and looking at suspect WMD sites. I was with the Polish minister of defense this weekend in Istanbul, Turkey at the NATO Summit. And in the course of that, he pointed out that his troops in Iraq had recently come across – I’ve forgotten the number, but something like 16 or 17 – warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas.

I’m certain there is some valid reason why we are still debating the ‘why’ of us going to war in Iraq, I just have no idea what it is any longer.

2004-07-01T08:19:00.000-07:00

The real villain is Bush
Will this concordance of ideas between the anti-war crowd and Saddam Hussein make anyone twinge? Probably not. And this is truly unfortunate in an election year when we need to debate and discuss the issues that stand before us, instead of engaging in hyperbolic, Moorian hate-fests which only serve to polarize opinion.

2004-07-01T07:33:00.000-07:00

And now for something completely different
One of my many hobbies is miniature wargaming. Or, as my wife likes to call it, playing with little dolls with pointy things. Anyway one of the ‘Great Debates’ in various gamins circles is the role or utility of the pike. I came across a great quote that I think illustrates the role of the hapless piker nicely. This is an account by Johann Grimmelshausen from Chapter 13 of 'Tearaway' the English translation of 'Springinsfeld' written in the 1670s based on his service in the 30 Years War.

"I had to carry a pike, which I disliked so much I would rather have been hanged than fight with such a weapon for long . I didn't feel at all like that Swabian who wanted to take half a dozen of the staves, the 18 feet of just one was too much for me. All the time I was looking for a way to give my weapon an honourable discharge. A musketeer is a poor put upon creature but compared with a wretched pikeman's lot his situation is pure bliss. It's bad enough just thinking about the hardships the poor souls have to put up with, never mind talking about them. You wouldn't believe it if you hadn't been through them yourself. I think anyone who slays a pikeman, whom he could otherwise have spared, kills an innocent man and is guilty of unjustifiable manslaughter. Since these poor draft-oxen, as they are mockingly called, were created in order to protect their brigades from attack by cavalry in open combat, they don't set out to harm anyone; if a man runs into one of their long pikes it serves him right. I've seen lots of fierce battles in my time, but seldom seen a pikeman actually kill someone."

2004-06-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

Perspective
As I read, watch news, and listen to the bile and hatred dumped on our current President by certain segments of our society I can’t help but feel at a loss to understand the obvious loathing, disgust and contempt that is being expressed in some camps. As another demagogue launches into a Moorian invective of hyperbolic denunciation, I wonder how anyone imagines any of this will sway anyone. Bush = Hitler? You have got to be kidding me! Is there any sense of perspective in political debate these days?

A very common meme that unifies the current anti-war movement is that the Bush Administration lied to get us to war. IF this hypothesis is correct then we must also assume the Clinton administration lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq in order to continue the disruptive Sanctions program in place. Did Bush et al lie? I don’t know but a simple application of Ockham’s Razor would imply that as opposed to ‘purposefully misrepresenting the truth to forward an agenda’ (aka a lie) our administration acted on what was almost universally agreed on intelligence. Clinton and Bush thought Iraq either had or was pursuing WMD. Saddam’s behavior clearly supported the presence of WMD hypothesis. After all, we have clear examples of co-operative nations disarming without any sort of fuss: Ukraine and South Africa for example. Given this data, plus Hussein’s known ties with terrorist organizations (how long was Abu Nidal a ‘guest’ in Baghdad? How many ‘Palestinian suicide bomber pay-outs’ did he make?). Was this data exaggerated? Misrepresented? Incomplete? Possibly. Maybe even probably. As I stated in Mariskova maybe Hussein was bluffing the whole time in an attempt to save ‘face’ on the Arab street. I don’t know if such a thing is knowable at this point. In any case, I cannot see how one could construe it as ‘lying’.

And on this whole Bush = Hitler thing. When The Patriot act inters 35 million American muslims then perhaps we could debate who was more Fascist, Bush or FDR.

Perspective.

I think one of the problems with our modern society is that we are so comfortable sipping our triple-shot latte’s in the air-conditioned theatre watching the latest Moorcumentary that we forget what totalitarianism really is like. What deprivation is like from the view of our tinted-windows out of our SUV. What struggle encompasses when the greatest scandal of the past decade is a President’s ability to get Oral sex.

But don’t take my word on it, because I’m just as far removed from these things as the rest of America. I’ll rely on Adam Michnik, who’s memory of such things is much more recent than ours.

I remember my nation's experience with totalitarian dictatorship. This is why I was able to draw the right conclusions from Sept. 11, 2001. Just as the murder of Giacomo Matteotti [leader of Italy's United Socialist Party] revealed the nature of Italian fascism and Mussolini's regime; just as the great Moscow trials showed the world the essence of the Stalinist system; just as "Kristallnacht" exposed the hidden truth of Hitler's Nazism, watching the collapsing World Trade Center towers made me realize that the world was facing a new totalitarian challenge. Violence, fanaticism, and lies were challenging democratic values.

That seems to me to be a reasonable perspective on the issues of the day. Hopefully the rest of us can learn from it.

2004-06-25T08:09:00.000-07:00

NASA: so long, and thanks for all the fish.

On June 21st, Mike Melvill piloted a hybrid rocket/plane funded by private investment (principally Paul Allen, Burt Rutan et al) to the edge of space, for a mere $20,000,000. Mere? That seem rather expensive for a plane, some might say. But remember, people buy boats that cost this much.

One of the problems with government run institutions is that they are, by their very nature, self-preserving, siloed, risk-adverse, and subject to the whim of politics. Someone may ask NASA what is the point of Cassini, or a stupid ‘Space-shuttle’, which is a godawful way of delivering satellites to orbit. Or a bureaucrat may cancel ‘Blue Atlas’ in the UK because they really aren’t certain what to do with it. But no one can stop the free market once it has decided something is feasible.

A friend of mine has asked me in essence why any private citizen needs to make gobs of cash from a private business venture. My answer to him is very simple: in almost every case, a private citizen will find more productive uses for capital than any government body. In one case, it was to build a silly, pointless hybrid rocket-plane.

Economy of scale is well understood, and has reams of verifiable evidence. It quite clearly demonstrates that once something is proven profitable, competition and efficiency will reduce costs rapidly. What will we do with Space Ship One? Maybe nothing. That doesn’t matter. Because once you show the free market something is feasible, the desire of profit will be the engine driving things. And, while a Sr. NASA bureaucrat may be able to point out that NASA has understood the principals behind this aircraft for years - alolowing him to dismiss the entire veture as pointless on NPR, NASA never did anything with it. NASA had no need to do so. In fact, there was probably significant institutional gestalt and resistance to upsetting the apple cart by pursuing such a risky gamble.

Maybe Space Ship One will never lead anywhere. But what about Space Ship 2? Or some other hair-brained idea that someone will try – because now we know we, as individuals, can do this?

To paraphrase Jerry Pournelle; once you get into Low Earth Orbit, you aren’t half way to the Moon, you are half way to everywhere. 4 days ago, a group of private investors demonstrated that LEO is not all that far away, and not all-that expensive.

On June 21st, 2004, NASA died – and the space age finally began.

2004-06-23T13:35:00.000-07:00

What he said.

2004-06-18T09:49:00.000-07:00

Russia’s Intelligence on Iraq

In this report we see that V. Putin forwarded intelligence that Saddam was planning terrorists attacks against the United States prior to the Invasion. Can we now put the whole justification for the war hand-wringing to rest now? Finally? Hussein was our enemy. He had been for over 12 years. He’s now out of power.

And no matter how you spin it that is a good thing.

2004-06-17T12:04:00.000-07:00

Amusement
Dear Mr. Kerry. I wholeheartedly recommend you follow the advice of Ted Rall and motivate the hard left – Democratic wing of the Democratic party. I suggest you attend as many Mecha and International ANSWER rallies as possible, ignore history and adopt a fully protectionist rhetoric and in general screech as loud as Howard Dean as often as possible. I’m certain in this manner you’ll win at least one states Electorate vote come November.

Or, if you are actually interested in winning this November, suggest the left fringe wackos of your party put their money where their mouth is and form the Socialists Workers Party of America and shut the hell up.

Your choice really.

2004-06-17T08:28:00.000-07:00

More on the Press
Case in point on yesterdays topic. Today, headlines around the world are blaring US report finds no Iraq link to 9/11. Yet, if one were to, you know, actually READ the report it clearly states that while there was no active support by Iraq to commit the 9/11 attacks, there were clear links and ties between Iraq and Al Quaida. It’s the ‘omission of important details’ al la the Kay Report all over again.

It’s dishonest. It’s misleading. And it demonstrates gross incompetence. Again. Report the facts. All of them. Not just the bits that support your opinion. Let us ignorant plebes form our own opinion based on an accurate portrayal of the data, thank you very much.

Update: More pesky facts getting in the way of a lovely story

2004-06-16T13:05:00.000-07:00

The Scientific Method and Journalism.

Or

Why a good number of Americans think their ‘fair and impartial’ press is anything but.

Stephen denBeste of USS Clueless and Wretchard of the Belmont Club (and many others) seem to be trying to tackle the fickle nature of the press in its reporting of the Middle Eastern conflict.

To many, the press seems to have an agenda instead of zeal to determine facts.
Now, I’m not going to add my voice to the cacophony lambasting the press for bias. I think bias is not only unavoidable but it is in many ways desirable. However, journalists should and must separate fact from opinion. As a Journalist, it is your primary responsibility to inform. That means in many ways reporting and sifting through boring, uninteresting data, and then presenting an opinion.

Forensic Anthropology has always held a bit of a special interest for me. It is the process by which an investigator teases out fact from a locale. When did this person die? How did this person die? How did this person end up here? What is this piece of fiber? Etc. In many ways, journalism has far more in common with Forensics than with literary scholastic studies. Sure, it helps if you con communicate effectively, but that isn’t the point of a journalists job? A journalist needs to sift through data, present said data in a fair manner, then and only then, render an opinion.

Carl Sagan was one of the foremost and effective proponents of ‘Critical thinking’. Not adolescent ‘Question Authority’ but rather the process by which people need to apply a ‘BS detection kit’ to the data presented to them and try to come to the simplest, most reasonable and hopefully most accurate answer. Do magnets in the feet promote blood circulation? Does an ‘air spray’ destroy ‘odor molecules’? And on and on the barrage of weird data drums on.

Journalists need to be on the front line of employing a ‘BS detection toolkit’. In many ways, journalists need to act as a filter against spin and nonsense. However, when a journalists claims impartiality while clearly agitating an opinion, they loose credibility. We all have opinions, even journalists. Which is fine. Just don’t present it as ‘impartial’ or label yourself as the ‘impartial press’ if that is what you are doing. It’s insulting. Everyone has an opinion, and it is going to show through in your writing. At least be honest about it.

To be ‘Impartial watchdogs, a check against government’ the press must engage in forensics, not journalism. And until the press understands this a significant portion of their audience will mistrust the message as presented.

2004-06-11T09:29:00.000-07:00

Abu Gharib, misconduct, and general stupidity

Well, I’ve tried to avoid commenting on Abu Gharib simply because I don’t know what happened. Was it institutional stupidity? Poor training? A directive to the intelligence operatives in the field? I don’t know. But I am seeing a very ugly pattern developeing. From the case of Sean Baker to Justice Department memos describing the legitimate use of torture I can’t help but feel that someone is abusing my trust. I think a proactive, forward-engaged Middle East policy is the only way we will ever ‘drain the swamp’ of totalitarianism and fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East. But it is not worthwhile to pursue these laudable goals while sacrificing our own ideals. Between all of the above, the misnamed ‘Patriot’ act and my unease over the suspension of fundamental rights for ‘terrorism suspects’….

If only the Dem’s would nominate anyone other than the vile toad Kerry. 20 years ago I probably would have been a ‘Regan Democrat’. Kerry does not appeal to me in the least. But then again, neither does Bush really.

At the end of the day, I fear that while we may have won the battle for Iraq, we are loosing the war for our principles.

2004-06-08T15:00:00.000-07:00

No Blood for Oil!
Man, but we Americans certainly are the worst stripe of Imperialists. Everyone knows when you engage in unilateral, colonialist, adventures to expand the Imperium you generally should keep control of the natural resources! Otherwise why bother oppressing and subjugating the hapless natives?

Reality Check: Nope, still not paying $0.50 per gallon for gas. Time to mark Operation Steal The Black Gold for Halliburton as a failure and bring the troops home.

2004-06-07T10:12:00.000-07:00

Mutually Assured Destruction

Once upon a time, an entire generation of people was convinced that ‘The Day After’ was how it was going to end. Any day now. Nuclear Annihilation. After all we were still reeling from our self imposed defeat in Viet Nam, the Iran hostage crisis proved our impotence, and the Soviets were still promising our ruin.

Then came the cowboy who promised victory. Spoke simply. Ignored conventional wisdom about detent and engagement. He was bellicose and brash and said what he thought and meant what he said.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" he said. And not to long after, it happened.

Thank you, Ronald Wilson Regan, for helping make the world a place where ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ and ‘the Wall’ nothing more than the ramblings of a weird father in the eyes of his children. I can think of no better legacy for a ‘stupid actor pretending to be President’.

2004-06-04T09:31:00.000-07:00

The Baath Party and Al’Quaida

Oh look! More non-links between Al-Quaida and Baathists.

Why do I even bother? Modern political discourse seems to be more about screaming a ‘believed’ meme louder and longer than your opposition cares to refute it, rendering it truth as opposed to actually debating facts and reason. At this point I really can’t find anything ‘believable’ about the anti-war stance. It seems that someone has decided the position must be war=bad always and therefore proponents will seize anything that re-enforces that meme to the hilt, facts be damned.

2004-05-27T13:37:00.000-07:00

Colonial House and ‘modern’ attitudes.

PBS ran a ‘reality’ series called Colonial House that my wife managed to suck me into. The basic premise? Put a bunch of modern day people into a Seventeenth Century colony. Needless to say, they lived a rough, hardscrabble existence for four enlightening months.

The end of the series was a sequence of interviews and dialogues with the various ‘Colonists’ regarding their experiences. Carolyn Heinz, a Professor of Anthropology in California said something in her closing interview that I found, well, stunning. To paraphrase as best I can:

I wanted to go back to a purer time, a simpler time, to gain perspective on our modern life. But it wasn’t any more pure or true than now.

I think one of the problems facing people like Mrs. Heinz is that in our modern era many people live in a fantasy that the olden days things we’re simpler, purer, more moral – and when confronted with the greed, self-centeredness, aggression, and all of the other negative parts of humanity that have always has been with us, well they are quite startled by it.

Somehow, in their view, modern man has become venal and vile. Yet, we live in a time where we at least attempt to respect human rights and the rule of law. Anyone who has studied history can clearly demonstrate that man can be brutal specimen.

One of the other cast members expressed her difficulties in acting out ‘Imperialism’, and then reflected on how nothing has really changed.

News flash for all of you who were asleep in history class: We stole this land. Just like our ancestors probably stole their ‘home’ from someone else. After all, we don’t see all to many Saxons any more, let alone the Roman Colonists, or the Celts they displaced, or whomever they also displaced (maybe the Picts). And that is just the British isles.

I guess what I’m trying to say to all those agonizing over the evils of the past (and who would want us to pay reparations to the historically oppressed) is that we really can’t all go back to Olduvai Gorge. Really. No matter how unjust our journey as a species from there to here may have been. Nevertheless, what we can do is try to help as many people as possible achieve their rights to Life, Liberty and Happiness even if in the short term that sometimes means doing some rather unpleasant things. Opportunity. Opportunity to improve, to strive, to succeed. Opportunity is the first victim of tyranny.

If we are able to give others Opportunity to strive toward fundamental rights through our actions then I think we are doing the best we can, in spite of our venal nature. Or perhaps it is because we can see the potential abyss of our venality that we strive to make the world better. For me, the fact that Iraqis now have that opportunity is more than enough justification for both the bad and the good of the war.

2004-05-26T13:21:00.000-07:00

The Comming War With Iran, part Whatever
In other news, Iranian rhetoric keeps humming along, explicitly linking the mullahs’ with terrorist organizations and their desire to kill lots of Americans.

"We have identified some 29 weak points for attacks in the U.S. and in the West, we intend to explode some 6,000 American atomic warheads, we have shared our intelligence with other guerilla groups and we shall utilize them as well. We have set up a department to cover England and we have had discussions regarding them[;] we have contacted the Mexicans and the Argentineans and will work with anyone who has an axe to grind with America."

Film at 11

2004-05-25T15:27:00.000-07:00

The only thing we have to fear, is Fear itself

Bill Whittle is by far a better essayist than I could even hope to aspire. So go read his latest entires Strength part 1 and Stringth part 2. He does a beautiful job in summarizing, for me anyway, why War in the Middle East in general, Iraq in particular, was necessary and justified.

Bravo Bill.

2004-05-05T08:39:00.000-07:00

Three Philosophies

Steven denBeste has recapitulated and expanded on this thesis of ‘three warring philosophies’. While I agree with his philosophical idealism and empiricist categories, I feel Islamism isn’t quite there. A more accurate categorization for Islamism, to me, would be Fundamentalism: a theocratic based rejection of both the empiricist and idealist schools of thought based on ‘revealed truths’. If one looks a militant islam, they have something very much in common with ‘creation scientist’ and their ilk: they completely reject empirical data that contradicts the ‘truth’ as defined by scripture. Any contradiction must be opposed as lies and eradicated for the betterment of all. Failure to do so reveals a lack of faith, and is in many ways a failure to god. Therefore, one can see the philosophical similarities between the idealists and the fundamentalists – both are ‘inspired’ philosophies – but their drive and focus are in many way in direct opposition and antithetical to each other.

But each has a far worse enemy: those pesky empiricists. The idealists sate, “The time is not to blow bridges, the time is to build bridges.” The fundamentalists exclaim,“die in the name of Allah/God/Cause”. Meanwhile, the realists wonder, “How the hell do you negotiate with someone who is shooting at you because you live?”

Is it any wonder the three philosophies are having a hard time ‘tolerating’ each other?

Anyway, as an Empiricist, the best tool and weapon we have against these competing philosophies is ‘Critical Thinking’. Not simply the adolescent ‘Question Authority’ but to really examine the ‘facts on the ground’ and to come to the simplest answer that fits the current data. One of the biggest problems us Empiricists face is the entrenchment of philosophical idealism within academia.

In academic discourse the authority and the verbiage of what you have to say frequently trumps actual content. This can be easily illustrated by Political Correctness, and post-modernists theory.

In conclusion, I’m not exactly certain what can be done about the schism between these three competing philosophies, except for pointing out the facts on the ground, and try to teach our kids that while some solutions may sound ‘elegant’, it is up to them to analyze the data and come to their own conclusions. Appeal to Authority is the ultimate dogma of both philosophical idealism and fundamentalism. Therefore it is up to us ‘little people’, the ‘ignorant masses’ to figure out who is trying to sell what, and what they have to gain by it.

2004-05-04T13:38:00.000-07:00

UNSCAM
Everything you could want to know about the UN 'Oil for food' corruption scandal, but probably haven't heard about.

2004-05-04T08:06:00.000-07:00

The lessons of Vietnam

Why did we loose Vietnam? Was it the fierce resistance of the North Vietnamese? Was it the ineptitude of our draftee armed forces? Was it the fierce anti-war protests back home? In many ways it was all of these things. But more importantly, it was the contradictory and self-defeating handling of a military campaign by the political leadership during the war.
North Vietnam was a safe haven for logistics and recruitment for the Viet Cong and the NVA. Yet, the US never dealt with the threat. Now one could easily argue that we were constrained by greater Geo-political concerns. But I think the most important lesson of Viet Nam should have been that we never get into a war that we do not intend to win completely.

Unlike Gulf War I.

And, unfortunately, that may be happening in Iraq and more specifically Fallujah now. However, I certainly hope wretchard is correct on this one. Because the alternative is most certainly not pretty.

2004-05-04T07:23:00.000-07:00

Useful Idiots

‘In any conflict, there will be those who support you, those who oppose you, and the useful idiots that support you simply by existing.’ -Vladimir Illych Ulyanov

In many ways, the above quote may be one of the most important, and cynically manipulative observations of human psychology in the Twentieth Century. In short, it states that in any conflict there will be ‘opposition’ of your enemies who you can take advantage of via propaganda and the ‘court of world opinion’ especially in democratic societies. This is exactly what we have going on in the United States today.

Ted Kennedy recently gave a speech in which he compared the ‘quagmire in Iraq’ to Vietnam. He postulated that our military and the current administration have no real goals, understanding of the situation, or exit strategy in the face of the latest round of insurgency. Others have been quick to latch onto the censorship of a paper as evidence of the wrongdoing of BushCo and their ‘inept, two-faced, dishonest’ policy toward the people of Iraq.

It seems that if you say a thing enough times, regardless of any evidence, it must be true.

Let’s break down what has happened over the past two weeks. A paper controlled by Muqtada al’Sadr openly called for violence against coalition forces in Iraq. Now I don’t know about you, but where I come from, incitement is not protected speech under our constitution. Further, Mr. Sadr has openly praised Hizbollah – identifying himself and his followers as an arm of said organization in Iraq. Finally, instead of submitting to an arrest warrant for is alleged involvement in the murder of Imam Koei, he started a campaign of violent resistance throughout south and central Iraq.

This is Mr. Kennedy’s ‘Quagmire’: a thug trying to evade arrest for murder and incitement to violence using his deluded followers to mask his evasion attempts by launching a campaign of violence.

And naturally, Al’Jazerha, the voice of Islamic Totalitarianism everywhere, is confabulating, expounding, and in short trying to portray everything in the worst light possible.

Mr. Kennedy (along with the 'Arab street') is like usual playing along. You can hear them coming out of the woodwork – our useful idiots – holding the current events up as proof of our perfidious and duplicitous nature. We never intended to ‘free’ Iraq. It was hopeless to go there in the first place. Bring democracy to the Middle East? These ‘people’ obviously aren’t ready for any such thing.

Well, I disagree on these points. And Mr. Kennedy, V.I.Lenin would be happy right now were he an Islamist today. Perhaps we should create a ‘Walter Duranty’ prize and award it to Mr. Kennedy for his lifetime of achievement.

Our best course at this point is not to raise the fallacious specter of Vietnam, but rather to stay the course and do our best. Perhaps there will be a second Fall of Saigon. But I think we owe it to the people of Iraq and ourselves to demonstrate that we learned the right lessons from Vietnam and defeat the Islamo-fascists, instead of pulling yet another ‘Beirut’ in the face of resistance.

Or perhaps I’m wrong, and we should fall back to our frontiers, put up the razor-wire and minefields on the borders, and expel all of the ‘brown Muslim people’. Personally, I think such a course of action would be the single greatest mistake we could make. I believe that our current forward engagement strategy against the fanatics is the only reasonable way of maybe, just maybe, changing the current middle eastern status-quo away from the current repressive, despotic model..

Quite frankly, that is something we should all be hoping for, regardless of whichever side of the domestic isle we most closely identify.

2004-05-04T07:17:00.000-07:00

The Coming War In Iran?

In this article Saad Al-Faqih outlines what many believe to be Al-Qaida's strategy for the downfall of the US. Something that is implied heavily is that the mullah's of Iran are now actively cooperating with and sponsoring asymmetrical warfare against the U.S.

And our response? Official silence. Is the Bush administration ignoring
clear evidence of Iranian
provocations in order to secure our withdrawal from Iraq later this year? Or is something else going on behind the scenes (in fact, there are some rumors that the recent train derailment in Iran happened because the 'fertilizer' was bound for Kandahar)?

Perhaps, instead of wondering about if or when a war with Iran will break out, perhaps we need to consider wither or not it has all ready begun - and if so, when it will blow wide open?

My fear, is that IF Iran is providing safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists, will Bush do some thing about it - re-electability be damned? Or will he prevaricate until after the election? Even though Iran appears to be close to acquiring nuclear weapons thanks to a little help from their friends in Pakistan? Because Bush has set us on the course of active intervention in the Middle-east, the cost of 'blinking' at this point could be very, very high. Extremist elements could feel as though they have been forced into an untenable position with the fall of Hussein, and any response they may make will most likely not way for the completion of our election cycle.

Or, to put the problem in perhaps better perspective....

2004-05-04T07:15:00.000-07:00

In defense of Jury Nullification

One of the problems with our primary education system in this nation is that it fails, in toto, to educate the electorate about its rights, responsibilities and duties to the body politic. One of the most important powers we have over our government is a concept known as ‘Jury Nullification’ As described by John Adams:

"It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

Why is Jury Nullification so important? Well, there are times when the Jury is the last bastion of judicial restraint. When our nation was founded, it was considered standard procedure for either the judge or the defense to inform the jury of their duties to consider not only the innocence or guilt of the defendant, but also the just nature of the law itself.

In this article by Phil Sham, the case of Richard Paey presents a clear case of the problems of ‘mandatory minimum sentencing’, and a jury obeying the dictate to ‘just consider the facts’. I would put it to the citizens of our nation that since all laws exist at the consent of the governed, we the people exist as the final arbiter of the just nature of said laws. And if an individual like Richard Paey is convicted for drug trafficking then not only has our legal system failed, but we have failed a fellow citizen.

Shame on us for not exonerating Richard Paey. Even worse, shame on us for not being aware of our ability and duty to do so.

2004-05-04T07:14:00.000-07:00

Outsourcing

Mr. Mom is an excellent bit of prescient social commentary via cinema. Way back in the ‘80’s, the big three auto manufacturers were suffering the effects of long term market dominance, lack of competition and innovative gestalt. ‘America loves Ford’, even if it was a total piece of crap which would fall apart after 2 years. After all, what else were Americans going to buy?

As it turns out, Japanese cars. The Japanese were supposedly better managers. They made better cars. They had better warrantees. They got better gas mileage. The Big Three were dying. Do the patriotic thing and ‘Buy American’!

And yet, today, the big three are still at it. What happened? They were forced via competition to innovate, to streamline, to cut costs, to improve. With the winner being the consumer.

The current tizzy in IT is India, and how they are stealing ‘our’ jobs. In my previous article, I raised three main counters to this: Software creates the need for more software, Supply and demand will equalize the cost of work per developer, and communication is the hardest part of any software development process (as opposed to hacking out the code, which generally is the easiest part). And every project I work on only reinforces these truisms.

Software creates the need for more software. What happens when a project is completed? Does it get placed in a trophy case where it can be admired from afar for its genius and elegance? Generally, no. it gets used. And whenever anything gets used, it gets changes. Modified. Improved. Made to communicate outside the scope of its original intent. And eventually, thrown away and re-written to take advantage of new advances in theory and technology.

Is this process somehow going to stop if Engineers in India are working on some of the code? What about the East Europeans? Bangladeshi’s? My point is in reality people will continue to discover the need for more efficiency gains through software which will result in more jobs for IT developers. The only caveat is that we may not be able to command the rates we did during the Bubble. Honestly, did anyone really expect the unsustainable rates of the irrational .com era to act as a baseline for wage expectation?

This leads to my next point; supply and demand doing what it is supposed to do. One of the great lefty rallying cries is “A good job for good wages’. I didn’t know that also contained a rider ‘only for Americans!’. Outsourcing has two often ignored benefits: it acts to increase the standard of living where the outsource workers live, and it increases the demand for American exports in those areas. In short, it increases Indian wages, and it opens market-share for Dell et al. And as Indian IT wages increase (as they are all ready doing) the ROI for outsourcing goes down rapidly.

The other effect of this equation is that it results in a suppression of American IT wages to some extent. While I don’t exactly savor this aspect of the equation in the short term, I do like the idea that on average IT workers will become more affordable to more mom and pop institutions.

One of the big advantages that a mega chain like Wal-Mart offers is lower prices of goods. In many ways this is achieved through better supply chain maintenance via IT. The problem that this exposes is that it is expensive to do real-time inventory data mining. And because the mom and pop hardware store can’t afford Just In Time inventory, they charge more. They stock based on what may be false trends. They may waste inventory. Which Wal-Mart can explicitly avoid. Wal-Mart and other national chains are better able to utilize information to increase efficiency and reduce cost to the consumer. Which sort of leads me to my last point. Communication.

Finally, communication is the hardest part of any software development process. In my experience, the absolutely, bar none, most difficult part of a software project has essentially nothing to do with writing the software. It’s gathering requirements such that developer and ‘consumer’ agrees to what is to be delivered – never mind when said consumer is an external client who really doesn’t understand what the want in the first place (like 90% of clients I’ve run into). Yet, in spite of this, someone things that the cost per project will be reduced by the simply expedient of hiring more, cheaper workers. My prediction? Over the next few years we will see an overall reduction in the amount of outsourcing that goes on due to the simple fact that cultural and language barriers will be yet another communication problem to overcome. So while we may see a decrease in ‘cost per project attempt’, more attempts will be required – thereby restoring parity, if not increasing the cost of the eventually completed project overall.

And I still maintain that people prefer to work with someone across the hall as opposed to 12 time zones away.

In conclusion, why am I not worried about outsourcing? Because today the second largest car manufacturer (in terms of employment) in the U.S. is Toyota. And hopefully, someone, SOMEWHERE remembers the wonderful effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. We’ve been down this isolationist road before. I’ll be damned if I’m not going to point this out again and again to those volunteering to play isolationist.

Remember, in 1929 the refrain was

“With America’s high standard of living, we cannot successfully compete against foreign producers because of lower foreign wages and a lower cost of production.”
--Herbert Hoover

And we all know how well that turned out.

2004-05-04T07:13:00.000-07:00

Crossroads

Today, this year, we Americans stand at the crossroads of the future in a way that is only seen rarely. This November, we must choose a future not only for ourselves, but in many ways for the Middle-East and much of the world as well. And frankly, I think it is a burden most of us would rather not bear. 8 months from now we must choose between hope or isolation, intervention or passivity, progress or death. And frankly, I cannot decide which candidate represents what future.

The past decade was rather staid and predictable. The Berlin wall fell in ’88, and Regan’s Evil Empire of the Soviets was collapsing. Life was easy. The greatest controversies were what today seem trivialities. Violence in the media. ESRB ratings. Irrational exuberance in the stock market. On and on.

Bill Clinton oversaw a drastic reduction in our defense spending and intelligence gathering capabilities. Not because he was a fool, but because there appeared to be no significant threats on the horizon (one could argue that this was a direct result of our reduced human intelligence capabilities, but that is neither here nor there). But we forgot something; the legacies of European Colonialism and the Cold War were still out there. Simmering. But they were over there. Someplace else. Someone else’s problem.

Then, on September 11th, 2001 it all changed. How we viewed the world needed to be reexamined on a fundamental level.

No longer can we sit idly by and let corrupt cesspits be run by tin-pot autocrats. This time is not that of Metternich, trying to contain nationalistic sentiments to hold our multi-ethnic hodge-podge empire together. But rather we live in a globalized world, in which reactionary forces seek to undo our prosperity, our equality, our progress, our freedom to further their ability to exercise personal power.

It is for these reasons that we must intervene. It is for these reasons we must actively pursue policies to alleviate poverty, deprivation and inequity throughout the world. It is no longer enough, to be the example, the Shining City on a Hill, but we must stride forth boldly. For to fail is to invite even greater ruin on ourselves, or friends, and even our enemies.

But don’t listen to me. I’ll let Tony Blair articulate what I mean.

How will we do this? How will we pay for this? Not with cold war mentalities. Not with $600 Billion deficits (not including spending on Iraq and Afghanistan). Where are the war bonds to pay for our servicemen and women overseas? Where is the talk of balancing the budget through taxation and spending cuts? But more importantly, where is the talk of what we must do next? Or is that ‘vision thing’ inapplicable during an election year?

I don’t know who I will vote for yet. There are deep flaws (in my mind) with both of our presumptive candidates. Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like, and he seems awfully cozy with the religious right of late. Kerry on the other hand, never met a defense spending bill or intelligence appropriation bill for which he would vote, and never mind how some of his past opinions have deeply offended many veterans.

This time, it isn’t The Economy Stupid, it the Future. What I want to see from the candidates is a Stratigic Overview of how they will lead the west in defeating Islamic fundamentalism.Thus far, neither candidate has done anything to do this. You both have 8 months. The world is waiting.

2004-05-04T07:06:00.000-07:00

All it takes for evil to take root is for good men to do nothing.

I can’t remember who exactly said this, and even if this is the exact quote, but I think it conveys the idea well enough.

Once upon a time, the ‘left’ claimed to be the party of justice and equality for all mankind. A Noble goal. One to be proud of. One which was worthy of the Party of Jefferson. Somewhere along this path, the left has lost its way.

Sometimes, the only solution we can choose is from a list of bad options. Do we continue to allow sanctions to starve a people? Do we allow a thug to continue his megalomaniac Cult of Personality at the expense of 26 million people for the sake of ‘no war’? Do we turn away, knowing that in some ways we may be partially responsible for the continued existence of a monster?

Recently we’ve seen the Kay report, and the latest brouhaha over the Gilligan story about the Blair government alleged ‘sexing up’ of intelligence data about Iraqi WMD. And in the end it is all a Red Herring. Who cares if there was any ricin or anthrax or mustard gas or a nuke or three on the ground (or not as is much more likely)? It has been well and thoroughly established that Hussein was interested in persisting the knowledge base for creating these things until such a point the west gave up on sanctions and no-fly zones; at which point all of his programs would have restarted.

But even that doesn’t matter when it comes to why Hussein needed to be removed. In 1991, Hussein was given an ultimatum by the victorious coalition after his military was expelled from Kuwait.

688 (5 April 1991): Iraq
and then 778 (2 October 1992): Iraq-Kuwait
and again in 949 (15 October 1994): Iraq-Kuwait.
Or perhaps 1060 (12 June 1996): Iraq.
Or how about 1115 (21 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
Or 1194 (9 September 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.

Even worse, none of this captures the deafening silence toward the torture chambers, or the assassination attempt against Bush Sr., or the invasion of Iran, or the gassing of the Kurds, on and on and on.

Is it really so hard to conceptualize that maybe, just maybe 9/11 made us take a long look in the mirror and realize perhaps business as usual was no longer acceptable? That pursuit of the Metternichain status quo in support of anyone who wasn’t communist was no longer a good idea? That just perhaps things change, and policies must change to reflect a new, clearer view of who is and is not a real monster?

One day, my daughter will be old enough to ask me if there are real monsters. And I’ll have to tell her there are. But they only exist because good people overlook them. Or ignore them. ‘It’s not my problem’. Or ‘it’s way over there’. Or no, there are only ‘enablers’ cause it all and they are usually Americans.

I’m angry that people seem to think it is fine and dandy to vilify the evil Americans, because ‘we supported him at one point’. War is wrong. Peace Now!

We did we remove Saddam Hussein? For a father and a daughter. For all the people like them. And so Manhattan will never be a Halabja.

For them

2004-05-04T07:02:00.000-07:00

Mariskova

During World War 2, the Russians developed an ‘Information Warfare’ technique called Mariskova. The idea, in principle was to create a ‘real’ airfield (or oil tanks, or whatever) which contained all of the props of a real thing, and then hide the real airport that the Stromviks would sorte.

It worked remarkably well. The Germans would bomb the hell out of the fake airfield, leaving the real one safe.

Was Saddam engaged in a bit of Mariskova against the west? If so, then perhaps the conclusion of the ’12 year gulf war’ may be a lesson about the dangers of being to good at bluffing. Sometimes, a bluff is called.

We’ll see if Michael Leeden is correct on this one.

2004-05-04T06:56:00.000-07:00

An introduction.

Well, what is there to say? I’m 33, married, with a second child due at any moment. I never expected to land in Colorado, but, well, here I am. I’m a member of a group blog, Another Low Beyond Outpost that is currently undergoing some technical difficulties, so I thought I’d post my musings here for a while. Let’s see how it goes.