That's What I've Been Saying

This article by Leon de Winter of the Hudson Institute expresses very well my understanding of why the Muslim Street hates us: we give lie to the idea that God rewards the faithful and punishes the unbeliever. We are unfaithful, yet have virtually all of the material wealth of the world. Therefore, we must be in league with the Devil. They don't call the US the Great Satan for nothing.

Bringing in the War in Iraq on this point, it was said that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein would never have worked together, despite the neocon arguments about them linking up to stage a WMD strike against the US. I would like to point out that the US allied with the USSR to defeat Hitler. If we could work with Stalin, I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to think that bin Ladin and Hussein could put aside their differences temporalily. Heck, they could even do what we did which was take out the common enemy, then proceed to oppose one another at every turn.

Questions About the RNC

Thus far I have kept to my pledge to avoid actually watching any of the live coverage of the conventions. I have been following the discussions and read a couple of transcripts. This has left me with a couple of questions.

1. The rhetorical style used by Arnold Schwartzenegger was very similar to that used, most famously, by Jeff "... You Might Be a Redneck" Foxworthy. Is it really wise to reinforce the old parallel between Rednecks and Republicans? Of course, I'd dare anyone to call Ahnold a redneck.

2. There has been some talk about Bush receiving a pre-convention bounce. I am not so certain that the bounce has to do with the convention than with world events. The War on Terror is Bush's strong hand. If anything were to remind people of the presence of terrorism, would it not rebound to Bush's advantage? I'm speaking of the latest Chechen offensives (and I do mean "offensive" in both senses). I think that the people of the US, despite the image created by Peace Protesters, do understand that terrorism anywhere is wrong, whether or not it hits at the US and its interests directly.

Protesting: A Resurgence of the Great American Pastime

At this rate, Peace Protesting is going to have as much about peace as Islam. I could see developing a tactical simulation wargame in which a player deploys units of peace protestors and police. It probably wouldn't work because one would have to have a clearly defined objective in order for the protestors to "win".

From what I have seen from the other coast, most of the protesters seem to be acting from a desire for attention and self expression rather than any attempt to sway those who are less fervent than themselves. These Narcissists for a Better World try to change other's opinion through derision and volume. That both of these methods serve only to cause others to dig in their heels and refuse to change is outside of their process.

And yes, I do understand the oxymoron of a peace protest wargame. I wonder if the Narcissists for a Better World understand the oxymoron of what they do.

Unity of Liberty and Property

Professor Bainbrige offers a look at the concepts of liberty over oneself and one's property are joined. How can one truly exercise one rights over one's self, if one is denied the fruits of their labor. Hillary Clinton had a howler on this line recently, and it shows the attitude that makes it clear to me why Democrats can not be judged as fit defenders of liberty. To say that the government should disproportionately tax the wealthy is to say that a person outside of yourself has the right to say that you have enough and have no right to what they judge to be your excess. If that doesn't scare you, then you haven't really seen the danger a big government becomes.

Link via Instapundit.

F the Undecideds

I just finished reading through Roger L. Simon's blog today and found myself nodding along with this piece regarding the crafting of the Republicam Party platform. Most particularly is the renewed call for a ban on same sex unions. Yet another reminder of why I can't vote for Bush.

On the other hand, I don't even recall hearing anything about a platform coming out of the DNC. Looking at Kerry's wishlist, I can't go that way either.

The first comment on the post drives home my feelings on the whole election quite well:

Maybe we can capture one of the two parties, or maybe one will be so fractured it will die and be replaced by a new one, but for the near future us fiscal conservative, socially liberal hawks don't have a home.

Update: I just realized that I hadn't finished this one yet. Sorry.

Anyway, with the dwindling pool of undecideds, I don't think that either party can count on turning enough to their side to swing the election out of the courts. The only way for one side or the other to win is to energize their bases and demoralize the others. As if I didn't already have enough reason to wish it was November.

Materials in Movies

Thank you, Virginia for providing this lik to The Reel Thing: One Editor's List of Great Material Moments in the Movies. I admit that I got a kick out of Flubber and Star Trek's transparent aluminum. As with any list, there must be quibbles about what was and was not on the list. The number 1 of the list, Theremin doesn't reach the threshold of materials goodness that I would want for a list such as this.

I do give kudos to the author for including The Graduate on the list. I have often referred to that line in describing Materials Science.

What should have been on the list, leaving aside thermodynamic concerns much the way Flubber does, is The Core. I might give the author a break in that the movie required more suspension of disbelief than a John Edwards (the medium, not the VP candidate) performance. The material that the deep-earth delving Daedalus was made of supposedly turned the ambient heat and pressure into energy for maintaining structural integrity was named Unobtainium. Too cool, even if laughable.

Last Thoughts on the Olympics

I just watched the gold medal men's volleyball match where Brazil defeated Italy 3-1. A few thoughts crossed my mind while watching:

1. Both indoor and beach volleyball gave the best examples of world class athleticism out of all of the Olympics.

2. Obviously the Italian coach did not sweat as much as the Brazilian coach. Otherwise, that natty suit the Italian coach wore would have collapsed under its own weight.

3. A Brazilian player by the name of Heller? I wonder what his Granddaddy did during the War.

Goodbye, Athens. Despite the doomsayers (myself included), and pending the Closing Ceremonies, you did a hell of a job.

Where's the Love?

Via Instapundit are a pair of articles discussing the reaction of the main stream media to the way that blogs are forcing the issue of the Swift Vets for Truth allegations into the media's consciousness. For the most part, it is nothing but kvetching about how they are not allowed to denigrate the Swift Vets and let the story die.

What strikes me is that there are none of the "attaboys" that were showered on the blogosphere that there were when bloggers did the parsing of Trent Lott's words at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. You'd think that their take is entirely dependant on which bull is getting gored.

What Is the Guy Supposed to Do?

The BBC has uncorked another brilliant observation about President Bush's true motives. Regarding his given the Central Intelligence Director power to be central in directing intelligence.

He said one executive order would give acting CIA Director John McLaughlin "interim" authority to perform many of the functions of a proposed intelligence tsar in overseeing 15 intelligence agencies.

Before they got to this detail, however, the BBC let us know what was really important.

But correspondents note there is also a political angle to the timing of the executive orders, which do not need Congressional approval to be implemented.

It is no coincidence that Mr Bush will sign the presidential orders on the eve of a Republican Party convention in New York where national security will be a key issue, the BBC's Nick Childs in Washington says.

I think I have the rule straight here. Anything the President does to show that he is doing his job in the time leading up to Election Day is merely a political ploy to convince people that he is doing his job. If he were truly above using his office for political gain, then he should do nothing.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that the government doing nothing is the right course of action in virtually all circumstances. Defending our country against terrorist, however, is the exception that fits nicely in the void left by the "virtually".

Another One For the Storage Locker

Truth in "web connections"- The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - August 25, 2004

My World Has Gone Upside Down

You mean that there is a topic in which I have to admire Dick Cheney's position?

The issue arose at a campaign town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, when a woman in the audience asked an unusually pointed question: "I need to know, what do you think about homosexual marriages?"

The vice president was candid in his response. "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said. "We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them."

The statement marked the first time Cheney has publicly addressed the fact that his daughter Mary — who helps run his campaign — is gay, although she has been open about it.

"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone," he added.

Glad to see that someone in the Bush Administration gets it.

Link via Virginia Postrel

Taking Pride in Arguing Poorly

Evidently I'm not the only one wanting more content in my news coverage and politics. As I started to read this article from Daily Kos by Trapper John, I was starting to feel optimistic that I might get to read some good discussion on the topic of the change in overtime rules.

Unfortunately, it seems that Trapper John is not in the least bit interested in having a discussion.

Not only did the takeaway get pushed off the front page by the SBL, but the coverage was a object lesson in the poverty of contemporary journalistic "objectivity." The AP story actually opened with the classic "some say this - some say that" line, "Paychecks could surge or shrink for a few or for millions of workers across the country starting Monday." Please. There is no genuine debate on how the changes will affect workers. As Matt Yglesias notes, "When you have the US Chamber of Commerce saying, de facto, 'this measure will be bad for employers, but good for workers and we strongly support it,' and the AFL-CIO says, 'this will be good for employers, but bad for workers and we strongly oppose it' then the AFL-CIO has infinitely more credibility than the US Chamber of Commerce . . . When the Chamber is pretending to operating against the interests of its members, we can tell that it's analysis is worthless -- the person talking to you is either a liar or else doesn't know how to do his job."

Merely citing that a position is held by a group you agree with and opposed by those you don't does not mean that the debate is over. I can just as easily say that the AFL-CIO leadership has a vested interest in keeping its members's incomes as high as possible, damn the macro-economic consequences. Therefore, such an irresponsible group is not a reliable source of information, and its position can be reasonably excluded from my figuring. I could, but I won't. I would rather look at their data and determine which of the competing economic models put forth will most likely reflect reality. Too bad there isn't a way to do a blind taste test of theory.

Here's a topic that might be worth discussing: While the new overtime rules might result in more people losing money than gaining money, might it not also happen that a large number of employers might take some of that money and add more employees to their payrolls? Granted this could result in an overtime double whammy, not only are people not getting paid for the overtime (been there, done that, as a salaried engineer in California) but that new people would spread out the available overtime even more. Of course, if some people are no longer getting paid for the OT, further dilution only cuts down the amount of time they are not getting paid for. Should it be true that a change in the OT rules would lead to an increase in people having jobs, it would seem rather non-progressive for those who are wealthy in employment to hoard their wealth from those who lack. "We've got ours," they seem to be saying, "And too bad for you."

The McCain-Feingold Farce

Any strategy that is effective will be used. This is one of The Rules. It explains why there is always a black market for contraband goods. The Volokh Conspiracy attacks the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and George Bush for signing it. Their angle is that contributing to political campaigns is speach.

While I don't disagree with them on that point, I take more of the approach that few problems are ever solved with more rules. The only things that more rules accomplishes is to make the methods of infraction harder to follow. Giving money to political candidates is seen as effective in advancing one's political agenda. Therefore, people will always try to do it. The only way to clear the air is to remove the rules, and put the burden on the campaigns to account for who gives the money and where it goes.

The only rules I would suggest (I'm a Minarchist, remember) is that all donations go into one account, all expenditures come out of the same account, and all contributions shall be signed by an individual and not a "legal entity", ie corporation or PAC. The primary means of enforcing the rules will be from a net-impartial media. Net-impartial meaning that while a particular journalist may be biased to one side, there would be another journo who will pursue the other side just as vigorously. Far from perfect, but at least this way the rules breakers could be more easily spotted and smoked out by the media, which at this point is the weak link in the chain.

Tools of Arguing

I was reading this article about the Swift Vets and Kerry's and the mainstream media's response to them (Link via Instapundit). It got me to thinking about how people go about putting to rest a debate about a factual point and the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

What I came to realize is that while the motives of the accuser might give rise to questions as to the validity of the accusations, looking at the motives alone can not answer those questions. If the accuser can not deliver any evidence backing up the accusation, then yes, the motivations might be elucidating. But if there is evidence, then the motives can not be given more weight. If some Baath Party member were to come forward with a videotape showing President Bush performing unspeakable acts upon a Girl Scout, the mere fact of the Baathist's allegiance does not automatically discredit the tape.

As for the whole Swift Boat story, weight of numbers would not normally be a method of swinging weight for me. However, it was Kerry and Edwards who have been saying that you can gauge Kerry's character by the opinions of those who served with him. Unfortunately for him, he seems to have an extremely limited definition of "served with". Given that his impressiveness does not seem to extend beyond a very small circle around him, I think that those critical of him would have had the separation that virtually everyone who works for the executive branch shall have.

Wealth of Another Type, Part I

I was thinking on the idea of there being many types of wealth beyond money. There is self-satisfaction (the coin of this blog's realm), time, family, health, power, and any other type that a person might place a value on. Any type of economic transaction involves the trading of one type for another, typically from a type in which one has a surplus to someone who would value it more. Having a job is an example: the worker exchanges some of his time for a portion of the wealth of the employer. If both sides are satisfied enough to make the deal (not necesarily so that both are entirely happy, just so that both are better off) then a fair trade has occurred.

Sometimes one can have too much wealth, typically assessed in the eyes of others, like in the case of this poor schmuck. Something like that could happen with other wealths. Imagine a case where a pharmaceutical firm is considering taking on a disease that has had a huge impact around the world, for instance, AIDS. As the company sinks more and more funds into the project, you start to hear rumblings about how important it is that everyone get the future cure or vaccine, so important that it would be immoral to leave it to those who can afford what the drug company might choose to charge for it. Some in various governments begin discussions on breaking the patent on whatever drug might be developed. As the company, the return on investment has just been eviscerated, leaving it questionable as to whether or not the cost of the development can be recouped. Not only will the company be hurt in term of current financials, it will be hurt in the work it can not accomplish in the future that would have been paid for with current profits.

If one such company should go down to such governmental schemes, any future pharmaceutical corporations will become very shy about developing products that can help a great many poor people. Unlike the diamond miner in Guinea, a drug company can choose not to look for wonderful, amazingly useful medicines.

The point I am slowly coming to is that it is possible for a person or a company to become, through happenstance or effort, wealthy in potential wealth. The diamond miner may have had a 182 carat diamond, but in that he can't get paid for it without someone else taking it from him. The drug company would be denied the freedom to convert the potential for health embodied in its discovery into money that could be used to reinvest in other projects or pay off investors. In the case of the drug company, and in many other cases of boneheaded interference, the government forces one side to accept a worse trade off than would have been agreeable to both parties, thereby skewing the results.

Keep your eyes peeled for the next installment where I will take on corporations.

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Svetlana Khorkina or, as I have heard her referred to, "From Russia with Smug," is now crying to the media that the fix was in for the Olympic Women's All-Around Gymnastics competition.

I watched the competition that night, so I also got to see the athlete bio piece they had done for her. I have to say that that was the first time I had seen one of those and wanted that person to lose. If ever there has been an athlete so wrapped up in themselves prior to this, I can't recall.

There is another possibility that Svetlana has yet to realize. Perhaps the fix was in, but rather than being for Carly Patterson, the judges were motivated by an Anyone-but-Khorkina sentiment.

Not That I'm Crying "Double Standard"

But if George Bush had said something like this about Moveon.org, wouldn't the howls of "He's questioning our patriotism" be heard from sea to shining sea?

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Saturday night urged President Bush to ''stand up and stop'' what he called personal attacks on him over his combat record in Vietnam.
At a fund-raiser, Kerry said the attacks by a group of Vietnam veterans and former swift boat commanders have intensified ''because in the last months they have seen me climbing in America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter and more effective war'' against terrorists.

''That's why they're attacking my credibility. That's why they've personally gone after me. The president needs to stand up and stop that. The president needs to have the courage to talk about it.'' Chicago Sun Times

Maybe Kerry does have a better way to fight terrorism. He certainly seems to understand the value of fighting with a looser set of rules than he allows for his opponent.

Awesome Present

My folks got back from their vacation in Kaua'i, and all I got was a calendar of half-naked beach bunnies and a really cool T-shirt. The back of the shirt bears a list of aphorisms that are supposed to illustrate the Kaua'i lifestyle. I am very impressed with my folks for getting me this shirt, because the first item on the list is identical to one of the things I've been trying to get across in this blog:

There are many types of wealth, money is just one of them.

I think I might be getting through to them.

In Case You Haven't Heard the News

Venomous Kate is back online.

Just thought I should pass it along. She is one of the reasons I got off my metaphorical duff and started this blog. If you were were one of the people who was missing her, you might want to be careful with the entry entitled "Oh, My Aching Ass". Whether or not it strays into the land of Too Much Information is strictly a matter of personal taste.

Do These Guys Really Want to Do This?

If I recall my Sunday School lessons, mostly held on Thursday go figure, Jesus had little patience for those who followed the letter of the law while completely missing the spirit. I believe the word Pharisaic is proper in this case where the church declared the First Communion of an 8-year-old girl invalid. Their reason: the communion wafer that she had taken was rice based as opposed to wheat based in defference to her celiac disease. If Haley Waldman were to eat even a small amount of gluten, the protein that makes wheat dough sticky, it could seriously damage her small intestine.

After all of the scandal that the Church has faced over the past years, one might think that they would be at least a little flexible rather than be "my way or the highway to hell." Unless of course the Vatican claims that God told them the He needs gluten in the wafer to achieve the miracle of transubstanciation. Somehow I would doubt that.

You Can Thank Sam Adams for This One

All of my friends know that I have a low threshold for alcohol. I prove it with this post after one bottle of Samuel Adams. (At least I'm taking care to correct the typos, so be thankful.)

I'm all for people being happy with their bodies, and that it is entirely a person's right to change what they don't like about it. I'm also glad to see a group use persuasion rather than legislation to change peoples attitudes about themselves.

However, I'm also for the US doing what it can for those who serve in uniform. That being said, I don't really mind the military paying for surgeons to practice reconstructive techniques on willing volunteers for little to no cost. Not being female myself, I take it on authority that breasts can be as important to women as, well, you know, to a guy. So if a female soldier is wounded and maimed to the breasts, I do not think that it should be too much for the military to have surgeons who are practiced and capable to perform the reconstruction.

Now I shall spare you any further blogging as I proceed to drain one of Sammy's brothers dry.

Bears for Kerry

It would seem that even the bears in Washington state are Democratic. This bear at least has a preference, and its not Bush er, Busch.

Link via Dave Barry

We Interrupt Our Blogging Day for a Disclaimer

Ted Rall is an attention seeking jerk who will say whatever he needs to say to get eyeballs turned in his direction. Ted Rall does not represent all Teds, most especially this one, and should be given no more attention than as a barometer for the barking moonbat community.

Please returning to your previously scheduled browsing. Thank you.

Classy

I would like to commend Michael Phelps and the other guys who won the Gold Medal in the 4X200 freestyle relay yesterday. (Apologies on not knowing their names, aside from Kleet, but Olympic stories seem to have a very brief shelf life.) When the National Anthem was played at the Medal ceremony, they all removed the laurel wreaths and placed them over their hearts. Headwear is headwear, I suppose, but it is good to see some people err on the side of decorum.

On a related note, I wonder how many Olympians will be going home with heretofore unrealized allergies to laurel?

Yet Another Market Opportunity

In Preparing for the Worst at Tech Central Station, Glenn Reynolds mentions that not everyone has completed their disaster preparedness kits. Guilty as charged. Seeing as how everyone lives in an area that has significant chance of natural disaster (living three miles from the San Andreas fault, can you guess which is my disaster of choice?), such a kit should be de riguer for all homes.

I once had a kit in my car, packaged in a fanny pack, that came pre assembled at the local Pep Boys. It had water in juice boxes, very calories dense nutrition bars, bandages, and thermal blankets like the ones the give at the end of marathons. Why not create larger packages for household use? I can just picture the shelves at Wal-Mart stocked with a variety of packages: from a small box for bachelor pads to the Catholic/Mormon Econo-Box that would require a hand cart and carry-out service.

Please contact me via the e-mail address to the right. I can set up Pay-Pal to receive any royalty payments that should come as a result of this.

Renewing My Geek Credentials, Redux

Ash kicks butt.

Especially if he keeps the chainsaw.

Link via A Small Victory

Update: From Brucecampbell.com

Hockey Mask, yes... Bladed Glove, Yes... Boomstick, Probably not... (06.02)
Jason vs. Freddy vs. Ash? That's the rumor floating around this pile of clutter we call the internet.
My advice, don't hold your breath. Chances are, we'll be seeing Joanie Loves Chachi Loves Ash first.
In other words, nothing to report on our end.

Pity, this would have been cool.

The End of Occupation

The only thing I really have to say about this story is that it is about freakin' time.

And as to the locals who will be out of jobs, sorry. Somehow, though, I think that the Germans actually want at least some of our forces where they can keep an eye on them. Lord knows with their flub on saying that Iraq had WMD's, their intelligence services won't be able to see past their own back yard.

Slouching Toward Nirvana

It often seems to me that the discourse on politics in this country has devolved down to what can easily be written on a bumper sticker. Not exactly a new thought, but sometimes its helpful or at least fun to turn the thoughts around to make a point or come up with a new insight. For example, I would like to find a bumper sticker done in the same style of "War in Not the Answer" and replace the word War with Government. Obviously tripling the length of the first word would throw off the typesetting, but you get the point.

I was having a discussion with a friend who holds that government has to have the power to intercede in private industry should that industry act in a manner damaging to the community. He believes that the government can mandate behavior in such a way that society reaches a utopia of mutual respect. I pointed out that even if government could deliver such a thing, which I don't believe that it can, it would only happen if those in government were coming from such a position of mutual respect. Given that politicians are seen as somewhat less respected than lawyers, it could hardly be true that our leaders can be counted on to lead us there. Put a number of ordinary people in those positions of power and you will find that the Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.

Later, I was playing around with that old cliche in my mind. I wondered what would happen if you turned it around. Can the Road to Heaven be Paved with Bad Intentions? If one were to call Heaven a society based on mutual respect, then certainly not when the Bad Intentions would dictate actions in directly opposite direction.

Then I tried another formulation: the Road to Heaven is Paved with Base Intentions. This one hit more on a good concept. People very often look down on those who do things in order to achieve a benefit to themseves. We hold in higher esteem those who volunteer than work for a fee. While the net good to the person recieving the service is less when a cost has to be paid than not, it is a true disservice to reject the smaller good for not being the greater. To say that a drive for profit on one side completely sullies the act is to deny what good was done.

What I am realizing is that the alteration of the old cliche is a variation of Adam Smith's conclusions upon Free Enterprise. The greatest good is accomplished when one helps another achieve both best results. There will have to be compromise along the way, but with patience both sides can progress. So long as compromise is possible, both sides will find themselves slouching toward Nirvana. What makes this plan a tough sell is that on the order of a society, progress can only be measured in lifetimes. There will be stumbles, and some will be lost on the way, but anyone who tells you that government can deliver the results quickly is trying to sell you something.

Too Much Slack in the Kerry Campaign?

Via Little Green Footballs

Coming off my rant regarding neither campaign providing any real substance for the media and the blogosphere to grind, I will now proceed to discuss some of the style.

Something that seems to be a recurring theme with respect to the Kerry campaign is that he keeps getting caught up in situations that result from sloppy prep work. Be it handing the Bush campaign a real softball with the "sensitive war" comment, to suddenly having to change direction as to the credibility of those who served with him. From an opinion piece in the San Francisco Examiner comes an analysis that I found myself nodding to in agreement.

The worst part of this political fiasco is that it could have been completely avoided. With a little work, preparation and organization, Kerry or his staff could have shown these veterans a little common courtesy by finding out where they stand regarding his candidacy and asking their permission to use them as references. This was a huge mistake, and it's costing Kerry dearly.

I have gotten the impression that the Kerry campaign was counting on Anyone-but-Bush sentiment to carry them all the way to the White House. I think that they may have mistaken volume for population.

Content, Please

I am trying to take a step back and look at the election process thus far. As I have said before, neither candidate has impressed me with their vision. Some of my friends say that Bush is 180 off the direction they think the country should go. Their willingness to not consider the fact that Bush is doing the right thing in removing those who wish to harm this country in the furtherance of their goals is a fundamental part of that assessment, so I therefore can't say that Bush's direction is completely inimicable to mine.

That Bush can be divergent from absolutely wrong gives Kerry the opportunity to screw up by being as wrong, if not more wrong, than Bush according to my values. Essentially, Bush has been as far wrong on social issues and spending as Kerry has been on foreign policy and spending. In one sense this makes me an Undecided, in that I have not chosen between the two. Given that I live in California, the only state that gives Massachusettes a run for its blueness, my vote is not going to count for much of anything other than adding to one or the other's general tally for the supposed "mandate".

The big caveat that I have to make in this matter is that I have to make my decision in a vacuum of real information. All that I am seeing are tales from thirty years ago standing in place of who these men are now. So, gentlemen, can we please have some discussion on what your economic plans are? In this request, I also call on the media to give the Nam stories a rest and get to the boring stuff. Lets talk about military allocations and budgets to social services. I would rather blast Bush for stuff like the Federal Marriage Amendment than for him not showing up to Guard duty. I would rather rip Kerry for having been wrong on every issue of foreign policy of the Reagan Administration than for him lying about being in Cambodia on Christmas Day of 1968. One set of data tells me what they might do for their four years as president, the other tells me what they were like thirty-plus years ago. So far as I am concerned, I care more for the next four years than what has happened before. Show me a plan that would work for me, and yes, let me see if I can trust you to carry it out, and I might be tempted to change my vote from Libertarian.

Update: Here's an easy way to pick up my vote: Legalize the possession of rocket propelled grenades for the purpose of blowing up cars with obnoxiously loud stereos. Granted, it does appeal to my baser nature and circumvent some of my inclinations toward the sanctity of private property, but damn, I could use the satisfaction.

Consistency of Principle

While I may personally believe that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, I do have to agree with the initial statements in the California Supreme Court decision, presented here at The Volokh Conspiracy, that declares the marriages conducted this year in San Francisco void. The arguments pertain to the mayor's actions in disregarding state law that marriage licenses shall only be issued to heterosexual couples. The examples given by the court illustrate how the methods used by the mayor could be applied to a wide range of issues in a piece meal manner.

I am not one of those people who complain loudly about "activist courts". If anything, the justices in this case have limited the authority to decide issues of constitutionality to the courts. Say what you will about the courts, but if what they are abusing their authority by legislating through constitutionality, then it can not be a bad thing that that ability has been denied to larger swaths of government.

Yet Another Thing I Can Do Whithout

I'm not going to get into the whole "sensitive war" thing other than to say that the Kerry Campaign should have seen it coming the instant that line was written. Don't they have someone on staff whose job it is to try to think like a Republican in order to anticipate the spin that the opposition will try to put on the words?

What I have had enough of is the line:

Cheney's comments, the Kerry spokesman said, are "driven by concern of the Bush campaign that they are in deep trouble and their poll numbers are sinking."

I have an insight for all of those involved in or commenting on the campaigning. The entire point of a campaign is to do or say what it takes to create some net improvement in your position relative to one's opponent. The subtext of the line is, "We know our opponent would be a gentleman if he felt secure in his lead. That he does not is proof that he is not secure." Since when has any elected official stayed positive throughout an election? I really can't say, because losers tend not to be memorable.

Just on the Off Chance...

That my parents, my sister, and her family are reading this while on their trip to Hawaii, I am posting this weather update:

9:50 am: the thermometer on the back porch, now in the shade, is reading 100 deg. F.

While I shouldn't complain about the heat because it has been unusually mild this summer and I have lived with summers like this all of my life, I will complain regardless. Normally there is enough wind to push the windchill into the low 90's on days like this, but it is dead calm right now. On the plus side, thank God there is no humidity.

Read the Whole Thing

In honor of the heading from the same site, I give you Steven Green's column at Vodkapundit as Required Reading. You want to know why they and their ideology hate us? It is because we give lie to their beliefs. They are pious and their lives suck, while we are impious and have practically every blessing a just God should bestow on His people.

Libertarianism and Political Reality

Robert Clayton Dean of Samizdata goes Back to basics to answer some more ideologically pure poster who take exception to some of his positions. His response is an excellent example of my political philosophy of minarchy, rulership to and by the least means necessary. It also makes points regarding "pure" Libertarianism that prevents the Party of that name from accomplishing anything of note in the US.

Mr. Dean's lessons for practical libertarianism:

First, recognize the legitimate role of government in our flawed world.

Second, in the world of politics, take what you can get. You can always come back for more.

The biggest stumbling block to Libertarians in the US is that their leadership tries to push for everything at once. Anything that falls short is seen as a failure. A foreign example would be the publication of the Occupational Safety Guide for Prostitutes in New Zealand (yes, Samizdata is one of my favorite poaching grounds). Some of the commenters complained at how the regulatory impulse had tainted the gain of prostitution being legalized. Those folks are perfectly correct to complain, yet one should not disdain the gain made in the process. As Mr. Dean said, "You can always come back for more."

And a word to Mr. Julian Morrison, Samizdata commentor: Treating terrorism as a criminal matter has been so effective for the previous twenty years. [/sarcasm] While Al Qaeda may not have any obvious state sponsors, its aims (primary among which is the expulsion of Western influence in the Middle East) are largely coincident with several states in the region. If any state aids such a group in accomplishing such an attack on the United States or its allies, then it should be read that the complicit state should be seen as committing an act of war utilizing irregular forces. The conflict that is facing us today is of a different nature than has been seen before. So different, that I believe that we may need to revisit the concept and definition of "war" to properly describe it.

Everything is Political

Via Michele at A Small Victory

General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and current advisor to the Kerry campaign, has suffered an aparent stroke and is in intensive care. I offer my sincere hopes that he makes a full recovery.

To say that some people with their monomaniacal focus on politics are taking the ghoulish approach to this is to add to the nominees for understatement of the year. From the comments at Democratic Underground Forums we get these cheery little gems:

gotta take out all military opposition before martial law is declared..

and

bushgang motto: bully, bribe, blackmail, threaten and if all else fails, murder

works for them! we haven't stopped them from doing what they want, yet.

and

Probably the same kind of 'Stroke' that . . . .

. . .all the people close to the Kennedy assassination suffered. Hmmmmm!

Is it any wonder that I predict that some lone wacko out there will do his damnedest to make sure that President Bush experiences the Zero Year Curse. I think it very likely that someone will make a go at the President before the election, and almost certain between election day and January should Bush win.

I wonder if those lone wackos out there will appreciate the fact that if they should succeed then we will have Cheney as President. Of course, according to the theories, all that would happen is that which is de facto becomes actual.

Support Data to Dead in the Water

The Swift Vets for Truth have answered the legal challenges laid down to television stations by the Kerry campaign not to air the Swift Vets ad. The answer came in a letter to the same television stations citing the affidavits and other sources of information from which they have drawn their allegations. Read the whole thing for yourself.

Personally, with respect to the incident where Kerry supposedly earned his Bronze Star, I would like to see the after action reports of the other boats involved with the action. A compare and contrast would be most illuminating.

Let Slip the Dogs of Spin

Things have certainly been heating up since the Swift Vets for Truth came out with their ad. Via Vodkapundit and Balloon Juice, one can see all of the attempts to control the play that the Swift Vets are generating. There have even been letters sent to television stations airing the Swift Vets commercial (but not to the Swift Vets themselves?) threatening legal action under libel laws.

Say what you will about Ashcroft misusing the Patriot Act and I'd probably agree with you. The threats of lawsuits directed at the television stations, however, do send chills down my spine. I simply find it ironic that this is coming from the side that wails "Crushing of Dissent!" and "Questioning my Patriotism!" at the slightest criticism. Not surprising mind you, this is the side that wants the government to solve all of their problems for them.

Say It Loud, Brother!

Radley Balko has written a clear headed look at environmentalism and private property in Alternative Environmentalism: A Manifesto. The essence of the position is summed up with the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons: if something is owned by no one and can be used by anyone, then those who use it have no incentive to preserve it. The worry over that which is available to all is that the resource shall soon run out, so get some while the getting's good.

Please read the whole thing while I leave you with Radley's question that sums up the whole issue very nicely:

The best example of the tragedy of commons occurs in the oceans. Why is it that we regularly hear about how we're running out of various species of fish, but we're always well stocked with beef, pork and poultry?

Dead in the Water

I just took a look at a commercial produced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that takes aim at John Kerry's performance in Viet Nam. Its a powerful piece, and could do serious damage to Kerry's primary qualification for becoming commander-in-chief, his service record (Lord knows he hasn't been bragging about his time in the Senate).

All I can say is, thank God I live in California where, unless said God delivers a miracle, the electoral votes are solidly blue. That makes it possible that I can vote for neither of these two statist yahoos and leave the polls without feeling the need to take a shower.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Via Samizdata comes the link to a story of the inevitable follow up to the government of New Zealand legalizing prostitution: the publication of a Health and Safety Guide for sex workers. I suppose on the whole its a net positive, but of course the urge to regulate can get overwhelming.

However, I do feel somewhat inspired by the collision of ideas. I'm off to design a bustier that lifts, separates, and supports the lower back. Anyone interested in modeling the designs can contact me at the address above. Please attach a photo to all submissions.

I Suppose I Should be Grateful

Pakistan has given the US the information that has lead to the heightened alert at places of financial importance.

Now, I am gald that they have passed on what they learned from the Al-Qaeda linked computer expert. What bothers me is that almost all of the big arrests in the war on terror have been in Pakistan. In some cases, these terrorists have been taking hospitality in the homes of influential Pakistanis. Eventually, one of two things is going to have to happen:

1) The US will get tired of the Goose-that-Laid-the-Terrorist egg method, especially if an attack occurs that can be traced back to planning in Pakistan.

or

2) The terrorists get wise to the fact that the Pakistani government is using them as tokens to keep the US off their backs. At that point, they will have to try to find another place that will cover their presences.

Delivering Trust

I saw the headline on the print USA Today this morning: Kerry to Restore Trust in White House, or something similar. It made me wonder how he would intend to do that, when he is not widely trusted to hold to any one vision for any length of time. And what does he mean by trust? One might say trust the in the veracity of what the president says. If Bush is the current model of being untrughful in office, despite the fact that three reports have said that Bush was justified in his reading of the intelligence, then the only way for kerry to stay more "truthful" is to never reach any conclusion or to take a stand one way or the other.

To make the cynical position, he might continue his past record of saying both positions, wait for a resolution, neglect to mention the position that proved wrong, and then claim to have been speaking true all along.

A cinematic image comes to mind when I think about this: in Pirates of the Caribbean, the Governor, played by Jonathon Pryce, hid in a stateroom throughout the climactic fight scene. Once the good guys won, he stepped out and awkwardly joined into the "hurrahs".

Not to impugn Kerry's physical courage. I would rather be in a swift boat with Kerry than in a fighter squadron with Bush. What I am impugning is Kerry's political courage. I would challenge someone to show me a vote or a statement made by Kerry throughout his Senate career that would have endangered his office by bucking the popular opinion in his home state of Massachusettes.

With respect to President Bush, you might find his inclinations repugnant, but at least he has political courage enough so that you can trust that he will do what he says. Maybe that is why he has engendered so much ill will. While his physical courage was not tested under fire, Bush's political courage certainly has. The more that he refuses to even acknowledge that the opposition might have a point, the more vitriol he draws upon himself.

I'll Admit It

I broke my promise to myself and watched part of the Democratic Convention last night. I won't make any points about John Edwards's rhetorical style or policy points. What did make an impression on me was Edwards first praising his mother to the high heavens, crediting her with working hard so that her family could have health care and that he could go to college. He then segued directly into the Kerry/Edwards vision of an America in which everybody would have exactly the same opportunities that he had.

There are only two ways that I can really see those ideas stemming from:
a) John Edwards believes that his mother could be replaced by a massive government program
or
b) Mrs. Edwards is going to be one incredibly busy lady should Kerry win the election.

OK, We'll Call it a Draw

Evidently I was not the only judge on the panel for the O'Reilly/Moore debate. Michelle at A Small Victory has rendered her verdict in Ask an Honest Question, Get an Honest Answer. Her judgement: O'Reilly blew it with his non-answer to Moore's "Would you sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah?" question.

M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O: I would sacrifice myself—

M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous.

Michelle would have preferred a much stronger response that goes straight to the fallacy that underlies Moore's question.

It would not be my choice to sacrifice my child, you idiot. No parent makes that choice for their child. You can enlist in the army when you are 18 years old, an adult. An adult who makes his or her own choices. When you ask if I would sacrifice my child, you make it sound as if parents all across the U.S. are rounding up their young children and boarding them on planes bound for Iraq against their will. Maybe even dropping down them down a live volcano to plead with the Gods to bring peace to Iraq.

One of her commenters does make a good point that Moore's question is intellectually similar to "have you stopped beating your wife". In this light, I would have liked to have read O'Reilly saying, "I could no more send my adult child into combat than you could prevent your child from voluntarily enlisting, Mr. Moore."

Handy Storage Space

Reason: 10 Truths About Trade: Hard facts about offshoring, imports, and jobs

In particular, point 10 delineates why I always tune out whenever a candidate for president starts talking about what he would do to create jobs or when the president is credited/blamed for the latest change in employment numbers. There is a cycle to employment, with good years and bad years, and the best any president can do is make the low times slighter deeper or shallower.

What Do You Believe?

Matt Drudge provides a transcript of a debate between two people that represent what I don't like about their respective sides: Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly. I find both of them to be demagogic panderers to their respective bases, but they mostly stick to their topics here.

Seeing as how I dislike both equally, I feel that I could judge the exchanged in a balanced way. If I were the judge of a debate and had this exchange before me, then I would give the victory to O'Reilly. My decision comes from this exchange in which Moore admits to a major logical fallacy:

O: Ok, he says in his [Bob Woodward] book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?

M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.

M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th

O: Nobody disputes that

M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –

O: It wasn’t a lie

M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie

Moore, in this exchange, consistently hews to the position that because President Bush told us things that were not true, he therefore lied. However, from dictionary.com we get the following definition of lie:

lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

While the president's statements have been proven incorrect thus far by conditions on the ground, there has been no proof brought forward that he acted with the intent necessary for his statements to be lies. This does not mean that if President Bush stood up and said something to the effect of "the buck stops here", much like UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has, he would not gain a great deal of respect from me. Three reports: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Lord Butler in the UK, and the 9/11 commission; all say that President Bush and PM Blair were justified in their conclusions as to the presence of WMD in Iraq.

Essentially: the President was right to believe that Iraq had WMD although it thus far appears that the belief was not right.

Link via Andrew Sullivan

Excellent Contrast, As if There is Any

Virgina Postrel has provided her comments on Bill Clinton's speach last night at the Democratic National Convention. I refuse to watch either convention because infomercials bore me to tears.

Virginia quotes the following extract from Clinton's speach:

We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.

This nicely sums up my problem with both parties. So far as I am concerned, whatever job you are trying to accomplish, the federal government is the wrong tool. It is invariable that for any given program, there will be those who are not served well by it. As the federal government takes more control over aspects of the economy and social welfare, the greater number of programs will ensure that almost everyone will be ill served by at least one the said programs.

I Thought We Were Doing This Already

It took me a couple of days for the lightbulb for the lightbulb to go "bing!", but a conversation with my friend Drew brought this Scrappleface article reading (jokingly) about the 9/11 commission calling for the hiring of evil imaginative people in order to predict what terrorsists might do in the future.

If I recall correctly, either the CIA or the FBI enlisted a number of Hollywood screenwrtiters shortly after 9/11 to envision scenarios that might highlight security weaknesses. There was also the story of Tom Clancy being brought in by the CIA for debriefing shortly after "The Hunt for Red October" was published. I do remember for certain that the idea of a passenger jet being deliberately piloted into the Capital building (in the scenario it was during the State of the Union address) in Clancy's "Debt of Honor".

Some anecdotes I have heard have it that the CIA, back during the bad old days of the Cold War, did hire writers as consultants and analysts to look over a given situation and offer their conceptions as to the likely next steps to occur. The ability to encapsulate a broad range of variables involved in creating well structured, plausible story, is much the same as a  professional intelligence analyst, yet the writer would be able to approach the scenario without the institutional bias that would infect any full-time analyst.

One other point that can probably go without saying: weblogs must get picked over constantly by analysts and folks looking for fresh viewpoints of publicly available information. Additionally the weblogs coming out of Iraq, Iran, and other nations are street level views that the CIA has been criticized for lacking. I've referenced in the past that the true detail of a situation is best realized by a large number of independent viewpoints than attempting to make a single God-like overview.

A Good Start

Daniel Okrent, the public editor of the New York times, penned one of his twice-monthly articles. This one is entitled Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

His answer: Of course it is.

The New York Times requires registration, so I'll lift a couple of grafs here in case you don't care to register or head over to BugMeNot.com.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.

Mr. Okrent later goes on to ask:

Newspapers have the right to decide what's important and what's not. But their editors must also expect that some readers will think: "This does not represent me or my interests. In fact, it represents my enemy." So is it any wonder that the offended or befuddled reader might consider everything else in the paper - including, say, campaign coverage - suspicious as well?

I don't see how anyone could believe that it won't, although I think that the use of the word "enemy" in the mouth of the hypothetical opposition was far too strong. I am willing to allow that the New York Times is a hopelessly provincial in its outlook, falling into the stereotype that New York is the only place in the country that matters. That is fine with me, I can then take it as a good reason to ignore the Times as not really being relevant to me here in California.

Going back to the point about doubting the campaign coverage, an us and them attitude in such a homogeneous group is unavoidable. The reason that that is going to result in bias coming through the pages is that reporting can be really hard work. A person has to bring a great deal of enthusiasm to dig down into the information available, pursue information that isn't, and to cajole contacts to answer questions. What has to be understood in today's media, especially a place as influential as the NY Times, is that what is published can be very powerful. Powerful to the point where the careers of the subjects can be made or ruined or elections swung.

What I have come to realize about the New York Times (and this goes double for the LA Times) is that its reporters can not be trusted to bring as much enthusiasm to pursuing negative information about liberals/Democrats as they can about conservatives/Republicans. In a way it is understandable, no one wants to tear down the "good guys" while the "bad guys" should get what they deserve.

This leaves two options for the reporters of all stripes: maitain the discipline to pursue stories even if they go in directions that one might find dismaying, or acknowledge that one has a bias and will pursue stories that fit with one's worldview. I have lost faith in most media to do the first, and Mr. Okrent's article here is a good start toward coming clean via the second.

We Are in A War, Aren't We

The dear friend has made the point that if we had embedded reporters in the invasion of Normandy and if the footage could be broadcast that night across America, then the outcry to get our boys home would have been irresistable. Just imagine the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan as a live news feed or at minimum the lead of the evening news. An extra kicker is that the vast majority of the soldiers were draftees.

There is no comparison between the casualty rates of WWII, Viet Nam, and Iraq. The biggest change between these conflicts is that the cost of war was brought more and more immediately to the awareness of the American public. With that immediacy, the conviction necessary to carry on in war has been spread from the military and government onto the general populace. Given that power, a great deal of responsiblity falls upon the media. While I do not advocate general government cesnorship, the media must recognize the direct influence it has on the strategic considerations of morale of the military, public, and enemy. No amount of military power can achieve victory without the will to use it. The only hope that our foes have is that we as the people will come to believe that the fight is not worth the cost. Lord help us if we go the way of Spain and the Phillipines.

Meddling for Our Good

Take a look at this report regarding Medicare covering certain obesity treatments. I will allow that obesity does cause a great deal of health problems,  however the real issue for me is that this is going to give the Nanny State an excuse to regulate the diet of average Americans. Much like the cost of treating brain injuries lead to the call for mandatory helmet laws, we can expect to see legislation fairly soon.

I'd give it two months after the next Democratic administration takes office.

A Blogger by Any Other Name

For those of you who follow this blog on a regular basis, thank you. This post is just to let you know that I am only changing the handle that these posts are signed with. It is still Ted that is writing, but I have changed to Gamer to keep consistent with the signature I use on other folks's sites. And no worries about ID or privacy or anything, Ted is my nickname, and you would have to know me personally to work back to anything legal.

Putting Blogger to the Test

Just a quick post to try out this new comment system that Blogger has installed. Old posts won't be enabled retroactively, but feel free to open fire from here on out.

The comments don't seem to be working. It would be nice if there was a little window where one could actually type a comment, but this, being Blogger, means that I am getting what I paid for (nada).

Update: You may have noticed a major change in the format. In the process of trying to get the comments to work, I seriously fouled up my template. I recovered the code for blogrolling and sitemeter, but everything else needed to be scrapped. Fortunately, new templates were made available with the upgrade, and I find this layout much more agreeable.

Whatever Happened to...

The anthrax investigations? It was the big follow-up in the media to the attacks of 9/11 until it got bumped by the Enron scandal. I recall a fellow by the name of Steven Hatfill being described by Attorney General Ashcroft as a "person of interest". That had to be one of the most bizarre euphemisms ever created. I suppose "suspect" is just too close to an accusation, even though you can watch a two hour chase that started with a car jacking, and as soon as the guy is in the police car, he is only a "suspect".

Handy Storage Space

Between this site keeping links and the Google "Search this Site" tool, I am finding myself quite pleased with the ability to store data access.

Vivisimo Clustering Engine - 911 Demo

First Impression on the 9/11 Report

I have only done a small amount of reading of the 9-11 commission report via a Visisimo searchable. This site allows one to search for key words or to browse through a number of nested clusters. The link above will take you to paragraphs that include both Richard Clarke and strikes against Al-Qaeda camps. My first reaction is that all of the conversations and memos and whatnot are enough to fill the days of many people, and that any sound bite characterization is more than likely to be misleading. If I get the time and inclination, I'll risk the backache to sit here and read the whole thing.

Ah Ha! There's those Two Cents!

I have just finished reading Michele Catalano's morning ramble. No worries, Michele, everyting tied together quite well, despite the time crunch.

I keep getting an image in my head when I get to pondering the political goings-on.

Fade in: Interior, Roman Classical chamber, very late Roman Empire. Many men in togas sitting around debating noisily. One man (Emperor) in purple robes rises from a throne. Crowd stills.

Emperor: The information that the Vandals have crossed the Alps is insufficient to prove the fact. In addition, the raising of additional legions would only serve to increase the influence of General Flavius. Therefore, no further legions shall be raised.

Point made, I hope. That was cent #1.

Cent #2 is right close to #1. This habit much of the blogosphere and Big Media have of immediately casting any event in terms of Whom Does This Help or Hurt is narrowing our vision down so much that true threats are sneaking past. Allegations of timing for effect immediately take matters past Does this Help or Hurt the Country and straight to Does this Help/Hurt Rep/Dem?

Lord knows, I'm just as guilty. The first time I ever read the name Osama bin Ladin was when Clinton hit the Afghan training camps and the Sudanese aspirin factory with cruise missiles. Recall this was about the same time as Monica's testimony before Ken Starr. My first thought was, "Out of what second-rate James Bond script did they pull this guy out of?" The only thing a person needed to say to make a sly comment about it was "Wag the Dog". After 9/11, I recall my attitude back then and feel a stab of shame. What if I and everyone else had looked past the convenient political timing and saw OBL and al Qaida for what it really was. I won't say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened, but maybe things might have been different.

The Ingratitude of Nature

Sometimes you do your best for a group, and in return you get a stick in the eye, and just about everywhere else.

Link via Andrew Sullivan.

Forget the Warheads, Tell Me About the Missiles

I am having a fair bit of difficulty in accepting this story via A Small Victory regarding Iraqi Security forces having found three nuclear tipped missiles in a bunker under 6 meters of concrete.

Both US and Iraqi officials are denying the claim, and for the time being I am going to err to the pessimistic that the report is accurate. While everyone is dicussing the idea of the nuclear warheads, I would most certainly like more information about the missiles. Assuming that they do exist, what are their range and precision capabilities. If there are like the ones that Saddam's regime made a big show of destroying during the inspection (Sadr II's?), then we will have clear evidence that the Hussein regime went to great lengths to conceal a weapon system prohibited by the cease fire agreement.

Isn't It Interesting Anymore?

Checking around the newsites, I have only been able to find the Berger story on Fox and ABC, both well down on the page, the web equivalent of below the fold. To their credit, the New York Times does have a link on their homepage, but I think it might have more to do with their running the original story on page A16 of the print version yesterday.

Needless to say, all references to webpages were accurate at the time of this posting.

Oh, My Spinning Head

Joshua Marshal has posted his take on the situation regarding Sandy Berger. He does not directly address the allegation that Berger removed notes and documents from a secure archive. He instead questions the timing, insisting that it was contrived to divert attention away from the report of the 9/11 commission.

So it would seem that if one should discover alleged wrong doing in the form of manipulating evidence to be seen by a commission, then one should wait until the report tainted by the manipulated evidence is released? Now that the whiplash effect has subsided, I can kind of see the reasoning. The 9/11 commission has been such a political farce that the credibility of whatever report it comes up with will be close to nill anyway. What's a few missing documents between slavering packs of jackals friends anyway?
 
Link via Andrew Sullivan

See the Bias in Action

When a story like this comes out:

CNN.com - Federal probe targets Clinton's national security adviser - Jul 20, 2004

a person will immediately make a judgement that includes the credibility of the source. Credibility, especially when it is someone you really only know the name of, typically relies on the broadest of strokes, say Political Party.

Many in the blogosphere are already making noises that if it were a Republican who got caught doing this, then it would be getting the picture-on-the-homepage-of-CNN, as opposed to the freed Fillipino hostage. Given what I have seen of the major media track record, I would agree.

I am willing to bet that by next week we will not see any mention of this on any of the major news outlets (Fox excluded). Kind of like that joke Hillary Clinton made of Gandhi being the manager of a gas station in St. Louis.
 
Update: I have seen some rather unsettling questions about the precise mode in which Mr. Berger used his pants to remove the notes. Until I get definitive proof otherwise, I will stick with the idea that he used his pockets rather than the under the waste band and around the legs method a la Fawn Hall.

Sometimes You Can't Win For Winning

You'd think that finding a 182-carat diamond would qualify as good news. Apparently, finding one in Guinea tends to touch of a feeding frenzy of people looking for a cut. I would not be surprised if some of these "requests" were of the "or else" variety. The lesson: if you find a diamond the size of a potato, you can bet it all that it would be hot.

Now That's the Way to Make a Point

Some folks in Virginia are making use of their state's open carry laws as a way of reminding people about gun rights. Gotta see if California is one of the enlightened 21.

Yeah, right.

Paying Homage to the Master

I am just beginning my journey into serious writing, and if you would belittle my dream because I consider science fiction/fantasy serious writing, then begone.

Anyway, in the field of non-fiction in a coumn-ish format, I just can't do it better than Lileks. He sums up why this enemy is different from everyone other one we've had in fewer words than it takes me to intro them:

Our present enemy will nuke us as soon as they can, because it means heaven, period.

Did I mention that I'm building a shrine next to my computer? OK, so he'll be sharing it with Isaac Asimov (boycott I, Robot!) and Tom Clancy, but the thought is there.

A Good Response

Peggy Noonan wroate a response to the letter making the rounds of the blogosphere, including a stop on this humble board, about the idea that the electorate might choose Kerry over Bush out of a desire for a break from the war.

Ms. Noonan has been a supporter of the war effort for as far as I can recall (I really have to expand my reading). Her recognition of the long-term benefits of the Iraq invasion have always been focused on the benefits to the United States:

I do not feel America is right to attempt to help spread democracy in the world because it is our way and therefore the right way. Nor do I think America should attempt to encourage it because we are Western and feel everyone should be Western. Not everyone should be Western, and not everything we do as a culture, a people or an international force is right.

Rather, we have a national-security obligation to foster democracy in the world because democracy tends to be the most peaceful form of government. Democracies tend to be slower than dictatorships to take up arms, to cross borders and attempt to subdue neighbors, to fight wars. They are on balance less likely to wreak violence upon the world because democracies are composed of voters many of whom are parents, especially mothers, who do not wish to see their sons go to war. Democracy is not only idealistic, it is practical.

I always try to give recognition to people who can express my view better than I can, so thank you Ms. Noonan.

She continues on into the article with an analysis of what I'll call "War Fatigue", or perhaps an extrapolation from the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times,":

What I wrote about a few weeks ago was my fear that the American people have grown or are growing tired of the heightened drama of the times. Americans like drama in their lives--they like graduations and first jobs and prizes and the birth of a baby in the family; they like triathalons and great stories and local mysteries. They like movement and action on a personal level. But they do not want it on a historical level if they can avoid it. They don't want to send their sons, or daughters, off to war. They don't like that kind of excitement, or they don't like it for long. This is part of why we used to be called Isolationists. We weren't and aren't--we just have a bias for peace. Can that bias be overcome? Of course. Pearl Harbor overcame it. The Soviet desire to expand and impose communism overcame it. Sept. 11 did too.
Which gets us to Mr. Bush, and Mr. Kerry, and which of the two is likelier to make things historically boring again.

Ms. Noonan sees the problem for Bush as failing to use soft speach in addition to the big stick, almost to the point of taking an unseemly joy out of the war.

While she does have a point, I would say that another matter that needs to be attended to is that the people need to accomodate to the reality that the US government does not control everything that happens in the world. The expectation that the President can by fiat return the world to its original boring state has always been an illusion. The only reason that it lasted so long is that no one has called us on it. The illusion was so strong that it slumbered on through two terrorist bombings on our soil, one foreign contrived (WTC 1993), and the other home-grown (Oklahoma City, 1995).

Essentially, the issue in the upcoming election is who can do the most to create real peace for us and future generations. For the condidates, the problem is going to be that they may have to lead, to convince, a war weary populace to have the patience to carry through the tasks necesarry to acheive real peace rather than the ephemera of the previous twenty-five years.

Even Speaking as a Lifelong (Until Recently) Laker Fan...

The Heat got screwed.

Three players and a first round draft pick for this crybaby? Please!

A Perfectly Reasonable Position

This article by Mark Steyn deftly explains much of France's actions over the past three years in a single package: France is out for France.

So in 2003 they weren’t appeasing Saddam. On the matter of Islamic terrorists killing American office workers and American forces killing Iraqi psychopaths, they are equally insouciant. Let’s say the Islamists had long-range WMDs. If they nuked Montpelier (Vermont), M. Chirac would insist that Bush needed to get a strong Security Council resolution before responding. If they nuked Montpellier (France), Iraq would be a crater by lunchtime.

I realize that the world is and will be run by self-interest, no matter how enlightened one presumes to be. My hope for the world is that enlightened self-interest reigns, where the elightened part being that helping others live better is the best course in the long-term. When it comes to the United States vs. France, I'd say that the US does a better job approaching enlightenment than France does feigning it.

Link via Vodkapundit.

Handy Storage Space

I don't really have anything to say about this post:

Everyone got it wrong before 9/11
By Jeff Jacoby, 4/11/2004


Only that this blog thing really makes it easy to have your references available, even off-line.

The Guy Can't Catch a Break

I have been asked, "If you knew what you know now, would you have supported the war?" While I would have to give a grudging "no" at this point, I still find it to be a fundamentally unfair question.

The first point is that we all wish we could go back to some point in the past with the wisdom we have gathered through hard experience and avoid the actual hard experiences. President Bush was given a pretty bad set of intelligence, bad not in "not leading to the desired conclusion" sense but in the "this doesn't lead to any conclusion" sense. He had CIA reports ranging from "He has nothing" to "He'll attack any minute". Ultimately, the intelligence made the strongest case for "He is in violation of the '91 cease fire agreement." That intelligence came not only from the CIA, but from England, France, the UN, and dozens of other agencies. Hell, we even had Russia telling us that Saddam was planning attacks against the US.

After the war, no hard evidence has been found that Hussein was in violation of the cease fire (aside from the shooting at our planes, of course). I am still skeptical given that there are still large numbers of ammunition sites still to be searched, and even more clandestine storage facilities that we don't know about. The indications are growing stronger, however, that the information the president had, and thus the decision he made based upon it, was wrong. I believe that it would be far better for the President politically to step up and say, "I made the decision, and the buck stops here." He would get roasted by the Democrats and their allies, but it would be the equivalent of pulling the band-aid of quickly. It might even improve his numbers, look at what Janet Reno's mea culpa after Waco did for her.

So the President drank the Kool-Aid in the "The got the WMD box" as opposed to the other one. And he went on to sell that interepretation hard. If one has made the decision to send American soldiers off to war, then one had at least look like on is confident in the decision. The question still remains: Why take the more dangerous of the two positions? Letting things slide along with Iraq would have been easy.

I believe one reason why the President took the grimmer reading of the intelligence is that his political ass was being raked over the coals for not having been aggressive enough with the intelligence regarding the nineteen hijackers and their activities leading up to 9/11. There would be a cost for doing something and a cost for doing nothing, and the exact costs of either were far from clear. Up until 9/11, the assumed cost to the US for doing nothing was considered negligible. After 9/11, we have learned that that is not, and probably was not, true.

In the heat and noise of the 9/11 commission all of the warning signs of the attack were easier to pick out than a black sheep from a flock, yet no thought was given to any of the assessments, and I'm sure you could find a pile in some archive, that said that no terrorist groups were known to have the capabilities to attack within the United States. I would hesitate to say that the information we had beforehand about the 9/11 attacks were all that much better, or credible, than what we had on Iraq. And it is situations like this that make terms in office as President look like ads for Grecian Formula in reverse.

Iraq did or did not pose a threat to the United States. With what information he had, George Tenet went to the President and said, "Its a slamdunk." (from Bob Woodward's book on the subject) The President acted in what he saw as the best interests of the country. He may well have gotten it wrong. All I have left to say is "Thank God I don't have that job."

A Spoonful of Sugar

Scott Ott at ScrappleFace delivered a major scoop with LEAK: Planned Bush Speech to NAACP Revealed. Yeah, I know that for whatever amount of political courage/bull-headedness Bush has, he would never actually come out and say this type of thing.

Pity.

Battle Fatigue

Austin Bay, writing from Iraq, sent an e-mail to Instapundit in response to a number of writers who say that voting for Kerry would be like a necessary "breather" or "time-out" from the war. Read the whole thing, but here is what I see as the key graf:

"Time out" is a mirage of the chattering class. Credit Peggy's and Andrew's antennae for culling out the driving emotional angst behind the chatter. Hate to say it, but the call for "time out" Noonan fears may be another case of Baby Boomers who can't separate Hollywood war from the real thing. Hollywood wars end in a couple of hours. Real earthly hells have no intermission. In current GI lingo, "the enemy has a vote" (the enemy can exercise his will, and act). Take a break and the enemy votes. On 9/11 our enemy went to the polls. We were either going to work, eating breakfast, or lollygagging in bed.

I have written before that while the United States is the greatest power in the world, it is not the only power. The rest of the world does not exist merely as an echo chamber to reflect our actions back upon us. There are people who wish to influence, curb, and eventually destroy our power, and they have the free will to choose to take action. If we make a choice in this election because we are weary of the battle that we face, then we send the message that we are weary and that the best time to hit us will be while we try to rest.

There are some who say that we are in this war because of classic American Arrogance. I may grant that is so, but it would be far more arrogant to believe that we have the power to say "time out" and expect our enemies to just sit back on their haunches while we catch our breath.

The Utter Failure of the CIA

Glenn Reynolds has a chunk of links at Instapundit.com regarding the Niger unranium issue. Between this, Iraqi WMD, the Sudanese aspirin factory, and let's not forget the Chinese Embassy in Sarajevo being mistakenly targetted in that war, the CIA's credibility is currently zero. At this point, I wouldn't trust them for directions to the men's room.

The immediate problem: we as the US have no means left to gather intelligence that can be considered reliable. The CIA is supposed to be the eyes and ears of our foreign policy, and a person that can not trust his eyes is as good as blind.

Not a Pleasant Combination

1. The digestive system kindly redirects all of it contents to the nearest available exit.
2. Some of the fluids that I have put down included a super-caffeinated beverage that was able to deliver its payload prior to explusion. I won't name the beverage, let's leave it at that most of my friend says that I dew too much of it.
and 3. Reading a collection of short works inspired by Neil Gaiman's Sandman.

The end result: lying awake at 1:by-god-45 in the morning with really pretentious poetry based on the Endless running through my head. Normally I would seek to punish the little mutt that would come up with such doggerel, so I have decided to do so by checking up on the blogs I missed today.

That and to share the wealth of my happy state. Except for the poetry, that is, you may me strangers but you still deserve some consideration.

The Clock is Running

Any bets on how long it will take before someone makes the accusation that the Ken Lay indictment was timed to make it look as if Bush really does care about corporate fraud going into an election? I haven't been looking at any of the bigger blogs yet, so I may have already missed it.

Stop the Slaughter

It has occurred to me that the tale of the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs has a serious flaw to it. The foolish couuple, upon killing gthe goose, should have found gold, more gold than the two had seen in their entire lives. With that gold they should have left their hum drum little lives and lived like a lord and lady. The original ending should come around when they realize that their purse has a bottom, unlike the goose.

I came to this idea there has been a group of people in the last deacade or so who have killed their geese and gotten quite wealthy by it. I write of the CEOs and other executives who have run companies into the ground and jump with their golden parachutes just before impact.

If one looks at the various stories, a couple of themes emerge: living the high life on the company diame, and manipulating the stock price with accounting shenanigans. The first is just flat out theft, while the secong is theft by a more subtle method.

The only remedy I can suggest for the first case is to the share-holders: "Wake up!" There has come to be a mystique surrounding CEOs and other members of the MBA caste. What has been forgotten is that these executives are no less servants of a company than a butler would be the servant of a house. So keep an eye on them. (Not that I think that employees are by definition untrustworthy, but I have worked for companies where the execs. acted as if they were.)

The second case is where the execs. make everything look fine and dandy untile the house fall in on everyone. Some would say that this is the result of so many executives reimbursement being dependant on the price of the stock. Once upon a time, CEOs were paid ludicrous millions of dollars a year. It became fashionable among the left wing types to be able to rattle off how many times more the CEO earned than his average line worker. The huge numbers were vulgar, and they made easy targets of political opportunity. Eventually a law was passed that denied the tax exempt status of employee compensation to any one salary of over a million dollars a year.

So, instead of getting paid in cash, the idea was to pay them in stock options. Not only would it bea tax-free way of renumerating the honchos, it would tie their compensation to a clear measure of performance: the stock price.

Now, that worked for a while until some on the MBA caste did the math and realized just how stinkng rich they could become in one shot by inflating the stock price in the short term while damning the company in the long term.

The remedy? Give back the tax-break on salaries. We may see what some would call vulgar salaries, but it would be a much clearer gauge of performance. It would be much easier to say if a CEO is worth $15 million dollars a year than it is to say if he is worth 20 thousand shares at a strike price of thirty dollars a share maturing in nine months. It would also not pressuer said CEO to have the price high in nine months at the expense of the price of the stock two years after he leaves.

Topic for Discussion

(or, Pandering to the Comment Section)

I'll be away from the computer for most of the day today, so I leave you with a thought to leave a comment upon:

Since the advent of television, there has not been an administration as inept at handling the media as Bush #43. Discuss.

Now Why Didn't I Think of That?

In connection with this post below, I point you too:

ScrappleFace: Edwards Has Plan to 'Drive Up Cost of Doing Terrorism'

And here I was, being short sighted, limitting myself to the mere idea of having the cost of terrorism being death by GPS-guided high-explosive. Thank you, Mr. Ott, for having expanded my views on the subject.

File Under: Unintended Consequences

Everyone looks to the FCC and John Ashcroft when it comes to villains crushing free speech in America. Having jackbooted thugs break into your studio smashing pieces of art hasn't happened yet, but we may be coming close to small providers of media getting fined out of existence.

But what about getting sued out of existence in Civil Court?Instapundit.com gives us a great example of speech being self-censored for fear of huge lawsuits. In this case, companies have to become oppressive in order to protect themselves from the liability of maintaining a "sexually hostile" work environment.

Let's Hear it for the Home Team

The Iraqis are pissed, and they aren't going to take it anymore. They recognize the hand of the foreigners that have brought them suffering and humiliation. These guys are angry and they are taking the fight to the enemy: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

If nothing else, this at least shows that some Iraqis are picking up on the American way of "If no one else is going to get it done, then I will." At least I still think that is an American way.

Disclaimer for those who lack a sense of judgement: I am not advocating vigilantism in the United States. I am just very glad to see that there are people in Iraq who do not immediately blame the US as the sole responsibility holder for all of the bad things that happen in their world.

Someone Please Help This Man.

This must have been shot over a series of really bad days. Entitled Winnebago Man, it is the gripping documentary of a man in desperate need of a fifth of Jim Beam, a vacation, or, best yet, a new job.

Warning: The above movie contains strong language the way way a bag of manure contains crap.

Happy Fourth of July!

I just spent a very nice evening at my folk's place. The night ended with watching at least ten different pyrotechnical displays from their balcony. Here in California, anything that shoots over ten feet or so is illegal, so at lest 90% of the shows we were observing were non-municipality sanctioned events. The elevation of the balcony gave us a good view of everything shot off in about a five mile arc. We probably had a better view of what was going on that those people who were launching the illegals. All told: at least eight times the entertainment with none of the neck strain or liability.

Here's to hoping that all of you who celebrated the holiday had fun and kept all of your digits.

Spiderman 2: Your Humble Host's Review

I went to see Spiderman 2 yesterday (kind of sad that that needs to be said, but hey, at least I'm making a game effort at professionalism here) with a friend, and I have a couple of things to say about it. Point 1 is actually something in the back of my mind since the commercials started playing, so no spoiler there. Point 2 is a complete spoiler, so don't say I didn't warn you.

1. Peter Parker is always going on about how he can't clue the people he loves into the fact that he is Spiderman because it would endanger their lives. Yet, even in the commercials we have Dr. Octopus telling Peter to get Spiderman to a certain place at a certain time, because Peter is obviously the one person in all of New York with the most reliable contact with the hero. The penalty for failing to arrange the meeting? The stripping of Mary Jane's flesh from her bones. Therefore, we have Mary Jane Watson in danger from a villain trying to lure Spiderman out into the open. Granted it is a second hand threat, but that wouldn't make the flesh stripping any more pleasant.

2. SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT Stop reading now if you don't want to know how the movie ends.

Spiderman wins.

Moving on past the Well, D'uh! spoiler, the ending just set my scientific teeth on edge. The movie ends when the massive ball of fusion energy is plunged into the river (Hudson or East, I don't know, like it matters) because there is no technical way to stop the fusion once it becomes self-sustaining. Now, this is fusion, not fire, so dunking it in water will not put it out. If there were at least a little bit of techno-babble about the water cooling the fusion below a minimum energy threshold, then I could buy it. Well, that and a shot of millions of gallons of New York river water flashing to steam almost instantly, which the movie omitted. I've never been to New York, but from what I heard, that type of steam would not be what one could call springtime fresh.

Review in brief: The action scenes were great, better than the original in both spectacle and execution. Note to Mr. Raimey (Director): For Pete's Sake, please cut down on the romantic, Will-He-Tell-Her-Won't-He-Tell-Her, angst. We've got Smallville for that.

Alienating Friends and Allies

Sometimes one just has to look at one's behavior in public and come to grips that one's self-serving position is taking a toll. It's all well and good to act in the best interests of your nation, but not if all that is is knocking someone else down a peg or two.

From the Independant of the UK:

Britain has concluded that its three-nation alliance with France and Germany is in effect over after a series of rows between Tony Blair and the French President, Jacques Chirac.

Ministers believe President Chirac has become impossible to work with, and one government source described him as a "rogue elephant".

So, what's the French word for "Cowboy" again?

Link via Instapundit