The Age of Reasoning

I am now 50

2007-10-21T18:25:00.000-07:00

I am now 50.

AS you can see, I have changed the name of my blog. It will no longer be the ramblings of a naive rustic looking at a too too complex world.
I am, after all, one of the most educated and informed individuals that has ever lived.
As you are, of course. We have all received educations far better than that of Egyptian scribe or Greek philosopher, and an order of magnitude better than any farmer, slave, or warrior prior to the last 100 years.
We are also, however, at the same time the least knowledgable group in generations. There doesn't seem to be a single fact, from the teachings of Jesus to the nutritional value of wheat, that has not been challenged outright.
Worse still, the idea of the evidence-based fact has fallen out of favour. Counter-arguments for ideas like global warming, antidepressant overuse, and rule of law have devolved down to little more than "Oh, yeah? Well I say you're wrong! So there!"
No one offers any evidence. No one CARES about evidence! The Da Vinci Code sold a million copies after it was proved - actually proved - that much of the basic arguments were based on a half-century old fraud.
Today, instead of fact, we have credibility. Perceived credibility, I should say. Someone is telling the truth if you believe that someone is telling the truth. Evidence and proof be damned - if Rush says it, it must be true, and all the evidence against him have been fabricated by a conspiracy of anti-Rush lunatics.
Our own technology has turned against us. We now believe that all pictorial evidence that doesn't agree with our worldview comes out of George Lucas's special effects lab, and that all documents we hate were created by some nerd on his laptop.

In such a world like this, we are left with "truthiness" - the truth as confirmation of existing beliefs. And as we sort ourselves into small microcultures of like-minded internet chatterers, we isolate ourselves from our neighbours, our culture, and our national ideals.

The end of that path is balkanization - the breaking up of a nation into a thousand mini-nations.
I wonder which group will get the nukes?

I wonder if that group will believe that they can survive a nuclear war?

I wonder if that group will believe that God wants a nuclear war?

Islamic Fundamentalism a fundamental difficulty in fighting Polio

2006-10-07T12:07:00.000-07:00

Poliomyelitis, better known as polio, is a contagious viral disease that has been all but eliminated in most of the Western world thanks to a vaccine invented in the 50s by Jonas Salk. It has been eliminated in the First World, and almost eliminated in the Third World. India, one of the few countries where polio still kills children, reported just 66 cases of the disease last year, down from 1600 in 2002. This year, however, 325 cases have been reported already, 23 of them fatal.
Why? A few ultraconservative Muslim clerics are telling Muslims in the state of Uttar Pradesh that the polio vaccine is really a drug to sterilize Muslim children and lower the Muslim birth rate. 70% of those infected with polio this year are Muslim, even though Muslims account for only 13% of India's population. Dr Hamid Jafari, the regional advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO) on polio eradication, says "in certain places, fatwas have been issued against the vaccine."
Uttar Pradesh is a very poor region, and their hospitals and health services are marginal at best. All too many Muslims are able to believe that health workers, who ignore them otherwise, are not giving them medicine to fight polio, but to get rid of them.
This is not merely a problem for India. Genetic analysis shows that the Uttar Pradesh strain of polio has left India, and spread to at least three African countries - Angola, Namibia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – which are fighting their own strains of polio. In addition, the virus has re-infected two neighboring countries which were polio-free - Bangladesh and Nepal.

To stop the shooters

2006-10-03T22:30:00.000-07:00

The recent shooting in Montreal and in Pennsylvania display a fatal flaw in the Bush administration's plan to combat terror.
All of the wiretaps, all of the renditions, all the camps are based on one assumption - that the terrorists work in groups.
There is no strategy in place to deal with the lone bomber, the lone shootist.

There is a certain irony in the Republican's repeated claim that the Democrats are mired in a pre-9/11 world, and have not yet grasped the new face of the future.
The Republican War on Terror is right out of the 50s. It assumes a monolithic foe, organized though hidden, which must be ferretted out through intelligence efforts.
They fail to grasp both the ubiquitousness and the anonyminity of the Internet society.
Today's would be terrorist doesn't need an organization. He has Google to find him his firey rhetoric and his bomb-making plans. The little man in his mother's basement can shop for weapons online and have them delivered, can scope out his targets in real time using satellite pictures, and can do up his suicide note as a slide show presentation using PowerPoint.
If he's at all competent with computers, his keyboard can double as an intelligence agency, digging up the details he needs on security and vulnerability.
The day of the one man army is here.

The idea of limited war vs. total war has been talked about elsewhere. We are treating the War on Terror as a limited war right now. The military are off somewhere dealing with it - Go on about your business, citizens!
But the hallmark of total war is the absense of the civilian - everybody is a target, everyone must fight. That is what we need right now. Total war.
We need 100 million sets of eyes, watching those guys in their basements. We need to get out of our houses, meet our neighbours, set up watch programs. We need to know the people around us, if only so that we can spot the dangerous ones.
We need to become a village again, where everybody knows everybody else, and is willing to warn their neighbours if they see Joe coming out of his house with a lumpy bulge around his middle, carrying three guns.

When anyone can be a terrorist, it takes everyone to stop him.

Ban Ki-Moon of South Korea the new head of U.N.?

2006-10-02T17:29:00.000-07:00

South Korea's foreign minister, Ban Ki-Moon, will almost certainly become the new Secretary-General of the United Nations, replacing Kofi Annan.
He still must then go before the 192-country General Assembly, but this vote is almost always a "rubber stamp" of the Security Council's decision.
“It is quite clear that from today's straw poll that Minister Ban Ki-Moon is the candidate that the Security Council will recommend to the General Assembly,” China's UN Ambassador Wang Guangya said.
The 15 Security Council member countries each checked one of three boxes on a secret ballot for each candidate - “Encourage,” “discourage,” and “no opinion.” Mr. Ban received 14 votes in favour and one “no opinion” ballot. Every other candidate received at least one veto.
The United States has made it known in the past that it does not approve of the job that Kofi Annan has performed during his term of office. They appear to view Ban Ki-Moon more favorably.
“We're very pleased with the outcome here, very pleased,” U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said.

Lebanon Resolution to call for "calm".

2006-09-30T18:40:00.000-07:00

Members of la Francophonie yesterday voted for a resolution calling for hostilities to cease in Lebanon; a compromise decision after acrimonious debate on the original resolution. The original resolution, which would have condemned the attack on Lebanon by Israel, was opposed primarily by Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper, who asked that the body of French-speaking nations recognize the suffering of everyone involved. Lebanese Culture Minister Tarek Mitri stated that he would have referred a resolution more supportive of his country.

10th Canadian soldier dies in a month.

2006-09-30T18:32:00.000-07:00

A tenth Canadian soldier died yesterday as a result of stepping on a booby trap in Afghanistan. This is the highest toll among Canadian troops in combat since the Korean War.

Armed Coast Guard in Great Lakes are OK

2006-09-29T00:57:00.000-07:00

The arming of U.S. Coast Guard craft on the Great Lakes was authorized by both governments, stated a report released today. The agreement, made in 2003 as a result of the 9/11 attack, allows the Coast Guard to equip rubber craft with .30 caliber machine guns, in order to better enable them to prevent illegal border crossings. So long as they remain in U.S. waters, treaties dating back to the War of 1812 are not violated.

Too bad his name was Duane

2006-09-28T22:09:00.000-07:00

53-year-old Duane Morrison, a petty criminal who had been living inside his Jeep, walked inside a Bailey, Colorado school Wednesday with two handguns and a backpack that he claimed contained a bomb. A few hours later, after taking six female hostages and molesting them, he killed one of them, 16-year-old Emily Keyes, and then himself as policemen stormed the school.
Too bad his name wasn't Ahmed.
After all, America has a huge bureaucracy designed to deter men named Ahmed from killing Americans with suicide attacks. The President himself has said that America is safer because of what he and the Republican leadership have done since 9/11.Much of the current campaigning by Republican congressmen is about how they have gone to great lengths to make sure men named Abdul or Ahmed cannot commit such acts.
Yes, it's too bad the man's name was Duane.

Sex

2006-04-18T00:19:00.000-07:00

It all started with St. Augustine.
Back in 400 AD, this admitted sexual acrobat reformed. And, like many reformed sinners before and since, demonized his addiction.
And that is why Christianity, and, from that, America, hates sex.

Really hates sex.
Grand Theft Auto. You may have heard of that video game, how it made the news a while back. Do you remember why? Was it the fact that you stole cars, slapped people around and killed them?
Nope. It was because a hidden level let your male picture "do the nasty" with a female picture.
Sure. Stealing and killing are tolerable, but sex? Forget it.
Movies. You can see theft in a kid's movie. Graphic violence will earn you an "R" rating. But, for the real forbidden fruit, the "X" rating, you need . . . well, nudity. Not even sex - nudity!
Educators and law enforcement personnel are continually warning us that our culture is deteriorating. Well, what do they expect? We make love detestable and violence desireable.
James Bond can blast people by the score in his films, but the one time he marries, the poor woman has to die. Can't have him married, can we?
In fact, we can't even show him under the sheets. Bond is the perfect action hero - he only pretends to have sex, he only hints at it. But when he blows something up, you can see bodies go flying.
No wonder we're becoming nihilistic. No wonder the kids are shooting their schoolmates. That's all they know.
Why does the Christian Church have it in for sex, anyway? It tolerates and forgives theft and murder, despite the fact that two of the Ten Commandments expressly forbids these acts. No commandment makes sex forbidden, yet Christianity lashes out against it.
Just about everything Evangelicals are up in arms against these days is sex related. Homosexuality, abortion, . . . both aspects of sexuality.
You don't hear them railing against the violence in Darfur, let alone Bagdad. Violence can be forgiven, in a good cause. Sex can't.
The first command to mankind was to "be fruitful and multiply". If you believe that Da Vinci Code garbage, then even Jesus had sex. But Christians continue to ignore the Bible in favor of the teachings of that 5th Century reformed sex addict.
That needs to change.
It's time we got over our intolerance for intimacy. It's about time that we accepted that real men care about people, that they care for women, and that their lives are not confined to the overcharged automobile and the semi-automatic weapon.
That way lies death. Literally. For America, too.

Iran - The No Win Situation

2006-04-17T23:57:00.000-07:00

For years the anti-war crowd has warned about the possible fallout from the Iraq war.
Well, it would seem that Iran is that fallout.
Iran is a no-win situation for the US.
1) The US cannot just launch an airstrike. Sure, they might take out the nuclear plants, but what happens if Iran decides to strike back? Normally, they would not have a target, America being so far away and all. But, guess what's just a few miles over the border? That's right, it's the United States Army, along with civilian personnel, all trying to rebuild Iraq.
Now, normally, attacking the United States army would be suicidal. But remember - these troops have been tied up by terrorist bombs and activity for some time. The equipment needs maintenance, the troops need rotation.
For once, the outcome is not certain.
Iran could also strike east, into Afghanistan and against the troops stationed there. Any attempt to reinforce or extract those troops would be highly vulnerable.
2) The US cannot invade, either. They might win.
The United States government is going broke trying to put Iraq back together. What happens when it has to put two countries back on their feet?
3) The US cannot do nothing. Iran is inching closer and closer to nuclear capabilities, and statements by the Iranian government do not inspire the feeling that they might refuse to use them. It is already rumored that Iran is preparing a suicide force for a posible counterstrike. If that force is equipped with a nuclear weapon, . . .
4) The diplomatic route is all but closed, due to the actions of the Bush government over the last few years. Nobody will listen to a bully. Nobody wants to listen. Condi will not be able to defuse this problem, I'm afraid.
Most of the world has turned on the Bush government's heavy handed tactics. The US will find no help from anyone other than Great Britain (and, now, maybe Canada), and their military is not that big.

So, what's left?
Not much. No matter what decision America makes, things are going to turn out badly for them.
My worry is, what will happen back home? Will the Bush government try to blame all this on the liberals? Will liberals be herded into prisons, to shore up the neo-conservative position? Will America descend into totalitarianism?
I hope not. Only time will tell.
But it's happened before.

Lies.

2006-04-14T17:58:00.000-07:00

Our culture is based on lies.
Not on lies per se - not everything you hear is a lie - but on the idea that whatever you hear, no matter who the source, you probably think, or suspect, that what you've been told is a lie.

Advertising. Only a complete innocent believes the fashion ads today. Every one of them, from makeup to swimwear, is floated before you on some model's body with the unstated promise of "Wear this, and you'll look beautiful!" Right. First of all, that model with her 36" bust and airbrushed features would look beautiful if she was dressed like a bag lady and covered in oil. Your perfectly normal figure will never look like that. They lie to you.

From ads to books. Every generation has its Big Research Lie. Velikovski's Worlds in Collision. Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods. And today, The Da Vinci Code.
The book is pseudoscience from start to finish, but that hasn't stopped it from reaching the Top 10 lists. Sure, it's a lie. The people who read it know (I hope) it's a lie. But it's an entertaining lie. And people are fed up with trying to determine the truth anymore in science. Nutritionists tell you meat is bad, meat is good, and meat is unimportant - depending on whether they are paid by the Beef lobby, the Chicken lobby, or the Vegetarians. Scientists tell you global warming is real, and a hoax - again depending on whom they work for. The idea of scientists being idealistic seekers after truth vanished with the mad doctor. Today's scientist is a bottle washer who spends his day putting a drop of solution 55232 onto substrate 11965, recording what happens, and moving on to substrate 11966. The people on the podium are professional lecturers who read prepared statements. Pay them enough, and they will announce the air is fine while choking on each breath. They lie.

From books to news. In the last year or so we have seen no less than six major newsperson frauds. These people have made up facts, published them as truth, and been found out.
No less than six - and these are the ones we know about.

Where am I getting with this?
To today's polarized society, that's where. You see liberals and conservatives holding opposite opinions, neither able to convince the other, compromise, or even agree to disagree. Liberals wonder why conservatives can't see the truth, and conservatives wonder why liberals hate America. With one set of facts, why can't they reach a consensus?
It's because, when you think everything is a lie, you have to rely on faith.
Both sides take it for granted that the media is lying to them, that the scientists and newspeople and spokespeople are all paid shills saying what they're paid to say. With no credibility, there is no way to judge true from false.
So, both sides take sides. The Bush supporters hold that everything pro-Bush is true, and everything anti-Bush is lie. Liberals take the other side. Both sides simply ignore data that would disprove their side, simply assuming it to be a lie.
We now assume that everything we don't believe in is a lie.

And you cannot change a mindset like that.

And that is why liberals and conservatives will never reach an agreement.

Too much blogging is bad for your opinions.

2006-04-14T17:52:00.000-07:00

There is a problem with blogging every day.
Unless you are retired, or have made it your life's work - or you don't have a life - you lose perspective. You rush through the daily news and write down your snap opinion of those news stories - or maybe your opinion of another person's opinion - and you don't consider the big picture.

I've taken two weeks off from blogging in order to look at all the opinions, all the news, and all the background. The next few days will be spent, I hope, telling you what I have found.

Starting with the next entry.

Condi retracts

2006-04-01T16:47:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice said the United States made possibly "thousands" of tactical mistakes in the war against Iraq. "I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them, I'm sure," she said.
Today, Condi retracted that statement.
"First of all, I meant it figuratively, not literally," she said. "Let me be very clear about that. I wasn't sitting around counting. The point I was making to the questioner ... is that, of course, if you've ever made decisions, you've undoubtedly made mistakes. The important thing is to get the big strategic decisions right, and that I am confident that the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people an opportunity for peace and for democracy is the right decision."

Sad.
Either she's unable to make any statement deviating from the party line without a stern call from Washington telling her to get back out there in front of the cameras and retract,
or
She's unable to understand that the government is able to make literally thousands of tactical errors, and that it's OK to admit it. A more forthright government would have no problem admitting a few faults - it's the desperate and the corrupt ones that must project an image of infallibility.

Iraq will not be pacified.

2006-03-31T19:26:00.000-08:00

How do you stop a crime wave?
That, in a nutshell, is the problem facing the army in Iraq.
There is no organized army opposing them. No tanks to destroy, no foreign soil to occupy. The soil has already been occupied.
What they are facing are gangs going around kidnapping, shooting, and smashing things. The military has been thrown into the role of policemen - and they can't enforce the law.
No one enforces the law 100%, anywhere in the world. In New York, premiere city of the most advanced civilization of all time, the murder rate hits double digits before the New Years decorations come down. Hundreds of crimes are committed, and despite what the Law and Order franchise might lead you to believe, most go unsolved.
Why would Iraq be any different?
And why would the Bush government think that they might be able to end this crime wave?
If the troops are not going to come home until peace is achieved, then they'd better send for their wives. The kind of peace they're talking about has never been achieved. Anywhere.

Anti-Christian, Anti-American, Anti-Peace.

2006-03-24T19:12:00.000-08:00

It amazes me sometimes how anti-Christian the vocally pro-Christian Right can be - and how anti-American the presumably pro-American Right can be.

Two stories.
No doubt you have heard about the peace activists/hostages rescued this week. Well, both Little Green Footballs and Blogs for Bush have jumped on them for their "peace activism". Apparently, Turn the Other Cheek and Blessed are the Peacemakers are not in their vocabulary. In the case of BFB, the only solution to the war is kill all the Muslim leaders and convert all the arabs to Christianity. Only this way, he claims, will there ever be peace.
Well, what did Christ know, anyway. Right?

Second story.
The anti-homosexual pastor, the Reverend Fred Phelps , has just been attacked by the Right. Why? Has the right finally started reading the Constitution allowing freedom even for the gay?
Nope. They are down on Phelps because he has been attacking America's soldiers.
Around here, you have the right to freedom of expression only if you express the right things. The Right things.
Phelps gave up that right when he attacked the Pride of the Right.
The bloggers don't seem to get it, any more than the anti-ACLU group. In a free country, EVERYBODY gets a chance to speak, even - especially - if they are saying things you don't want to hear.
Thay's why the ACLU is always getting into trouble for defending the indefensible - because in a free country, even the indefensible gets a fair defense.
The right doesn't understand this. BFB even said "Using this example, I hope that all the lefty readers here will understand the similarity between Phelps' group and organizations like ANSWER and Code Pink." What, they're supposed to cheer because the right is attacking a target of the left? It's the attitude the left attacks, not the people.

But, when you believe that only war brings peace, then your only defense is to attack people.

What is a civil war, if not Iraq?

2006-03-19T18:11:00.000-08:00

The President of the United States, his VP, and his Secretary of Defense, all stated today that there is no civil war in Iraq. The President (?) of Iraq begged to differ.
"If this isn't a civil war, then what is?" he stated.

So what is a civil war?
Better yet, what is it not?

It is not necessarily a war where everybody is either on one side or the other, like the Korean War was. There have been many civil wars where the majority were neutrals trying to dodge bullets.
It is not necessarily limited to two sides. The war in The Congo had at least 17 armies struggling to take control of the country.
Most importantly, it is not tactics. A civil war doesn't have to be about tank battles, or ranks of riflemen. It can be a terrorist war, a shadow war.

I think Iraq is currently experiencing a civil war, no matter what the Bush government decide to call it.

Canada's Republican!

2006-03-17T20:44:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like the Republicans have finally gotten a Canadian Prime Minister they can find likable.
A few days ago, Steven Harper visited Afghanistan and gave a speech to the troops about "staying the course".
Today, Stephen Harper imposed central control over all information and comments to the public issued by government officials, and even cabinet ministers, telling them to have everything cleared by the Prime Minister's Office.

Sound like anybody we know?

The US Budget - $2.8 trillion!

2006-03-16T19:14:00.000-08:00

Fact - Conservatives are people who, among other things, stand for fiscal prudence and small government.
Fact - The Senate has just passed the Administration's 2.8 trillion dollar budget.
Hypothesis - The Bush Administration is about as conservative as I am Hindu.

Saddam using George's excuse?

2006-03-15T10:13:00.000-08:00

Saddam Hussein continues to try to turn his trial into a circus. He insists that the court has to authority to try him.
His major argument is hauntingly familiar.
"Where's the crime?" he says. He was leader of his country. Therefore all his actions were, by definition lawful.
This argument was used in Nuremburg.

And in Washington.

It is the core of President Bush's arguments concerning the warrantless wiretaps. He had the authority to circumvent the Constitution because he is the President.
I wonder if the same argument will come up when it is time to defend his policies on torture, renditions, and war.

The War of Ideas

2006-03-13T18:01:00.000-08:00

The reaction of the Right to the Feingold proposal is typical of them.
He is a traitor to America. He is helping the terrorists. He is posturing for votes.

Poor, poor Right.
Don't they know how much they are helping AlQaida with their attacks?

Terrorism is primarily a war of ideas.
Think about it. Territory is not captured, armies do not clash. Instead, two ways of thought collide in battle, vying for the support of the general populace.
And, yes, America is losing. Why? Because we are discrediting all our ideas, all our values, all our talking points.
How do you win a war when you smash your own guns?

The battle: Democracy vs. Tyranny.
On the face of it, America should win hands down. They tell everyone that in a democracy, people have rights, while in a dictatorship, only the leaders have rights. In a democracy, dissenting voices are heard, while in a dictatorship, only the voice of the government is allowed. In a democracy, leaders are accountable, while in a dictatorship, leaders get away with murder. America trumpets these ideas to try to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.
And then?
And then protesters at official functions are made to stay in fenced off areas, away from everyone else. And then laws are passed that let private property be seized by the State under Eminent Domain. And then right wing bloggers announce that the President doesn't have to answer for his actions, because we are at war. And then the vice-president shoots someone in the face, but doesn't get arrested. And then a movement starts to remove a senator from office because he requested a motion to censure the president.
And then the average Iraqi watches these things, and thinks "They say one thing, but that is not what they really believe." And the battle is lost.

The Battle: Christianity vs. Islam.
A harder battle to win, this, because Islam has the home advantage. Still, you would think that America and Christianity have several talking points. Christians believe in love over hate, friendship over fear. They beat their swords into plowshares, forgive their enemies. The parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Widow's Mite, all paint an inviting picture.
And it's the same God.
Where mullahs call for endless war and hate, ministers call for endless help for the poor and suffering. All and all, it looks like a slam dunk for Christianity.
And then?
And then Pat Robertson calls for an assassination. And then right wing bloggers start using words like "Islamofascist", "raghead", and "wiping out the false religion". And then Christians start excusing torture, denying science, and demanding obedience to their strict lifestyle.
And then the average Iraqi, seeing this, thinks "They are not what they say they are. They do not believe what they say they believe. By their own standards, they are damned."
And the terrorists win.

And it goes on and on. The latest battle, Senator Feingold, is a good example.
It doesn't matter whether the motion is right, whether it is traitorous, whether it is intelligent.
In a democracy, he has a right to say it, and others have a right to listen.
Mind control is the mark of the tyrant. A tyrant allows only one opinion - the one that favors him. Only in a democracy are you allowed to say crazy or unpopular things.
Look at the Cartoon scandal. Someone drew something that offended the powers that be in the Middle East, and the result was riot. America proudly places itself above such things - and then? The government expresses outrage over a Tom Toles cartoon. Newspapers regularly suppress comic strips that carry controversial content, even when they appear in family comics like For Better Or For Worse, or ultrapopular comics like Doonesbury.

The technical term for someone who preaches one thing and practices another is hypocrisy.
The title of hypocrite is not bestowed lightly. It doesn't apply to a backslider - sinner, or weakling is the usual term in those cases. No, hypocrite is reserved for those who knowingly, deliberately, and willingly ignore the ethics they demand from those around them.
Once gained, it is difficult to live down.
As the Right is about to learn. Again.

Dealing with Influenza

2006-03-11T19:17:00.000-08:00

I've missed a few posts, it seems. Sorry, but I've been busy.
In my other identity as a nurse in a retirement home, I've been dealing with a flu outbreak - a variant of the Norwalk virus.
For this of you who still think that the flu is something like those commercials you see on TV, where Mom gives her sad little tot a spoonful of whatever product is being touted, here's a synopsis of my day.

- 83 year old woman, diabetic, hasn't kept anything down for over a day. Blood sugar now around 2. Semi-conscious, tongue lolling, struggling weakly while we rub her face with a cold towel and yell at her to wake up and take some of the liquid glucose we're trying to get into her before she bottoms out and dies.
- I give meds to 60 people. I then check blood sugars and take temperatures. Then I give out more medications. Then I start all over. I give out lots of Imodium and Gatorade, the first to stop the flow, and the second to replace the fluids and electrolytes.
- 77 year old woman, too tired from her last three trips to the bathroom, lies in a pool of her own diarrhea. She is mortified as a man strips off her nightgown, but the worker needs help, and we still have to strip the bed before we can go on.
- I also have to check the dressings on the five or six people who fell on the way to the bathroom. When you're 80, your skin tears like tissue paper. I smile my way through a five-minute-per-person procedure, hoping to get done in time for the next round.
- The nursing staff is down to four, to cover three 8 hour shifts per day, every day. I swig gatorade to keep going, and tell anyone who'll listen that when this is over I'm coming to work in my Superman jersey. Cape and all.
- More people coming down with it. Vomiting and diarrhea - it flows from both ends. We have to wear gowns and gloves. Ever try doing something wearing plastic gloves? The fingers are just a little too long, so there's a bubble of air at the end - just enough to throw off your dexterity.
- I have very little sense of smell. I try not to mention it to people - around here, it generates too much envy. However, even I can smell this place now. I pity the others.

When the bird flu gets here, it will be like this, only people will likely die, too.
I go back tomorrow. Have a nice day.

Bush never wrong?

2006-03-09T18:22:00.000-08:00

In recent days, my perusal of the right wing blogs has pressed home an important point.
To them, Bush can do no wrong.
From Blogs for Bush, on the Dubai decision:
"Some of our liberal and leftwing friends here on Blogs for Bush have absurdly claimed that it was all President Bush's fault. The idea here is that since President Bush has been running on anti-Arab hatred for five years, he has no one but himself to blame for the American people turning against the DPW deal. This is silly - indeed, one complaint that many conservatives have with President Bush is that he's been too solicitous of Arab sensibilities since 9/11."
- on the Abramoff scandal:
"Lost in all of the rhetoric about Abramoff is the fact that his lobbying and donation activities were all perfectly legal - where he broke the law was in his dealings with his clients. Unfortunately, in the Democrats desire to campaign on anything other than what they believe, we get attempted smears of GOPers who have done nothing wrong."
- on stopping leaks from within the administration:
"We must stop un-elected bureaucrats selectively leaking information to undermine Administration policy. The honorable thing for any disgrunted bureaucrat to do is to resign and go public with their dissent from Administration policy - but they don't want to give up their jobs. They want to stop things, but they don't want to put themselves at risk...so, they leak it to the press, who then shield them from the prosecution they deserve for illegally releasing information. Time to add the element of risk - secretly leak information that you shouldn't, go to jail. "
- on the Katrina video:
"Ah, well - I guess it doesn't matter. The primary failure was Nagin, the secondary failure was Blanco - and the one government official who acted correctly upon the information at any given time was President Bush. "

So, no matter what he does, it's either a plot by the MSM/Democrats, or someone else's fault, or no big deal.
I swear, the man could nuke Atlanta, and the Right would make it sound like Atlanta had it coming!
Is it that difficult to see, to admit, that he's occasionally wrong?

Father and Daughter

2006-03-07T19:08:00.000-08:00

This came off the internet.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, A feeling she openly expressed.
Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to highertaxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’treally have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easyclasses, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s Office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
“Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Almost right.
If they included the fact that the daughter got a lot of her GPA from her father, then maybe . . .

The Alamo

2006-03-06T18:35:00.000-08:00

Today is the anniversary of the fall of The Alamo.
Remember it?
A bunch of Texans defied everybody - The US, the Mexicans, everybody - and died trying to live the way they wanted.

I wonder how many would do the same today?

Home schooling and the Travis Frey Example

2006-03-05T16:29:00.000-08:00

I was having a little discussion over at Blogs for Bush about home schooling vs. public schooling. I urged them not to give up on the public system, because it allows our children to socialize and learn proper behavior.
I was trying to come up with an example to use, when up popped Travis Frey. He is a man currently under arrest for rape and abuse of his wife. The thing that sets this case apart from all the others is the contract that he drew up for his wife - apparently the rape and abuse was a non-compliance penalty. Read the contract he drew up for his wife, over at thesmokinggun.com.

Then think. The man has sons. If they are home-schooled, will they not learn how to act in their marriages from their father?

Dealing with what the Patriot Act reveals

2006-03-04T18:06:00.000-08:00

Well, the Patriot Act has passed.
So what?

I mean it. So what?
Suppose the next wiretap contains the message "We send the first suicide bombers over the Mexican border tonight."
Do you think the government would be able to stop those bombers? Hundreds flood over that border every year. Even the Minutemen are overwhelmed.
What good is it to know what the enemy is going to do, if you can't do anything about it?
It's like an old Get Smart episode. "OK, Chief, I can see him now. He's at the window. He loading a rocket launcher. He's moving to his window. He's leaning out. He's aiming at . . . my . . . window . . .

Then there's the Katrina tape. Move past all the accusations and justifications, and you get a government that's far too blase about things. "Just overlapping, not breaching? OK, I guess we can sleep easy." What, Mr. President, you didn't think you should monitor the situation until it was over? You didn't think to have someone do it for you, and keep you posted?
It's called asleep at the switch, Mr. President, and as you keep telling us in your speeches, we must remain vigilant.
What happens if someone calls in the middle of the night, saying they've just intercepted a suspicious call that named Chicago? Do you swing into action, alert the city and FEMA and anyone else you think might help?
Or do you roll over and go back to sleep?

Again, I say, so what?
What good is a Patriot Act if you can't use it?

Dubai and Iraq - the Double Standard

2006-03-04T17:06:00.000-08:00

I think that the real cause of all the controversy over the Dubai deal can be summed up in two words.
Double Standard.

Suppose you had evidence that another country gave direct aid to the 9/11 hijackers.
Would you invade the country, and depose the villains responsible for the aid?
Or would you honor long-standing treaties and alliances, continue to work with them towards an end to terrorism, and allow one of its companies to run some of your seaports?

How many of you said both? Uh-huh.

Suppose you had two countries, one of which had been an ally for pretty much a century, was the source of most of your early colonists, your law, culture, and ethics,
and another who has only financial ties to your country, whose people almost certainly want your country and its culture eradicated, and whose leaders see you more as a fat purse than as a friend.

How many of you would consider them to be exactly alike? Uh-huh.

The Bush government has been pushing the 9/11 button for years. They have issued colored warnings, used it in rally after rally, justified illegal wiretaps and torture with it.
The whole 9/11 message consists of "There are nations out there that want to destroy us. We must do whatever we must to survive."
The ports deal message consists of "Being a nation that wants to destroy us is no big deal. We can still do business, even business that affects the security of our borders."

Double Standard.

2006-03-03T10:19:00.000-08:00

Well, I gave them a few extra hours, just to let the latecomers log in.
Here’s the right-wing poop on the Katrina video.
Blogs for Bush –
“Huh? The White House calls and specifically asks about the levees, Governor Blanco says no problem as of yet...and President Bush is at fault for a slow response? What was he supposed to do? Tell the governor that he's going to act as if the levees were broken even though the governor - who presumably had better on-the-ground info than the President - just told him that they didn't have knowledge of broken levees at that point?”
Right Wing News –
“The article doesn't really inquire too deeply about why Katheleen Blanco refused federal help, or why she didn't order a mandatory evacuation. Or why Mayor Nagin didn't have his police round up stragglers and put them on to all those buses waiting in New Orleans parking lots.
FEMA is an emergency management organization, which generally comes in after a disaster. Pre-disaster work is still supposed to be done by local authorities.
Who didn't.
But of course it's Bush's fault. After all-- he was warned the levees might be breached!
Power Line –
“The AP says the transcripts show that Bush was "worried" about the levees failing. But the quote they cite is after Katrina hit, and after levee failures had been reported. This obviously has nothing to do with what was anticipated before the fact. What, then, is the AP's basis for saying that "federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees..."? Here is the only support for that claim in the article:
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
But this has nothing to do with the levees breaching; it has to do with them being overtopped--a much less dangerous threat. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there has been endless discussion about the difference between breaching and overtopping. If these AP reporters, Margaret Ebrahim and John Solomon, really don't know the difference, they have no business reporting on Katrina.
The real question, it seems to me, is one on which the AP article (and, as far as we know, the documents and video footage it is based on) sheds no light: how well prepared were the various local, state and federal agencies, and what was the quality of their response?
The AP article is fatally compromised by its factual errors, and adds nothing to our understanding of the issues surrounding Hurricane Katrina. It also raises an important point about the leaks that form the basis for many news stories these days. The AP took what appears to have been a substantial quantity of leaked material, and turned it into a brief against the Bush administration. Whether the documents themselves contain anything noteworthy, and whether, on balance, they support the AP's tendentious interpretation, is impossible to tell. In view of the fact that no one trusts the AP, the New York Times and other news outlets who make use of leaked documents and other materials to report on them objectively, here is a modest proposal: let us see them. If the AP will release the leaked materials, the rest of us will quickly figure out what significance, if any, they have.”
Captain’s Quarters –
“The media got it wrong yet again on Katrina. The notion that the experts warned of levee breaches is nothing more than a hack job initiated by the AP and continued by the rest of the Exempt Media even after the source material has proven it false.”
Little Green Footballs –
“The Amazing President Bush Katrina Tapes are the latest here-today, gone-tomorrow controversy du jour cooked up by mainstream media, and Wizbang notes the Rathergate connection.”

Nothing from Andrew Sullivan, Hugh Hewett, or Michelle Malkin.

So? Judge for yourself.

The Katrina Video Excuses Award - part 1

2006-03-01T18:14:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, I shall have fun.
Tomorrow, I shall go to all the right-wing blogs I know, and check out all the explanations and excuses for the Katrina video.
There won't be many, of course. I have noticed the right tends to concentrate on crowing about their victories and ignoring their problems. But there will be some.
I will copy the best for your perusal.
I expect to see the following:
"Bush was misinformed by Brownie. He thought Brownie was doing a heck of a job, when really Brownie was dropping the ball!" If they can also somehow dodge the fact that the Bush administration appointed Brownie to a post he didn't know how to handle, then the defense might work. Which leads us to wonder - how many other incompetents have the Bush government appointed, waiting for their mistakes to catch up with them?
"The video was faked. Isn't it amazing how it took all this time to come to light! That proves that the liberals created it to discredit the president." Too bad the guys who rob liquor stores don't have these guys as attorneys - a video of them pointing a gun turns up, and suddenly it's plea-bargain time. Not for the right, though. I can just see them going up to a judge and saying "The store owner has it in for my client, your honor! He faked this video in order to rob his own store and smear my client, whom the owner hates, and whom the police also hate."

I'll wait and see what other excuses come out. Tune in tomorrow.

The Patriot Act is renewed

2006-03-01T17:31:00.000-08:00

"Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead," said Senator Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, today.
Best declaration of tyranny in the country to date.
Civil liberties are the things you give your life for, Senator.
Civil liberties are why hundreds of US troops are dead, in a country halfway around the world, surrounded by hidden enemies and pseudo-allies, none of whom he or she ever understood.
Civil liberties are the things my father's generation fought and died for, in Europe and the Pacific.

We are, of course, talking about the renewal of the Patriot Act, that hideously spin-doctor named piece of legislation that essentially says that a career bureaucrat can do whatever he wants, so long as he can justify it as a part of the war on . . . sorry, The Long War.
Jim Bunning, naturally, does not fear the Patriot Act - not because he is a patriot, but because he is a Bush supporter. I'm sure that, should a Democrat government be elected, he will vigorously campaign for the repeal of the Act, accusing the government of using the powers granted by the Act for partisan purposes. But for now, he and his colleagues have a home field advantage.
I am a libertarian leaning conservative, and I don't need the government looking over my shoulder. The system of law allows for warrants given probable cause. We don't need more than that.

Civil liberties may not mean much when you're dead, Senator, . . . but they mean everything when you're alive.

The opinions of the dying

2006-02-28T18:04:00.000-08:00

As a nurse, I look after a lot of terminally ill patients.
It's remarkable how imminent death focuses your attention.
They stop watching the news. They don't know anyone in Iraq, and they don't care what's happening over there, or over here, or to anyone they don't know.
They stop watching television, mostly. They watch the Olympics, and the occasional favorite movie, but they won't watch series. Soaps are out - they no longer care who Erica is sleeping with, and suspect they'll die before the pair break up. American Idol is also out - same reason.
They no longer care about politics. The next election may as well be in the next century, as far as they're concerned, and as far as the glacial speed of legislation is concerned, well, the status quo will last longer than they will.
They no longer care about money. If it runs out, what? Throw a dying woman out into the cold?

They do care about family, friends, favorite staff members, and visitors. They give out gifts just to see someone smile.
Most are VERY religious. Not Pat Robertson religious - they couldn't care less what gays do or who has an abortion - but they care about their relationship to God, and whether they have lived up to their responsibilities to Him.
That's how they put it - their RESPONSIBILITIES to Him. You don't hear much about responsibilities from people who expect to be alive next month. But when you're dying, you think about it.

Maybe if we all thought about it more, we would have a slightly better world to live in.

Mark Danner on American politics today

2006-02-28T07:42:00.000-08:00

Journalist Mark Danner, on current events. A few excerpts you should read.

“That leads me to a conclusion I came to then: that in many stories it's not the information, it's the politics. It's not that we were lacking information. It's that, when that information came out, it was denied and those in power were able to impose their view of reality. Political power decided what reality was, despite clear information to the contrary. When I look at our time I see that phenomenon writ large. It's gone way beyond a massacre in a relatively obscure Central American country. It's gone to policies and statements that led the United States to invade a country that had not attacked us, to torture prisoners and deny we're doing it even when clear evidence says that we are, to domestic spying in which the government is clearly breaking the law and the president declares that he will continue to do so. In all these cases, it's not the information, it's the politics. This is a hard thing for journalists to admit because the model of journalistic behavior in our era is Watergate. It's very hard for journalists to come to grips with the reality that wrongdoing can indeed be exposed, and continue to be exposed again and again with no result, in a kind of tortuous eternal return.”

“There's been an interesting ambivalence in the administration when it comes to all these actions they've taken in the name of national security -- between the impulse to deny and stonewall and the impulse to come forward and very boldly assert that they took such actions in the name of national security. You see it in eavesdropping, where Karl Rove has clearly indicated a preference for declaring, in a very clever response to the NSA revelation, "If al-Qaida is talking to someone in the United States we want to know about it. Apparently some Democrats don't." Which is basically to say: If you're concerned about this, you're weakening the United States. All this human rights, Fourth Amendment stuff is so much hooey.”
“In essence, this is an assault on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution because the framers understood that a lot of these rights, especially when under pressure in wartime, are not particularly popular. So they were put in permanently, so as not to be subject to majority control or majority abnegation. It's politics of the most savagely bare-knuckle and dangerous kind when you use that gap between the country's precepts as embodied in the Constitution and the fact that many of these become unpopular in time of war to destroy your political opponents, which is what this administration does.”
“Today in the New York Times, there was a striking report about the steady upsurge in the number of attacks since the beginning of the insurgency. This has been inexorable, which shows that the insurgency is growing more formidable, despite all these reports about American and Iraqi successes in the war. That story appeared on Page A12 of the New York Times. It wasn't even news. Accompanying it was a piece about the failure of infrastructure in Iraq. Though the United States has put roughly $16 billion of American money into the Iraqi infrastructure, the number of hours of average electricity available to an inhabitant of Baghdad has gone from 24 hours to 4. All the figures on infrastructure point downward, so that if you're an Iraqi, you have seen your standard of living steadily decline under the Americans even as you now have a much greater chance of being kidnapped or killed or blown up in an explosion or having your children kidnapped. Very little of this gets through to Americans.”

“I think it's widely known at the top of the administration that Iraq is a failure. It's also been recognized by many that, in strategic terms, the Iraq war could turn out to be a catastrophe because it's essentially created a Shia Islamist government sympathetic to Iran and, among other things, made it impossible for the U.S. to adequately pressure Iran on the nuclear issue. The result of this occupation is going to be a reversal of 50 years of American policy in the Gulf, which has been a reliance on the Sunni autocracies in the area. That policy had an awful lot wrong with it; its support of those autocracies over many decades certainly helped lead to al-Qaida and its epigones. The fact is, though, that the Bush administration has essentially overthrown that policy with nothing to put in its place.”

You can read the whole thing in Salon.com or TomDispatch.com.

Dubai again.

2006-02-27T18:31:00.000-08:00

Well, Dubai is still in the news. The Republicans are right - ownership of the ports by an overseas company isn't going to mean wide-open portals for terrorists. The people at the dock level will still be the same people who have been there for the last few years, and I'm sure they will be the first to blow the whistle if orders come down from on-high saying "Let containers with the letters "BOOM" pass through without examination.
Having said that, the UAE have connections to Al-Qaida that are at least as firm as the ones America used to justify invading Iraq. I'm not saying that we should bomb the place, but out of a score of other possible companies willing and able to do the job, hiring this one seems a little suspect. It summons up memories of the close ties the UAE have with the Bush family, summons up suspicions of closet deals and hands washing each other.
Most of all, it summons up the idea that the Bush government is just playing with us. As in, terror levels are fine for election campaigns and discrediting liberals, but heaven forbid they be allowed to interfere with a Bush making a buck.

New Rule, part 2

2006-02-24T18:51:00.000-08:00

More examples.
If you believe that addictive drugs must all be banned, and remain banned, then you must also support banning alcohol and nicotine. No more booze, no more cigarettes.
If you compare AIDS from dirty needles to liver disease, then alcohol kills more people each year than all the opiates combined. Crime? Does vehicular homicide count?
Throw in the lung cancers that smoke, and second hand smoke, cause each year, and you'll see that the coca and poppy crops are a distant third to tobacco in the Bane of Mankind race.
The only things that keeps tobacco and alcohol possession out of the law books are the corporations that profit from their sales. If profits are a suitable reason to keep a drug lawfully on the market, then surely the crack sales alone justify legalization.
But if you think the damage narcotics do to our society require them to be banned, then you can't allow a couple to remain available just because American companies refuse to grow something else.
Finally, if you believe in the free market, then you must allow the sales of everything. You have to believe that the power of the free market will protect the people from porn and poison. You have to let the internet provider censor chinese sites, and let the foreign company work your ports. To do otherwise is to admit that corporations are run by people, who are occasionally stupid, crooked, or murderous, and to admit that the free market needs a watchdog to keep the rats out.

A Bill Maher Tribute - the new rule for the day.

2006-02-23T17:19:00.000-08:00

In honor of Bill Maher's return, a new rule. New rule, people.
No more cherrypicking political stances. If you are against something on principle, you are against all the permutations, instances, and extrapolations thereof.
So, if you are pro-life, you must also be anti-death penalty, and anti-war. All three kill people. You can't go around saying that this one's a menace to society, or those people need to be killed in order to protect ourselves, but abortion is just about the non-mother-to-be's convenience. It's all about convenience. We kill that serial killer so that we can save a little money on guard salaries and a lifetime supply of prison chow. We kill those terrorists so that we can go out to dinner without paying for a bomb-sniffing dog and carrying small arms in her purse.
If you're against death, you're against all death. Period.
Another example. If you're against government spending, you're against all government spending, not just the purchases you don't believe in. Whether it's education or the military, it must all be cut back. That's because every bit of spending is important to somebody. Even bridges in Alaska have their proponents. Somebody's going to drive on that bridge, someday.
Nope. If you want cutbacks, everything loses the fat.
Last example for now. If you are against terrorists, terror states, and those who aid terrorists, then you are against all of them - not just the ones you aren't doing business with this week.
You aren't allowed to invade a country because its leader might have helped some terrorists once, and justify it at least once a week, then turn around and give a different group that might have helped the same terrorists once, a job running the country's ports.
It's poor reasoning, and we aren't going to tolerate it anymore. Saddam used to be our friend, too, remember. It's time for people to put their money where their principles are. No compromising with terror means that if you help a terrorist, you don't get a plum US government contract. No matter who you know.

Reason #224 to have more kids - To help take care of Granny!

2006-02-22T22:32:00.000-08:00

Anyone who works in the health care field knows the meaning of the phrase "granny dumping".
It means that when people get so old that they are inconveniencing their boomer offspring, then it's time to put them into a facility.
For some, it means having them checked into a hospital suffering from "something", so that the rest of the family can go to Disney World.
Well, folks, get ready to kiss that phrase goodbye.
There are not going to be enough health care workers in the next generation to handle the boomers when they retire. And, being the whiney, self-obsessed people that they (mostly) are, they aren't going to go to their graves second class. They have saved for their retirement, and they are going to want a five-star facility.
And if they don't get it, they aren't going to leave home.
Getting the picture, Gen-X? Better break open the history books and brush up on the extended family lifestyle, because whatever cash will be left in this country is going to be in the RRSPs of a bunch of old farts who are going to want their Depends changed RIGHT NOW - and who are going to be in charge of the mortgage payments.
Yes, sir. No dumping for you people - only the completely helpless who need mechanical lifts to get out of bed in the morning, will be going to facilities. The rest will be at home - probably YOUR home - getting one visit per day from an overworked home care nurse, who will have enough time to check her pulse and pour her medications. The diaper changes will be up to you - and whatever offspring you can compel to help out.
So, start breeding now, kids, and don't spare the rod. In about 20 years, you're going to need a housefull of strong, obedient children, to keep your lives from becoming a living hell.

The Boomer Legacy

2006-02-22T21:07:00.000-08:00

We have become a selfish and complacent culture.
This is the legacy of the Baby Boomers - the post war explosion of children born between 1946 and 1964. The "me first" generation. They were the 20 year olds of the 60's, and now they are the 60 year olds - the CEOs and politicians - of our age.
Will we survive them?
Now aged between 42 and 60, the Boomers are in their golden age. They are the leaders, the experts, the grey eminences. They are the judges, the professors, and the senators.
Look at what they are doing.
Ours is the most lawsuit-happy culture ever. People are suing paramedics for not rescuing them properly, drug companies for overdoses, gunmakers for shootings. One man is suing professional magicians because they will not reveal their secrets to him. Nothing is our fault anymore. To millions of people, an accident is always someone's fault, and an error in judgment we commit is always someone else's fault.
Ours is the most selfish culture in history. We want what we want, and we aren't about to change just because there's a war on, or the global ecology is being destroyed or something. Our attitude is that "Nothing's wrong with the oxygen supply - I'm still breathing!"
This goes for our corporate culture as well. So long as the profits are coming in, we don't need to change. Facts? So long as they agree with my viewpoint, they're welcome. If someone says we need to change, fire him. And if the corporation collapses, get out with all the money you can, demand that the government bail out stockholders, and blame it all on foreigners.
We are also the most complacent culture since the fall of Rome. Vote? You can't even get most boomers to put their litter in trashcans. We look at our problems and, instead of solutions, we play the lottery in to hopes that we can win enough to move someplace that doesn't have problems - or that has built a fence to keep the world outside.
The previous generation sent men to the moon. The boomers? They want NASA cut back, and the money given back to them so that they can buy the latest X-box game. If they could, they'd cut out the army, too, and sue any attacking army for inconveniencing them.
Finally, the boomers have produced the most arrogant of all cultures. A look at most boomer blogs tells you one thing - they are right, and anybody who doesn't agree with them doesn't deserve courtesy. We swear as punctuation now. We give other drivers the finger, ignore our neighbor, and wonder why our fathers used to call anyone "sir". As if anyone could be more worthy of recognition as me!
Our TV shows and movies are remakes of old ones, since our shows are all anyone could ever need. New shows consist of America Idol, where we can laugh at others trying to sing. "Good one, Simon! Tell that pompous little tart where to get off! How dare she insinuate that she might be someone more special than me."
Our celebrities all consist of professional athletes (whom we know are all muscleheads who can barely sign their name to their contracts) and entertainers (Paris Hilton . . . need I say more), whom we can all feel are inferior to us. Lucky, all of them.

They are fat, lazy, pompous and self-consumed. They are running Western Culture. Can we survive? Can the world survive?

Iran gets its nukes from Halliburton, and other stories

2006-02-20T18:57:00.000-08:00

The world just turned topsy-turvy again.

U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad warned Iraqi politicians they risk a loss of American support if they do not establish a genuine national unity government.
Yep. Just gonna pull out. Aside from the obvious stupidity of the statement - after 2,000+ deaths and all those billions of dollars spent on the country, the United States is not going to just pull out if the Iraqi don't establish a proper government, and everyone knows it. I wonder if the ambassador realizes that the disruptive elements are also the ones trying to get the United States out of their country, and that the ambassador has just handed them a recruiting slogan?

President Bush on Monday faced political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.
Although there is a faint possibility that Dubai Ports, the UAE company in question, will import fanatical Arabs to fill all their dockyard needs, it is much more likely that they will probably hire locals to work the docks. Maybe even the same loyal Americans that currently work there.
More importantly, Bush was unaware of the deal until he heard reports of the congressional uproar, according to presidential adviser Dan Bartlett. Does the idea that the man defending the idea of unrestricted wiretaps because Muslim fanatics are planning to strike, being unaware of an Arab company taking over the New York dockyards, seem - topsy turvy - to you?

Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by the Vice President, has been, allegedly, selling Iran's oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies’ business dealings.
Umm, isn't this illegal, not to mention unpatriotic? And also somewhat ironic?

And how was your day?

Support the Troops - but first define "support"

2006-02-19T13:36:00.000-08:00

During WWII, a man wearing a uniform got into the movies for free. He got moved towards the front of the line at restaurants. He got first pick of the jobs after he mustered out, a GI plan to finance his first house, a VA hospital to look after his medical problems.
What do we offer today's veteran?
We wear ribbons and put magnets on our cars, but do we offer the vets themselves anything?
Have you gone out and done something for an Iraq vet today? Offered to wash his car for free, or something? Do you know which of your neighbors are vets?

Do you even care?

When did "Support our troops" become nothing more than an epithet to hurl at anti-war activists? When did "Support our troops" become nothing more than a political buzzphrase or a blogger's snappy comeback?

We don't even hand out medals anymore.

No wonder we're sending the Honor Guards overseas.
No wonder recruitment is down to a trickle. Why enlist now?

Al-Qaida has better PR - and it'll likely stay that way

2006-02-18T18:06:00.000-08:00

According the CNN, Donald Rumsfeld has said that America needs to improve its propaganda methods.
"For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," said Rumsfeld. He went on to say that modernization is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West.

I hope he won't put too much money into this pipedream.

What good is it to bombard Muslim TV and internet news with stories about how Americans love them and only want the best for them, when they will just go to Ann Coulter's blog and read her latest raghead joke? What good is it to spend millions on promoting US/Arab unity, when it is all undone by a day's worth of reading the right wing blogs?
Read Little Green Footballs, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, or Michelle Malkin, and tell me you'd be our friend if we thought like this about you?

The End of Headline News

2006-02-17T18:20:00.000-08:00

NBC noted this week that Olympic viewership is down 22 percent since Nagano in 1998. At the same time, the World Series is down 21 percent, and the Academy Awards down 27 percent.
More people watched American Idol than the Olympics.

They say that newspapers are about to go bankrupt because of the Internet. People who can get up to the minute news don't want "what happened today" news off the newsstand.
Headline TV News may be next.
The Internet is interactive - you can look at a news story, then google past references, geopolitical data, or just the names of the victims. TV is still a "preacher" - you get what they give.
The Internet is also edgier - the anonyminity of bloggers means the editorials are a lot juicier, and therefore more appealing/enraging.

CNN - you were an innovation, and now your time has gone.

Who needs Math and Science? We Do!

2006-02-15T19:23:00.000-08:00

Science and math have zoomed to the top of the nation's education agenda. Yet Amanda Cook, a parent of two school-age girls, can't quite see the urgency.
"In Maine, there aren't many jobs that scream out 'math and science,"' said Cook, who lives in Etna, in the central part of the state. Yes, both topics are important, but "most parents are saying you're better off going to school for something there's a big need for."
Nationwide, a new poll shows, many parents are content with the science and math education their children get -- a starkly different view than that held by national leaders.
Fifty-seven percent of parents say "things are fine" with the amount of math and science being taught in their child's public school. High school parents seem particularly content -- 70 percent say their child gets the right amount of science and math.
- thanks to the Associated Press for this.

Well, Amanda, computer jobs are being outsourced to India, menial jobs are being done by illegal immigrants, and manufactured goods are made for five cents on the dollar in Indochina. Maine isn't going to have as wide a variety of jobs when your kids are in their twenties as you had.
Your two children will basically have two options when they grow up.

Working in a cutting edge industry that doesn't exist yet, for which they'll need lots of math and science.
Or ditchdigger. Decide.

Olympic "glory"

2006-02-15T17:56:00.000-08:00

Ah, the Olympics.
They were first run for the glory of the gods.
They were revived to be run for the glory of the athletes.
Today, they are run for the glory of the countries.

Look up any news page concerning the Olympics. Now try to find the names of the winners.
If the page is devoted to the Olympics, you shouldn't have a problem. But if you have picked a general sports page, then what you get is a list of countries, with how many gold, silver, and bronze they've won.
They've won. The countries. Not the athletes.
Next year this time, you won't even know their names. The athletes aren't important anymore. The ones who manage to win several medals may end up on a Wheaties box for a month, but then it's back to Michael Jordan.

We dishonor the ideals of the Olympics every time we run them. We change the definition of "amateur" so that Canada can fill its hockey squad with the NHL All Stars, and The US can field the NBA's finest as their Dream Team. Across the pond, the Eastern Europeans were famous for pumping so many steroids into their athletes that the women needed sex tests, and the men looked like the Incredible Hulk. The legacy of those days go on, as competitors are required to take so many tests you'd think they were headed for Mars. I wouldn't be surprised if Interpol has a special Olympic squad of its own, dedicated to running down all the frauds pertaining to this "pure" competition.

And yet, the ideals are still there. For every pumped up warrior dreaming of a Nike contract, there are 10 kids who have spent the last four years doing nothing but train day and night. So long as these kids remain in the majority, the Games are worth saving.

Reclaiming the Political Middle

2006-02-15T15:46:00.000-08:00

The middle ground is becoming awfully empty in America these days.
It seems that the farther out to the wings you go, the more you claim leadership for your side.
Take a look at the Cheney incident.
The right would have you believe that it is no big deal, and that the MSM is demonizing the vice president as part of a liberal scheme to retake the government and surrender to the terrorists.
The left would have you believe that the government should be impeached because a witness to the shooting got to the press before Scott McClellan.
The truth is that the vice president accidentally shot a man, causing a serious condition. Mr. Cheney has taken responsibility for the incident. At worst, which is if the man dies, this is what Jack McCoy on Law and Order would call a class B felony. Not reckless endangerment, just involuntary manslaughter. Serious, but not world shaking.
The delay in meeting the press was probably due to the amount of bad press the administration has received lately. They wanted to spin it. Spin is not an impeachable offense.

Take a look at the wiretapping incident.
The right would have you believe that no crime is involved; it's just the president doing what a president should do.
The left would have you believe that the administration is preparing a palace coup, to install Presidente-for-Life Bush as our master.
The truth is that the president overstepped his boundaries. If he were Cheney, he would no doubt have said his Mea Culpa by now, promised to go back to wiretapping only with an easily-obtained warrant, and gone back to work. Not being Cheney, he has managed to turn this incident into a scandal.
Nonetheless, we are looking at the same sort of thing. Bush has committed a minor crime. Not a felony, not an impeachable offense, but a crime.
He should admit it, apologize, and go on.

As for us, we need to take a few Valiums. Society is not being overthrown by the Right, and the Left is not helping to smuggle terrorists over the border. We need to stop listening to these overreactors, reclaim the center, and start thinking again.

What is FEMA doing now?

2006-02-13T16:43:00.000-08:00

News Item: FEMA cheated of millions through duplicate or invalid Social Security numbers, or false addresses and names. In addition, FEMA wasted millions on overpriced rooms, such as $438 rooms in New York City and $375/night beachfront condominiums in Panama City, FL.

OK, they got scammed, or they were caught having to improvise, or whatever. The deed's done, the money's gone.
What about next time?
A show of hands please, how many people out there think that we're in for a repeat of hurricane season in the South, similar to the last two years?
Don't you think that FEMA should be preparing now? You'd think that they would be getting equipment in place, contingency plans fine tuned, databases created and verified, personnel prepped and ready, transport arranged.
Wouldn't you?
I haven't heard of anything like that happening. All I've heard from FEMA is a steady chorus of "no comment" when referring to Brownie's testimony. As for the parent group, the Department of Homeland Security, well, they haven't even issued a terror level since Katrina.
I know we're all more security conscious now, but don't we have a right to know whether the government organization in charge of preparing for emergencies, is preparing for the next few emergencies?

Phelps revisited.

2006-02-13T16:16:00.000-08:00

One reader took offence that I wrote , in a blog entry a few days ago, about the Westboro Church's protests at funerals, and their pastor, the Rev. Phelps.
As I wrote in the comments, and repeat here,
"People like Phelps never think of themselves as extremists. They think they are the only true centrists, upholding truth and justice. I said they probably thought of themselves as conservatives. They probably do, even if no one else does. They probably think of us as liberal apologists for not joining them on the picket lines."
This goes for most other extremists. The people burning Danish embassies probably think that other Muslims are wusses for not helping. They are, after all, defending Islam from Infidel attack.

People who go to extremes are extremists. People who overreact, who react with violence when no violence is offered, who react with personal epithets to arguments that don't attack them personally, . . . are extremists.
Don't support extremist behavior. Support conservative behavior.
Leave the bombs at home.

Enough with "The Cartoons"

2006-02-13T15:45:00.000-08:00

News Item: Calgary magazine to print "The Cartoons".
All right, already!!!
OK, papers. You bad. You tough. We get it.
Now stop dragging this thing out.
The "cartoons" are available all over the Internet now, for the morbid and the goons to look at.
We don't need to see them in print anymore.
It's no longer a matter of free speech. It's become a stroke of defiance.
It's being done to rag on the Muslim extremists. To pull their chain. To show them that you aren't going to be dictated to. OK. We know that.

I just hope you're just as obstinate when the Christian Right object to Doonesbury next time.

Free Speech = Protests at Funerals.

2006-02-12T18:26:00.000-08:00

We have all heard that the Muslims hate America, and are behind the slaughter of American troops in Iraq.
Many of us have also been told that the liberals and apologists are responsible for America's woes.
Well, you're all wrong.
It's God.
So says the Westboro Baptist Church, its pastor, the Reverend Fred Phelps, and his family, including his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper.
"We are delivering a message. God is punishing this nation and he is using the IED as his weapon of choice," she said.
Over the last few weeks, demonstrators from the church have turned up at memorials for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the funerals for the 12 West Virginia miners who died in a mine explosion last January, and even the funeral of Coretta Scott King in Georgia.
They have carried signs reading 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers,' 'You're Going to Hell', 'Fags Doom Nations', 'God is America's Terror' and 'Don't Worship the Dead'.
They are undaunted by efforts to stop them, claiming that the right to free speech allows them to protest like this. "It's all good. It's not going to stop us," said Phelps-Roper. "We have the moral high ground."

No doubt they consider themselves "conservatives".

End of the Machine Age?

2006-02-11T18:50:00.000-08:00

The illegal influx of immigrants over the US border may have yet another drawback for society.
It reduces the need for innovation.
Why build a new labor saving device when labor is so cheap? Used to be that production lines became automated because robotic devices were cheaper than union laborers, what with medical and dental plans, retirement and compensation packages, and ever increasing salaries. Mechanisms that didn't require vacations and coffee breaks looked good back then.
Today, humans from Asia, Mexico, and South America, willing to work 18 hour days for spare change, are by far the better deal. The automated assembly line is passe.

So is innovation. You can't sell a better way of doing things anymore unless it is somehow cheaper and more cost efficient. What could be more efficient than a self-motivated, self-correcting, self-repairing upgradable multi-function work unit, especially one that doesn't and never will have a union?

On the other hand, countries like China do have a reason to develop technology, as their industry develops. With all of America's current developments, from CDs to robotics, at their disposal, they may yet be the culture to develop the house robot and the totally automated factory.

It's no wonder President Bush came out in defense of illegals. It's a dream come true for CEOs.
True, it may cost America its technological lead in the long run, but hey - our generation will all be dead by then, right?

Europe's hope?

2006-02-10T18:27:00.000-08:00

A pundit mentioned today that Europe's only hope is for the moderate Muslims to prevail over the militants.
Moderates.
Let's be men, ok, and call them what they are.
The liberal Muslims.
The militants are the conservative, perhaps even the neo-con, muslims. The accept no criticism, never change, God is Supreme, defend by attacking, muslims.
The moderates are the sit and talk, words not deeds, change is possible, let's all be friends, muslims. The Liberals.

There's a lesson here for those in America.
Too bad the militants won't see it.

We Live In Fear

2006-02-09T17:54:00.000-08:00

I used to chuckle at the people who recommended that everyone be required to bear arms.
Now I cringe.
We are no longer a tolerant society, and I am not referring either to religion or race.
We are not tolerant in general. Zero tolerance is the rule now.
A boy writes a short story that a teacher finds frightening, and the boy is shipped off to a psychiatric hospital.
A kindergarten student is suspended for sexual assault. Yes, you heard that right. He touched her underpants. Lucky for him it was a girl - who knows what they might have accused him of it he'd touched a boy's undies.
People are going mad over cartoons. Religious leaders order assassinations - both Muslim and Christian.

And someone wants to arm these whackos?

We live in fear.
We are afraid our kids are going to shoot, that our beliefs can be destroyed, that our civilization will crumble.
We see terrorists under every bed. (Guess the communists have moved out.)
More than we ever did in the Fifties, we live under the Sword of Damocles, certain that doom is a day away, and that there is nothing we can do but decisively crush any threat, or possible threat.
We steer away from dark alleys, stick to our "own kind", and cling to the belief that only brute force can get out of this situation. That's why we want guns. We think that with a gun in each hand, we can get them before they get us. Like Rambo.
Unfortunately, our enemies are not coming after us with AK-47s any more. Rambo didn't have to deal with an enemy that planted a nuke in the city he was in, or released a toxin into the water he drinks. These, you see, are not enemies you can handle with a machine gun.

It's not the Wild West anymore. We no longer live in a world where a fast draw and a 44 can keep you alive, anymore than we live in a world where a rapier and some swordmanship will suffice. It is a new world, and we need a new defense.

Write a note and get committed

2006-02-08T14:28:00.000-08:00

An exerpt:
"It’s no wonder many kids today just give up and give in to drugs. Obviously it doesn’t make it right but it would be hard for me not to understand where many of them are coming from. The gap of understanding between adults and children is widening more everyday as both side stick fingers in their ears and scream, “La la la la, I’m not listening.” It’s sad really. It saddens me that in the 12 short years since I graduated from high school the notion of children as being a mild but nurtured nuisance seems to have devolved into regarding children as mass murdering pariahs.I never thought I’d say this but thank God for the ACLU. It’s not fair to judge every child, especially with all the subversive influences out there, by the same measuring stick as the kids who were obviously ill and rampaged through their schools. Had I been born 10 years later, who knows how my parents would have reacted to the childish antics of my youth."

This is a post from a man who wrote "bad" stuff while at school. He was banned from the school newspaper, but that's about it.
The case he is referring to is a boy who also wrote "bad" stuff in school. However, in this post-Columbine world, this other boy was taken by force to a psychiatric hospital.

Read the whole thing here. It's worth it.

Regulators

2006-02-07T17:49:00.000-08:00

If a government has any function at all, it is to function as a protector.
First internationally, through the Armed Forces and the State Department. Second, locally, through the police.
And thirdly, through the regulators. These are the most important defenders of the country, because they defend our greatest assets.
Our unity and our trust.
The regulators make sure that the con men and grifters don't prey upon us. They make sure that the medicine we buy is real medicine, and cures what it is supposed to cure. They make sure that the powerful auto manufacturers do not sell us defective cars, that the doctors don't operate while drunk, and that monopolies cannot shut out competition and force us to pay whatever they can squeeze out of us.
Congress and the courts are important components of the regulators. Congress forms the regulations, the laws that prevent the wolves from preying on the sheep. The courts enforce these rules, punishing any errant wolf.
If either of these organizations fails in its job, we all suffer.

Congress falls down on the job unless it deals with changes in society in a timely manner. It needs to learn, from real experts, the nature of the new elements, whether they be computer scams or terrorist movements, and to face these truths without flinching. They need to create new law, based on the needs of society as a whole, not some small section.
Much of the time, they don't. Their actions are based on pork, on re-election strategies, on lobbyist recommendations, on ideology. Such actions debase Congress.
The courts, too, must enforce the law in such a way as to best benefit society. Some might belittle these "activist judges" - but what else is a judge for? A judge must inflict punishments that will act as a true deterrent to crime, while refraining from revenge and cruelty. Each case being different, a judge must use judgment, rather than reliance on precedent, to walk this tightrope properly.
A judge who relies on ideology, on party loyalty, on bias, is no judge.

The greatest harm that scandals like the Abramoff payoffs cause is that it destroys our trust in our regulators. If we cannot trust our regulators, we become prey again for the grifters.
The grifters know this. The grifters want this. This is why the grifters continually try to tempt Congressmen.
This is why Congressmen who succumb, all of them, must be punished, in such a way as to be a true deterrent to the act.
Otherwise, we may as well let the terrorists win. Better them than the grifters.

Gonzales testifies

2006-02-06T15:16:00.000-08:00

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified to a Senate Judiciary committee today.
But not under oath. Senator Arlen Spector, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman , stated he didn't have to.
Gonzales told the committee that the program is:
(1) limited to communication between someone in the U.S. and someone in a foreign nation.
(2) triggered when a NSA professional beliefs one of the parties is tied to al Qaeda.
(3) designed to minimize the amount of information collected and disseminated.
(4) reviewed by NSA supervisors and the NSA inspector general.
(5) renewed every 45 days.

Well, Mr. Gonzales,
(1) Why was it so hard to get a FISA warrent for this "obviously legal" wiretap?
(2) How does the NSA professional acquire this "belief" that someone on the line is talking to al Qaida?
(3) And what would that minimum be, sir?
(4) Why not the Senate, as well? They're mostly Republicans - don't you trust them?
(5) So, you're not doing it now, right?
and
(6) Why can't anybody connected to the White House testify under oath anymore? What have you got against oaths?

Oh, and
(7) Why haven't you just said "Mea Culpa - it was wrong, we won't do it again." and go back to using FISA warrents to get legal wiretaps? Why draw this out?

It's all about sex, you know.

2006-02-04T18:31:00.000-08:00

What is it about homosexuality and the Religious Right, anyway?
The Ten Commandments say nothing about sexuality. They do, however, ban murder, robbery, and lying. The ban on homosexuality comes from a few Old Testament parables and some apostolic commentary.
Yet Pat Robertson and his friends go after homosexuality with a fervor they never show towards depictions of murder. Brokeback Mountain catches ire, but Rambo never got a peep out of them. Even Grand Theft Auto barely registers on their radar.
The most blatent problem is with "Thou shalt not commit false witness against thy neighbor", which can be translated as "No Swift-boating". No lying about another's nature. No slander.
Now, this isn't an interpretation of an off-subject text, like the arguments against abortion. This is a Commandment - one of the original "set in stone" laws. The meaning is clear, the wording concise and unequivocal. Pat and friends should be screaming every time someone makes a personal attack in Washington.
But they don't.
It couldn't be that the Religious Right are willing to sacrifice their principles for temporal power, could it?

God's Will and Right Wing protesters

2006-02-03T18:21:00.000-08:00

Levitate yourself.
Go ahead - just . . . umph yourself upwards. I'll wait.
Hard, huh? They used to say that if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings.
What they should have said was, God didn't want man to levitate, so he doesn't.

There are a couple of useful illustrations in this simple fact, applicable to several of today's situations.

First, when God doesn't want you to levitate, you don't levitate.
No going to Korea and levitating there. You don't levitate anywhere. Becoming a secular humanist doesn't get you around God's will, nor does rewriting holy scripture or issuing a papal bull. You don't levitate.

Second, God doesn't need help in preventing levitation. No one has to issue a fatwa, enact a law, start a war, or even carry signs outside a courtroom to prevent people from levitating. It isn't necessary because no one levitates.

Next time you are tempted to protest, or even fight, about something being against God's will, just remember - if that action were really against God's will, there wouldn't be a need for your actions to stop it. God would not let it happen. Ever.

That's the nice thing about omnipotence.
Now stop yelling.

When Criminals Make the Laws

2006-02-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

What is a government for, anyway?
In most of the countries of the world, the government exists for the benefit of the governors. These tyrannies and kleptocracies drain the resources, sell off the valuables, and work the people to death in order to provide a few elite individuals with an unparalleled lifestyle of hedonism and luxury.
A few naive nations, however, believe that a government exists in order to create the best lifestyle possible for the citizens.
I hope none of these naive people live in the United States.
The Bush government continues to claim that it has unlimited powers to break laws, due to the war.
The Bush government started the war, on the grounds that Iraq, and its WMD, endangered the United States.
Depending on who you talk to, the WMD are either (a) imaginary; the invention of the Bush government, or (b) in Syria. Either way, they make poor grounds for a war in Iraq.

The Bush government continues to insist that the war in Iraq must be fought until victory is achieved - and, as a result, insists that the Bush government retain unlimited powers to break laws until the War on Terror is won.
The condition for victory in the War on Terror has not been stated, whether it is a pro-Republican government in Iraq, the death of every terrorist in the world, or just the withdrawal of troops. The Bush government claims the right to decide what constitutes victory.
Thus, the Bush government claims unlimited powers to break laws until such time as the Bush government decides to give them up.
And if you disagree, you are an enemy of freedom.

Yeah. Me too.

The President's Energy Plan

2006-02-01T19:21:00.000-08:00

This is what George W. Bush promised in the State of the Union address, when he promised to work towards oil independence.
Coal. $281 million to develop clean coal technologies.
Solar power. $148 million to research solar power technology.
Wind power. $44 million for wind energy research.
Ethanol. $150 million for research into ethanol powered cars.
Plug-in hybrids. $30 million, to research vehicles that will use virtually no gasoline.
Hydrogen. $289 million, to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

A few observations.
1) Notice that all of this money is for research. They don't have to produce a single new invention; they just have to do the research.
2) Most of this money is to go into the auto industry - the industry that produces cars, be they ethanol, hydrogen, or treadmill powered. A total of $469 million to revitalize the Big Three, who have been shutting down plants because they can't compete with Toyota. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
3) The second biggest morsel went to the coal industry. Whatever happened to the Power of the Free Marketplace, which Rewards good businesses, Punishes bad businesses, and Can Monitor Itself? Apparently, if you control enough political clout, you don't have to worry about things like fair competition.

I wonder - has anyone told the President about Tidal Generators? Little turbines placed in a row offshore that are turned by the movement of the tides? Has anyone told the President about Ocean Thermal systems? Deep water is colder than surface water. You take a long pipe and warm the water down there, which rises. Put a turbine in the shaft, and you get electricity. Power the heater at the top with solar power, and you're in business.
Are any of these ideas getting funding?
Or is it all pork?

The State of the Union speech - with comments

2006-01-31T19:05:00.000-08:00

Here's some of what was said - with observations. After all, Observations are what this blog is all about.

"In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger."
So, you won't be calling Murtha a coward anymore, right? Fat chance of this happening, George - the neo-cons are the most insult-happy people on earth!
"In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies on Earth. Today, there are 122."
Name them. Places like Zimbabwe, Egypt, and all the other democracies-because-we-SAY-they're-democracies don't count, by the way.
There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat ... The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil."
Battle of Cannae - Hannibal pulls back his center. The Romans rush forward. Hannibal pulls in his flanks, encircles the Romans, and wipes them out. One of the greatest victories in the Ancient world. Sometimes there's victory in retreat, George, so long as you're a good general.
"We are on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory."
"Shoot them all" is also a clear plan for victory, George. Do you have a workable plan for victory? And what do you consider victory? If a united Iraqi people decide to sell oil to China exclusively, and resolves never to speak to the US again, would that be victory? What is it you are trying to accomplish?
"Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy."
So what is responsible criticism, George? When you're failing, every criticism sounds like defeatism. Second guessing may not be a strategy, but the first step to revising a strategy is second guessing. And acknowledging that something is wrong.
"The Palestinian people have voted in elections – now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace."
You just threw out their election platform, George.
"America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."
Just don't do anything we don't want you to, own any weapons we don't want you to have, elect any governments that don't espouse Western values, or sell your oil to China.
"Fortunately, this Nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives to protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime – so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act."
Drug trafficking and organized crime are flourishing, George - your superb professionals need new tools. And pay raises. And more staffing.
"It is said that prior to the attacks of September 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al-Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack – based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute – I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America."
And hopefully the unsuspected al-Qaida operatives will be stupid enough to hold phone conversations as if they were characters in an episode of Get Smart, so that you'll notice them. And hopefully nobody will be tempted to use these intercepts for less noble purposes.
"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it – because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
And if your superb professionals tell you about it, will you listen this time? Gathering the information is not the problem. Interpreting and acting on the information is the problem, George, and you are not famous for doing either.

There's more - Bush says we must seek alternatives to oil (I'll believe that when I see it - Exxon has a lot of pull around here - ), says we must have illegal immigrants because the economy depends on them ( - although not as much pull as Haliburton does.), refuses to allow further stem-cell research (no biggie - all the CEOs will just have to go to Korea for treatments), and says that the economy is strong, with 4.6 million new jobs (minus the ones Ford cut.).

More later.

A different state of the Union

2006-01-30T15:53:00.000-08:00

A few looks at what's going on.
- Just last month, the GAO issued a report warning that the administration still had no plan in place for freezing terrorist cash assets. So, we'll listen to their phone messages but we won't stop their spending. Cute.
- Ford received $250 million in tax credits as part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. They just eliminated hundreds of jobs. Cute.
- Vincente Fox estimates that there are 23 million Mexicans in the US illegally. They have been given maps to help them get here, and the Mexican Army has been known to provide them with fire support, "accidentally" of course. The government response: hire them to rebuild New Orleans.
- Saddam's WMD may have been shipped out of Iraq right under the government's noses. Pardon me, guys, but while you were raving about how Saddam could use these weapons on us at any moment, shouldn't you have been watching to make sure they weren't? I mean, getting them out of Iraq would have been the first step, right?
- The Abramoff scandal: Republicans respond to corruption charges by saying that the Democrats took money, too. As if that made it all right. Hey, guys - if the Democrats jumped off a cliff, would you jump too? Meanwhile, the president has just "promoted" the head investigator to a new job. As reported elsewhere, Abramoff got away from his last scandal, in Guam, when the president removed the US Attorney running the investigation.
- Exxon, which just posted record profits for the year, wants the money - $5 billion - it spent on the Exxon Valdez disaster . . . refunded.
- China, future enemy #1, is the number one for worldwide foreign investments, while France, the neocon punching bag, is number 2. America's annual trade deficit is a half-trillion dollars, which means all those America-First ultra-patriotic corporations, like Haliburton and Exxon, are either not selling too much, or are putting their profits into offshore banks. So much for their faith in America.
- Domestic spying, by both NSA and the Pentagon, defended with the statement "national security". In other words, we need to do this in order to know if anyone is planning to attack us. Meanwhile, bin Laden announces - on international TV - that he intends to attack us.

And so it goes.

What happens to wiretap info?

2006-01-29T15:28:00.000-08:00

As George W. Bush continues to defend his wiretap policy as essential for the defense of the country, one has to wonder what he would do with the information once he got it?
FEMA is still a shambles. The police and fire services still haven't received any extra money for hiring. The FBI is still looking for a computer system that works. Customs still works on random sampling. Cargoes still enter port with only superficial checks.
Why do I get the feeling that if the NSA intercepted a call saying "All is ready. Begin the operation in two days.", the only thing the Bush government would get out of it is a two day head start on the Blame Game?

The Small Town Hick also appears on the Blogger News Network.

The Catholic Supreme Court?

2006-01-28T18:37:00.000-08:00

An article in The Economist implies that the Republicans have engineered a Catholic takeover of the Supreme Court, as part of its long range plan to capture the catholic vote. Conservative Catholics have allied with Protestant Evangelicals over things like Abortion and Family Values.
Thus, men like Alito are nominated.

There is an old saying - when the gods really hate you, they grant your wishes.

What happens, I wonder, when the laws are changed?
A not-insignificant number of evangelicals consider the Catholic church to be the tool of the anti-Christ. A lot of Catholics don't consider Protestants to be "saved".
When the rulings they are both after become fact - something that could come about before the end of Bush's term of office - will the two allies part company?
If so, the Republicans will have loaded the court and gained nothing.

The Pope has already come out against Bush policies once. I wonder whether the Catholics on the Supreme Court are willing to support Bush over the Pope.
I wonder what Bush's reaction will be if he finds out he has turned the Third Arm of the Government over to the Pope?

Syria has the WMD.

2006-01-27T18:09:00.000-08:00

From Blogs for Bush:
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

He says this in his new book, Saddam's Secrets, which is now likely to enjoy a GOP surge in sales comparable to that book Osama boosted a few days ago.
I suspect that if Syria really did have WMD, the Bush government would have done something by now - if it were really serious about such things.
Anyway, now I guess we've got something on everybody over there. Iran has nukes, Syria has WMD, Palestine is ruled by Hamas, . . . we've got justification to do anything anywhere in the Middle East.

Elections in Palestine

2006-01-26T02:10:00.000-08:00

The Palistinian elections are drawing to a close, with Hamas a close second to Arafat's ruling Fatah party. Voters stated that they wanted to punish Fatah for it's 12 year history of corruption.
Sounds like the Canadian election. I wonder if this is the start of a trend?

Rebuilding Canada's Military

2006-01-25T19:53:00.000-08:00

Canada's new Prime Minister, Steven Harper, has several big jobs ahead of him. One of the hardest and most expensive will also be one of the easiest and most rewarding.
Rebuilding the Canadian military.
Canada has a superb body of troops; well disciplined, well trained, well motivated - and saddled with equipment no self-respecting Third World nation would keep around. The latest acquisition was a set of leaky second hand submarines, one of which nearly went down for the final time during delivery.
The Liberals never really believed in the military. They were content in the fact that the US would never allow an invasion by a foreign power, since it would endanger the US as well. Therefore, the ruling party felt it could safely earmark military funding for more appropriate uses - like patronage.
As a result, the Canadian Armed Forces are equipped with leaking subs, ships with metal fatigue, 20 year old tanks, unarmored patrol vehicles, and obsolete everything.

Fortunately - perversely - this helps.
The Harper government now has reason to scrap everything - start from the ground up. New planes. New guns.
After 20 years of Liberal multi-million dollar make-work programs in the Maritime provinces, that lasted a year each, the Conservatives can set up a military shipyard and build state of the art patrol ships. They could retire the current (hah!) fleet, and re-equip the navy with vessels that can do the job.
Unlike the NATO powers, who must rework their anti-Russian forces into anti-terrorist forces somehow, the Canadian army can just rebuild straight into a 21st century military.

Let's see if Harper and his people are smart enough to see the possibilities.

The Small Town Hick also blogs on The Blogger News Network.

The Canadian Election

2006-01-23T22:34:00.000-08:00

The Conservative Party of Canada has won, with a total of 124 seats. The Loyal Opposition will be the Liberals, with 103 seats. Bloc 51, NDP 29.
For the sake of all those readers out there in the heartland of America who don't keep up with Canadian politics, a short explanation.
The two main parties are the Liberals and the Conservatives - the equivalent of the Democrats and the Republicans.
Here's what you need to know about the Liberals. They have been in power, barring a few politically humorous interludes, since Nixon. They have become arrogant and corrupt. They considered control of Canada to be somewhere between a birthright and a sure thing. The last Prime Minister, Paul Martin, executed a political coup to gain control of the party. They have just been implicated in one of the biggest patronage scandals in the nation's history - just the latest in a string of scandals lasting over a decade.
Here's what you need to know about the Conservatives. They couldn't win a majority while running against the Ottawa Thieves' Guild.
The party, as it is today, is a fusion between the moribund Progressive Conservatives, a backbiting group that hasn't had a strategy since the early 60s, and the Reform Party, an American style right wing fundamentalist party started in Alberta, aka Texas North. The oil-rich cowboys of the Canadian West were tired of being controlled by the white collar East, and created their own party to take control.
Now, they've got it. Sort of.
There are two other parties. The Bloc Quebecois is the latest version of the Quebec seperatist movement. Imagine if America's southern states created a Confederacy Party, running on a platform of secession from the Union. That's the Bloc in a nutshell. It makes Canada unique among all Western Powers in that its government has its own self-destruct mechanism.
The other party, the NDP, consists of everyone who wouldn't join the Liberals because they weren't far enough to the left. They are probably the main reason for the Liberal success over the last few decades - all the tree huggers and fuzzy thinkers that have plagued other left wing parties like the Democrats, driving away the moderates, all left and created their own party.
Now look at the vote figures again.
In Canadian politics, the magic number is 155. That is the number for a majority vote.
Notice that of the four parties in power, only two can control a majority between them, other than that of the two main parties. That is the Conservatives and the Bloc.
This probably means that, to stay in power, the Conservatives are going to have to appease the Quebec seperatists.
But note, also, that to defeat the Conservatives, the Liberals must have the support of both the Bloc and the NDP - both of whom are going to be acting as power brokers for the next few years. The Far Left and the Self-Destruct Mechanism - the DealMakers and DealBreakers.
Just remember that, next time you hear "interesting" news out of Canada.

A Post 9/11 View of the World

2006-01-22T15:31:00.000-08:00

"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong." Karl Rove said today.
What is a post 9/11 view of the world, Mr. Rove?
It isn't the idea that someone out there hates America, Mr Rove. Even the Small Town Hick read Lederer's The Ugly American when his was young - and the book's been around since the 50s.
Is it the idea that somebody out there can actually hurt SuperCountry? Has the World's Only Superpower discovered that most of the world's nations has a stock of kryptonite?
I think that everybody, from the farthest left appeaser to the farthest right apocalyptic, knows that now. So, no, I don't think that this is what Mr. Rove was thinking of.
No, I suspect that Mr. Rove's view of the world, post 9/11, is that only strength counts. You can't talk with these people, you can only shoot them. Might is Right.
Wrong.
Civilization depends on talking with people. Even Ghengis Khan didn't kill everybody, even Hitler negotiated.
The Rove post-9/11 view of the world is a cowboy sitting at the door of his house, rifle in hand, peering out into the darkness. He's told the womenfolk and hands that this is Injun Territory, and that the woods are probably full of savages, waiting to charge in and kill them all. He hasn't done much of a job of barring the doors and windows, everything he does do, whether the hands like it or not, is always excused with the comment "You want the injuns to get you?" Inside, he is hoping that the cavalry has done its job of keeping the injuns busy; he may even believe it. Thing is, he won't know until the first face peers in through the window, whether he is safe or not. And of course, by that time it's too late.
However, the Rove view doesn't allow any other course. No peace pipe, no bars on the window, no detatchment of cavalry kept nearby, no asking the neighbors for help. Stubborn old coot.
And while he's in control, that's how it's going to stay.
Let's hope he's right. If he's not, . . .

The Osama tape

2006-01-19T20:46:00.000-08:00

By now, you've all heard that Osama bin Ladin has released another tape to the media.
In this one, he offers a truce, stating that Americans don't really want a war, and threatens another terrorist act within America itself.
Let's look at these two statements.

1) The offer of a truce has been touted on the right wing blogs as Osama giving up. Yeah, right. He's running out of suicide bombers and Number 2 men. Much more likely he wants to regain control there in Iraq. If you haven't noticed, the bombs haven't been aimed at Americans much anymore - they've been aimed at civilians. That's the trouble with living in a cave, incommunicado - your people start taking the initiative.

2) The right has also been laughing off the threat, when they've paid any attention at all to it. The futile posturing of a defeated man, they say. Perhaps. But if he DOES have something set up, this is the time to use it. Bush has labeled himself as the war president. Whenever anyone has asked him about the scandals that have risen up around him and his government, he brings up 9/11, the war on terrorism, and his devotion to winning it.
It was his image as warrior that won his re-election; people saw him as a better protector than Kerry.
A successful terrorist attack, right now, on US soil, could very well ruin him. It would crush his last talking points, and those of his party.
Which is what makes the timing so interesting. The NSA scandal is in full swing, and the Congressional elections are at hand. Proving that the NSA wiretaps were useless - didn't stop bin Laden! - and that the Republicans had frittered away the last 4 years doing nothing for security, would probably mean a Democrat majority in the House.
Which could mean a hostile government that would hound Bush and his people right out of office.

I don't know about you, but I'm staying away from monuments until after the next election.

Martin Luther King - the legacy. Maybe.

2006-01-18T15:27:00.000-08:00

January 20 is the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. I have been reading many blogs that have "celebrated" this holiday.
April 4th might be a more appropriate day to remember Dr. King. It was the day of his death. And for years now they have been trying to kill off his legacy.
In the last week I have read about how MLK would have hated affirmative action, fought against quotas in universities, and supported the war in Iraq. Nice that he's not around to dispute these opinions, isn't it.
Martin Luther King wanted people - all people - to be treated like people. He would have hated affirmative action but he would have supported it as well, until its job was done. He would have fought against private schools and breaks for the rich while the poor couldn't get medical treatment.
But the vast majority of pundits don't care anymore what HE wanted. They use his reputation, his arguments, to promote their own positions.
Yes, I think most of those in power right now would like to celebrate his death, rather than his birth - because April 4th was the day his name and reputation became theirs, to do with as they wished.

The Nature of Conservative thought

2006-01-16T18:55:00.000-08:00

I just read an interesting post on the conservative way of thought here.
I decided to test it by checking out the local conservative blogs.

Blogs:

Blogs For Bush: latest topics
A Tale of Two Cities (Alito post)
Blogger Conference Call with Reps. Chocola & Barrett
B4B Podcast: Episode 1
Hitting Below The Beltway Blogroll
Party Likes It's 2006
Alito Heads Towards Easy Confirmation
Iranian Bluster
Liberal Delusions On Alito
On Pundit Review Radio Tonight

Little Green Footballs: Latest topics
Egypt Denounces Iran's Manhattan Project
The Hebron Riots
Markos vs. Sullivan
Democracy Palestinian Style
"May Allah Destroy Her"

The Right Wing News: Latest topics
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: The Dems Are America's Sunnis?
The Gang-Of-14 Deal Was Good For The GOP? Get Serious...
Harry Reid's Abramoff Problem
GPS Devices For Guns?
Animal Loving Freaks By Alan Caruba

Ogre's Politics and News: Latest topics
Eating Cake (humor)
Martin Luther King Day
Guard Our Borders!
How Bad Do You Want Freedom?
Charlotte Observer Hates Free Speech
NC Lawmakers Want Cash (anti-lobbyst)
USS Clinton (funny picture)
Just Wondering (Pat Robertson post)
Kyoto Treaty is Dead

Right On!: Latest topics
Can We Quote you On That? (Iran)
WalMart
Wow (Islam)
A Middle American View on Politics
A Soldier's Point of View

Conservative Trail Head: Latest topics
Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Nuclear Iran
Abortion Transition
When is Abortion OK?
Dems Win - DeLay Out!

Look for yourselves.
What do you think?

The spies who couldn't shoot straight.

2006-01-15T19:33:00.000-08:00

In the middle of a firestorm about NSA spying, comes a failed attack in Pakistan.
Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was supposedly in the village of Damadola.
Unfortunately, the intelligence was wrong. He was not in the village when the CIA-ordered airstrike killed 18 people - none of them terrorists.
Senator Evan Bayh told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that the problem was that the Pakistani government was unable to control that part of the country. Wrong. The problem is that America is firing blind - it cannot find its enemy, so it shoots anything that rustles in the grass.
The apologists who have been touting the Iraq war as being about fighting the enemy over there so that we don't have to fight them over here, have been silent on the correlation between the NSA story and the Pakistani tragedy.
One says that they may be here anyway - why else spy on US phone calls? The other says we don't know where they are, and can't keep them under observation for very long.
That doesn't sound reassuring. The news that the terrorists are switching to disposable cell phones is even more depressing. How do we fight an enemy we can't find?

King George

2006-01-15T15:50:00.000-08:00

President George W. Bush has in his possession executive orders giving him absolute dictatorial power over the government. These “national security initiatives” were put into place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they have remained in place, dormant, until now. They would allow Bush to impose martial law, institute mass arrests of "subversive" individuals, and send troops into the streets.

Afraid yet?

Gun Safes not safe

2006-01-14T18:49:00.000-08:00

There's a new sport in Canada, and it doesn't involve ice.
Organized groups are breaking into the homes of known gun collectors and robbing their gun safes.
If this were a matter of them getting away with some museum quality muskets and WWII Lugers, it would be bad enough. but these gangs are getting ahold of some serious modern weaponry.
Just as an example, two of the weapons netted in a recent robbery were Steyr AUG assault rifles - modern military weapons.
These guns are turning up in the hands of Toronto gangs, and have been pushing the Toronto homicide levels up.

These were not easy targets. The rifles mentioned above were taken from a 770 lb safe. These people are capable of breaking into any storage facility.
Is this a problem for the States? Depends. Smuggling goes both ways, and the price of a Steyr might be beyond that of a local gang.
More importantly, it goes to show how far the modern criminal element is willing to go to get their hands on some firepower. Remember we are talking about Canadians here - even their hoods still say please and thank you.

It is time to rethink the gun issue. It does no good to have a gun in the house if somebody just steals it. If you're going to keep a gun, you need to have a gun attitude.
As in keeping it with you, and knowing - really knowing - how to use it. If you're not willing to make the 24/7 committment, you need a new hobby.

Pat gets another 15 minutes of fame

2006-01-13T00:06:00.000-08:00

Pat Robertson has apologized.
Duh.
Has anyone else come to the conclusion that these "off the cuff" remarks are not mistakes? That Pat - and his 700 Club - are not sorry at all about remarks Pat now refers to as "inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief"?
After all, this is his third major gaff in the last few months. You'd think that somebody in the organization would be putting him on a 7 second delay, and telling him to stick to the script.
Instead, he continues to make outrageous statements, which get him a lot of press, and for which he later apologizes, getting more press. He has become an advertisement for the 700 Club, attracting the attention of reactionary zealots, and no doubt filling his coffers with their money.
As a Christian, I am shocked and appalled by this man, by this organization, by its crusade to ruin all that is good and right about my faith in order to maintain their political and financial position of power. Pat Robertson's appeal to the flagellants of the country denigrates the values he pretends to uphold.
It is time to remove this hypocrite from the airwaves, and shut down his network of hate, whose sole purpose in existing is to continue to raise money for unChristian political purposes. His messages of intolerance and fake piety, played out before the national media so that he can expand his power ever wider, is no longer acceptable.
Even his allies are deserting him. He was leading a group of evangelicals planning a $50 million evangelical Christian heritage center along the Sea of Galilee. They have kicked him off the board, so to speak. The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said that evangelical leaders "must exercise sensitivity and grace towards the people and leadership of the nation of Israel."
Duh.

Elections of the North

2006-01-12T00:22:00.000-08:00

For those of you who don't watch what's happening in Canada, there's an election going on.
The Dominion of Canada has been governed by the Liberal party, barring a few blips, since Nixon was in power. That's a long time, especially when you take into account the No-Confidence motion. Any member of Parliament can dissolve the government and cause an election just by calling for this vote, and having a majority of members vote yes. Beats impeachment all to heck - if the US had this system, both Clinton and Dubya would have been removed from office within their first terms.
Anyway, the Liberals were just caught in a multi-million dollar pork scam. A huge scandal. The Conservative party had no problem winning a vote of non-confidence.
At the moment, it looks like a probable win for the Conservative party, led by Stephen Harper, who may be the closest thing to a Bush-style neo-con in the North. Much of the opposition to the Conservatives, such as it is, has been caused by the fear that he will do for Canada what Bush has done for the US.
So, if Harper does get in, expect a big change in how Canada and the US does business.

1984, 22 years late.

2006-01-10T05:03:00.000-08:00

Has Orwell's world come at last to the United States of America?

The war on Terror is a remarkably easy one. No victory is needed - just vigilance. No evidence is needed - just whisper "national security". Meet every question with the accusation of "fellow traveler". Seize absolute power - and claim it's the only way to keep everyone safe.
How quickly we forget.
This generation's islamofascist is last generation's commie, with the black cloak and homberg replaced by a turban and robe. Again he waits under the bed, waiting for you to grow complacent so he can sneak out and enslave you.
The march of time has changed him a little - he now wants to blow you up instead of fluoridate your water, but he's the same guy. The same imaginary bogeyman used by demagogues all over the world to keep the masses quiet and obedient.

The McCarthy tapdance is back.
"What are you doing?"
Can't tell you. Top Secret."
"Is it working?"
"Can't tell you. Top Secret."
"You're breaking the law."
"Traitor! Only a commie or fellow traveler would say that. I want a list of anyone you know who thinks like you do."
"You can't do that!"
"If I don't, communists will pollute our precious bodily fluids. You don't want that, do you?"
And on and on.
And when it was all over, the commies turned out to be a bunch of geezers on the other side of the world, and McCarthy turned out to be a panic-monger.

Only a nation can defeat a nation. Only if we are all looking, all peering into the alleys and listening at the next table, can we beat terrorism. Together, we can find and defeat the terrorists. A secret organization listening to taped conversations cannot do that. Nor can a government that won't tell us what's really going on, that won't trust us.
We have to have a government that trusts us, our judgment, and our loyalty. A government that restricts our freedoms and lies to us will collapse to outside attack.
If you don't believe me, just look at Russia.

Smarter - but for how long?

2006-01-05T22:21:00.000-08:00

"We both have meritocracies. Yours (America) is a talent meritocracy. Ours (Singapore) is an exam meritocracy. There are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well - like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition. Most of all, America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. These are the areas where Singapore must learn from America."
So spoke Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister of Education of Singapore, in this week's issue of Newsweek. He was pointing out why Singapore's children test better than Americans in math and science, but do worse in the real world, producing fewer inventors, entrepreneurs, and executives. Here, Americans have the edge.
Will this last?
Already we are teaching ourselves not to be curious, not to make waves, not to question. Church and government both expect their subjects to accept their word as fact, and to support their positions without question. Whether it is Intelligent Design or Intelligence without Oversite, we are told to forget what facts and reason tell us, and to rely on faith. Or else.
We have seen this before. Russia crippled itself with Lysenkoism and Five Year Plans; it now struggles to reclaim world power status.
The days of American manual labor are numbered. Foreign workers make things cheaper. Foreign programmers type cheaper.
What keeps Americans - what will keep Americans in the lead - are the qualities Tharman mentioned. Curiosity, creativity, and a willingness to challenge authority.
Lose that, and the U.S. becomes another Russia - a third rate nation with nukes, crooks, and thugs, lusting after lost glories, and endangering the world with schemes for power.

Bowl Games

2006-01-03T17:40:00.000-08:00

I've spent the last few days watching football. So sue me.
I have learned two things from watching these games.
1) They're better than the NFL. The college players really TRY. And the crowds are more into it, too.
2) The networks have categorized the fans - and it's not a nice category.
Look at the commercials - beer and trucks. Look at the game - they now mark where the line of scrimmage is. Like you couldn't figure it out for yourself. The commentators all speak in catch phrases.
In short, if you watch football, you're a redneck.

I'm a hick, but I'm not a redneck. I have a job, I have an IQ, and I bathe.
I don't like the creeping implications the media is painting

We Remember

2005-12-31T12:38:00.000-08:00

At the end of the year, I like to look back and remember some of the people we lost, and to celebrate their lives - especially the ones you may not have heard of.

It was a bad year for cartoons. Tigger, Piglet, Fred Flintstone, Tony the Tiger and the Jolly Green Giant all lost their voices.
Bad year for Star Trek, too. The franchise died, along with the Chief Engineer. So Long, Mr. Doohan.
Bad year for Our Gang. Butch and Porky both bought it.
Bad year for Music. Shirley Horn died. Go find one of her records. Now. Lalo Guerrero, father of Chicano music, died. George Scott, of the Blind Boys of Alabama. Robert Moog, the synthesizer man, who thereby invented 70s music. Skitch Henderson, Tonight Show bandleader. Link Wray, guitarist who inspired many of today's artists. R.L. Burnside, the bluesman. Long John Baldry. Go buy his record, too.

Other notables you may not have heard of:
Will Eisner, the comic book creator of the Spirit, and the graphic novel. The man who pretty much changed comics from Cape-Man Saves the Day to serious stuff.
Peter Foy, the theatrical effects creator. Before they said "You will believe a man can fly", he made two women fly - Mary Martin in Peter Pan, and Sally Field in The Flying Nun. An artist from the days before computer imaging.
Philip Johnson, the architect who popularized the "glass box" skyscraper, thus making sure that every city in the world looked like New York, and vice versa. He redeemed himself in later years.
Dale Messick, comic strip artist, inventer of the first female investigative reporter, Brenda Starr.
Evan Hunter, creator of Ed McBain, the police procedural, and as a result, inspiration of just about everything on TV right now.
Frank Gorshin. 10,000 voices, one of them the one and only Riddler. Sorry, Carrey.
Stan Berenstein. If you have kids, you know about the Berenstein Bears.
Dennis Flanagan, who revitalized Scientific American.
Samuel W. Alderson, inventor of the crash test dummy.
George Atkinson, inventor of the video rental business.
"Hack" Hackworth, America's most decorated veteran at the time of his death.
Gerry Thomas, inventor of the TV dinner.
John Van Hengel, creator of the food bank.
Alexander Yakovlev, key framer of the policies of Glasnost and Peristroika.
Peter F. Drucker, writer of the first "management" book.
Jay Hammond, the former governor R-Alaska, best Republican ever.
Joe Grant, one of the last of Disney's team.

They will be remembered.

The National Loss of Faith

2005-12-24T09:29:00.000-08:00

And no, I'm not talking about the secular Christmas nonsense.
I'm talking about the loss of faith in our institutions.

We have become a nation of conspiracy theorists. We have convinced ourselves that every organization around us is secretly trying to screw us around.
Whether you are left or right wing, we have one thing in common - we both think that half of our elected politicians are traitors, to America and to American ideals.
The number one book on the market alleges that the Catholic Church has been running a cover-up since St. Peter was in charge - a cover up that has included over the years everything from Opus Dei to Freemasonry, in a plot that wouldn't have made the cut for an X-Files episode.
Don't get started on JFK. I understand the newest theory implicates everyone except L. Ron Hubbard and E.T. So many groups have been named over the years that the Presidential limo should have looked like Bonnie and Clyde's flivver.

It's no wonder that people are embracing everything from Intelligent Design to UFOlogy. When you believe that your whole life is a fraud, facts become suspect.

Well, folks, here is some old Hick advice.
Secrets are things held by two people, not twenty. The Catholic Church did not keep a secret for 2,000 years. Somebody would have lost their faith and spilled the beans before now. JFK might have been killed by the mafia, but not by the Illuminati, the Cubans, or the Secret Cabal That Has Run The Country Since 1963.
The Democrats are not traitors, they are just idiots trying to get re-elected. The Republicans, ditto. The ACLU is clumsily trying to help, not revive communism.
The world is in the state it's in because of plain old fashioned incompetence, greed, apathy, and ignorance. No secret plan exists to keep us down.

So have yourselves a Merry Little Christmas, and do what you can to make people's lives a little better this season. Don't preach, don't picket. Don't assume that PETA is full of terrorists, conservatives want a dictatorship, or that the guy at the end of the road works for Al-Qaida.
Be safe. Be happy. For one day, anyway.

When is enough enough?

2005-12-23T19:09:00.000-08:00

So, what action by the current administration IS too much for the Right?
Is there anything, other than sex with an intern, that the right wing blogs will not explain away, deny, or refuse to talk about?
So far, they have not balked at:
- Bush acknowledging that the reasons he gave for invading Iraq were false,
- Media manipulation galore, from Gannongate, to pay-for-play in this country (remember Armstrong Williams?), to pay-for-play in Iraq.
- Scandals involving DeLay, Abramoff, Plame, Brown, Libby, bridges to nowhere, wiretaps, . . .
- flip-flops on Social Security, troop withdrawls, Supreme Court nominees, . . .
- Bush's inability to move quickly, seen on 9/11 (storybook time), and Katrina (guitar time).
- endless statements on how Iraq is going well - after 4 years, we now have an election most of the participants are calling corrupted . . .
- the abandonment of the chase for Bin Laden; in 2006, the only troops who will be working in force in Afghanistan will be the CANADIANS!
- FEMA
- the Budget
- torture

Meanwhile, most of the accomplishments of the Bush administration have been negative accomplishments.
Terrorists have NOT struck.
. . . at least, Al-Qaida has not struck in this country. Several eco-terrorist groups have successfully eluded the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Al-Qaida seems to have spent its time attacking other countries - and have managed to do so despite America's wiretaps, interrogations, and surveillance. Either that, or America just didn't bother warning anyone.
Plus, this also excludes all the attacks made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe Al-Qaida is lazy, finding it too easy to attack Americans abroad to bother attacking the mainland. So, hats off to America's brave fighting men and women, staked out like Fay before King Kong, with the government hoping that Al-Kong will take the sacrifice and leave them alone.
The country has NOT entered a depression.
. . . although this could be more due to the actions of American businesses rather than the administration. There is no sign that oil companies are hiring, despite the windfalls they got from the government this year.

Merry Christmas.

Where are their medals?

2005-12-19T17:22:00.000-08:00

For four years now, American troops have been in constant danger, constant combat. They have been through a hell we can only barely understand. Through it all, as in all wars, there have been moments of bravery, of valor, of heroism.
Why have they not been rewarded?
Why have I not heard, from any source - MSM, government, or blog - of any award for valor given out to a soldier in Iraq?
Has no one in the last four years produced even one act worthy of the Silver Star? The Medal of Honor?

There are several ways in which a country honors its troops. One of them is to reward their bravery. When is the government going to do so for the men and women in Iraq?

Terrorists may be using your cell phone.

2005-12-18T12:32:00.000-08:00

The phones of top executives from Canada's Rogers Telecom had been the target of repeated cloning by a group linked to Hezbollah. (Cloning is the duplication of a cellphone's identity by copying its number and encrypted security code.)
Rogers apparently does have a method of detecting unusual patterns of calls (such as you, having made local calls only for years, suddenly calling Syria daily.) However, they are sometimes unwilling to shut off service.
The main reason is that most of the "clones" are of phones belonging to top executives, both of Rogers and of other companies.
“They were using actually a pretty brilliant psychology. Nobody wants to cut off Ted Rogers' phone or any people that are directly under Ted Rogers, so they took their scanners to our building, like our north building, where our senior top, top, top executives are. They took their scanners there and also to Yorkville, where there are a lot of high rollers and like it would be a major PR blunder to shoot first and ask questions later. . . . Nobody wants to shut off Ted. Even if he is calling Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Kuwait.” said a company spokeperson.

Nice.

Thanks to The Toronto Globe and Mail for the information.

The words from Iran.

2005-12-17T22:04:00.000-08:00

Question: does calling someone a Holocaust Denier enough to invoke Godwin's Law?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now trying to become the white supremist poster boy. He has called the Holocaust a myth, and wants the Jews sent back where they came from. He's done everything but shave his head and wear Doc Martins.
The fact that he's doing it is not suprising - he is, after all, an embattled leader in a Mulsim theocracy. Threatening Israel and badmouthing the US comes right after praising Allah in the Iranian campaigner's diary. What's unsettling is that he's doing it with American military forces on two of his borders. One would think he isn't too concerned with invasion.
He may be right. This is the final repercussion of the bad intel/lack of planning that has plagued the Iraq War. Iran, and Syria, are not afraid of the United States right now. They see Uncle Sam as a bungler, vulnerable to a few suicide bombers.
So, now what? Do we ignore him, confirm their beliefs, and get ready for a wave of terrorist attacks? Or do we attack, and commit overworked soldiers to another series of battles?

Where's the Religious Right Now?

2005-12-15T18:52:00.000-08:00

While shopping for Christmas presents this year, I came across a set of cards called Guardian Angels. Created by the aptly named Angela McGerr, it is a card drawing oracle designed to help provide you with guidance for your life.
Why hasn't the Religious Right jumped all over this?
For all its nice art and better intentions, this is a tricked up Tarot deck. It is magic in Christian clothing. It includes a book of 100 angels, like Aratron, Guardian Angel of Nature's Magic. I do not believe I am familiar with that name, neither from the Bible nor the Apochripha. Nor have I heard of Och, Guardian Angel of Chrystal Alchemy. I'm sure I would have remembered THAT name. Unless Ms McGerr is claiming divine contact, it is a total invention which she wishes us to believe is a sending of God and a guide for our lives.
It is a lie, and a dangerous one.
Using this set replaces judgement and knowledge of God's plan with a faith in the draw, and the randomness of chance. The unfortunate believer has as much chance of getting a correct answer to his problem than he has of drawing to an inside straight.

Dobson and Robertson are hyping the "de-Christing of Christmas" as the greatest assault against Christianity since the fall of Rome, yet this insidious little game - and all the other similar little angelic oracles - are a greater danger by an order of magnitude. They are an assault on the core beliefs of the religion, not just on the public use of language.
If the Religious Right really cared about the faith, they would be concentrating on getting these sets out of the Christian book stores. To heck with what they call the 25th!

The voice of the Right?

2005-12-15T14:34:00.000-08:00

Just in case you were wondering whether Fox News was really the fair and balanced voice of truth and true Americans, . . .
During last month’s street riots in France, Fox News ran a banner during a news segment, that read “Muslim riots.” Billionaire Saudi Prince al-Walid bin Talal didn't like it. He phoned Murdock. He had it changed to "Urban Riots."

That's right folks. While the army's been paying Iraqi reporters to print pro-US stories, al-Walid has been getting anti-Muslim statements off the air. And, seeing as he owns 5.5% of Fox, he didn't even have to pay.

The ACLU - love it or hate it.

2005-12-14T22:57:00.000-08:00

Here's some of the love.

And here's some of the hate.
And here.

Much of the ranting against the ACLU appears to be that it pursues lawsuits for people some others don't feel deserve lawsuits, or against people who don't deserve to be sued.

Defender of rights, or too PC? Arguments exist on both sides.

Side-tracked

2005-12-11T18:56:00.000-08:00

Why are we all getting so bogged down in trivia?
Terrible things are going on in our world, in our country. The damage from Katrina has not been repaired yet, and we have no idea whether we can afford next year's blows. Bird Flu is on the horizon, terrorists are still on the march, and . . .

And the left is trying to get a Crip off death row. Because he wrote children's books.
Suppose he wrote self-help books, or an autobiography. Would it be ok to execute him then?
The man is a cold-blooded killer, with ties to a group that spans the continent. He needs to feel what the law can impose upon him, and his friends need to see it done.

Meanwhile, the right is frothing at the attack on Christmas. They are pissed that WalMart and Target are selling "holiday trees" instead of Christmas trees. Maybe if they looked at how those trees are made, and by whom, out there in the third world, they might have second thoughts about associating HIS name with them. Ho Ho Ho that, boys and girls.
Anyway, if the Soviet Union, Red China, and militant Islam can't kill Christianity, then Sam Walton's juggernaught won't either.

Meanwhile, the left are objecting to the new Narnia movies, on account of the "Christian" subtext. What, they've got holiday trees in it, or something?
Yes, C.S.Lewis was a Christian apologist, and there are traces of Christian thought in the books, and movie. There are also creatures from Greek myth, Norse myth, and Germanic myth.
Or did you myth the fauns, dwarves, and giants?
Honestly, this is the old Dungeons and Dragons argument again. D+D is satanic because it has devils as adversaries. Narnia is Christian because some of the ideas are Christian.
Well, Lord of the Rings had the same sorts of elements. Go rain on that parade for a while.

Meanwhile, . . . the birds are coming. And so are the hurricanes.

Generalities

2005-12-10T16:38:00.000-08:00

The biggest things crushing debate in the US are generalities.
All Muslims are evil. Their "religion of peace" is a sham. They are all anti-American.
Do you believe that? Then why are thousands of American soldiers risking their lives to save them? Why are they taking all this abuse when they could just sweep across Iraq, Iran, and Syria, getting rid of all the terrorists?
All Democrats are moonbats. All Republicans are nazis. All fundamentalists are crazy. The list goes on.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Agreed, several members of Congress have proven themselves guilty, as have several bloggers. But it doesn't hurt to listen to alternate arguments. Think of it as a test of your cognitive functions. Read what they say, and try to come up with a counter-argument that doesn't contain insults, off-topic references, or circular reasoning.

Oh, and several Muslims don't believe in terrorism. Including, by the way, the families of those being killed by the terrorists - at a greater rate than Americans, right now.

Still loved by the Iraqi

2005-12-10T05:43:00.000-08:00

According to a Knight Ridder report, Iraqi newspaper, TV and radio reporters who join the "Baghdad Press Club" -- a group formed by U.S. Army officers last year -- receive as much as $50 per "favorable" article from the United States.
So, we have gone from being greeted by cheers and flowers to having to BUY favorable press.
But we're still number one in their hearts, right?

Lennon

2005-12-08T19:36:00.000-08:00

Today is the anniversary of John Lennon's death - an event which shows just how far some people are willing to go for fame.
I wonder if some people in Iraq have learned this lesson?
Another bunch of peace activists have been kidnapped, and their captors demand the release of all prisoners.
What will that accomplish?
The prisoners go free. The hostages die anyway. New prisoners are taken. The wheel turns again.

Merry Christmas to the troops in Iraq.
Merry Christmas to the troops in Afghanistan, a group of people who have been mostly overshadowed by the more (un)popular conflict next door. Their job is just as arduous, just as dangerous.
But their stories are not getting on CNN. Merry Christmas, folks.

Wasted Time

2005-12-02T19:45:00.000-08:00

The Bush administration will go down in history for, if nothing else, all the wasted potential.
They've had a firm majority for years now, both in the House and the Senate. They cleaned out the bureaucracy and inserted their own key people.
And for what? What have they really accomplished?
True, the war was a major distraction, but so what? They should have been able to leave the war to the Pentagon and concentrated on domestic issues. That's what the Pentagon is for.
Can you name a major bill or initiative that the Bush government has managed to push through? No Child Left Behind is being left behind. Social Security reform vanished.
For all their talk that they don't need to defend their record, the Bush circle is spending a lot of time defending their record, and not much time sponsoring legislation, bringing it to a vote, and passing it.
The bills they have passed, I've noticed, have been seriously underplayed. The government does not brag about what they've managed to do. They haven't even mentioned it. If they are that sensitive to criticism with a majority, what will they be like with a minority?

Come on, conservatives! Make some noise. Brag a little.
Start by doing something to brag about.

The only Intelligent Design argument you need.

2005-12-01T21:48:00.000-08:00

Is right here.

Very funny. Very true.

Troop reductions? Or just a change in tactics?

2005-11-28T07:19:00.000-08:00

So, the US Government has decided on a troop pullout.
Or has it?
Follow the following link, and see what's really in store.
From The New Yorker ...

Congressmen injured in Iraq

2005-11-27T14:20:00.000-08:00

Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, were both injured while on an inspection tour of Iraq. Thei vehicle was hit by an oncoming truck. This was not considered a terrorist attack.
Ike Skelton has partial paralysis of his arms from polio. What is HE doing in a war zone? Aren't there any politicians out there with full use of their limbs?
Note that I am not calling Mr. Skelton's intelligence, or courage into question. But let's get the political correctness out of the way. The man is in a situation where your life depends on doing the right thing quickly, and although I applaud his triumph over a crippling disease, he is STILL not the man to send into a war zone. Why is he there?

Abolish Democracy NOW!

2005-11-25T16:48:00.000-08:00

Top 10 Reasons we should abolish democracy in the United States.

10: The large group, growing larger, that believes that drunk driving is the fault of the liquor companies, shootings are the fault of the gun salesmen, and drug crimes are the fault of some cabal in Columbia.
"We is all jus' pore white folks, wit fif' grade ejucatons, an' we don't know nuttin 'bout things, 'cept how to call our lawyer when we is hurt or sumpin', an' we couldn'ta even have dun that witout him programmin' the speed dialler 'for us." Too many voters believe that they are not responsible for anything, and that no matter what happens in life, there is somebody to be sued. Somebody should sue them. And keep them away from anything important, like the running of a country. After all, they aren't responsible people.

9: The rise of the anti intellectuals, especially the astrologists, creationists, UFOlogists, and conspiracy theorists - anyone who thinks that their beliefs are more important than the facts.
Your brain does not dictate reality. You are not that important, and I don't think egoists like you should be allowed to control a country.
Besides, you'd just give the place away to the Martians.

8: People who think their leaders should be "one of them". That's just what we need - a self-deluded, ignorant truck driver who can't get laid, leading the country.

7: The voter turnout. When we get to the stage where a 50% turnout is good, it's time to relieve all those poor, set-upon citizens of that nasty old vote.

6: The growing belief that God created an entire class of people for you to prove your faith against. This includes those who beat gays to death, shoot abortionists, and pilot airplanes into office buildings. God saved all those you kill, even the aborted. You're just sending yourself to hell. Also, who'd give any sort of responsibility to someone who thinks that a life of killing women who have sex out of wedlock, is going to win them seventy-odd virgins? Do you really think they're going to put out for you? You'd kill them!
Given the many examples from the 20th Century of what happens when people who believe in killing fellow citizens for "wrong" behavior get into power, it's best they not get a vote.

5: The cult of celebrity. I have great doubts about any voter who pays attention to the political views of someone who plays Make-Believe for a living. Not that it's dirty or anything, it's just that spending all that time learning lines leaves them little time to consider the ramifications of the SALT treaties.
I also have serious doubts about anyone who can't find Iraq on a map, but knows who Jennifer is dating now. And who knows who I mean by "Jennifer" without mentioning a last name.

4: The Great Christian Meltdown. This includes, but is not limited to. . .
- The people who think that because WalMart no longer says "Merry Christmas!", that Christianity is in danger, even though Christianity survived Nero and his lions.
- The people who listen to Pat Robertson, or for that matter any Christian leader who believes that the embodiment of peace and forgiveness wants certain people to burn in hell.
- Those who believe that the agnostics of our generation are so important to God that he will be willing to suspend natural laws, unleash the AntiChrist, and destroy the entire world, just to win them over - unlike the agnostics of, say, 1932. They can go to hell.

3: The rise of Multiculturalism, and the belief that our careful designed culture, polished over 8,000 years, influenced by everything from Hammurabi to Sun Tzu to Napoleon, is no more moral than some stone age tribe that ate raw monkeys and killed their daughters.
Look, the many cultures that have graced this world have contributed thousands of good ideas. Fire. Tea. Rubber. Dancing.
They have also contributed more than their fair share of bad ideas.
Mutilation. Abuse. Murder by decree.
There is a growing number of people who think that multiculturalism goes beyond contributing a new china pattern, to become an excuse for committing any sort of behavior, on the grounds that sometime, somewhere, one of your ancestors thought is was proper.
Your ancestors were barbarians, and I don't want you running things.

2: The state of Modern Education. I don't mind that a functional illiterate can get a B.A. by examining the effects of Lesbian Vampires upon Japanese anime. I just don't think these people should be allowed to vote. They may decide to elect a lesbian vampire, and then where would we all be?

1: The continued dominance of Me-ism. Anyone who thinks that nothing in the country exists that is more important than their own personal comfort should be safely ensconced in a secure little facility, where they can be taken care of while real people run things.

Name Droppers

2005-11-22T22:33:00.000-08:00

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.

I will discuss ideas and events on this blog.
Not people.
Every conservative blog I've turned to today has had the word Murtha in the title.
Forget Murtha. If you want to discuss the struggle in Iraq, fine. But I will not discuss the man.
Murtha is not dissing MY ideas. Or me. I will not diss him.

Merry Whatever

2005-11-21T18:25:00.000-08:00

Christmastime is here again. A time of joy, a time of cheer.
A time for the most bent members of the Religious Right to get even more twisted.
Christianity is under attack - because schools and stores say "Happy Holidays" and insist on restricting nativity scenes.
I guess the message of peace and joy has nothing to do with Christmas. It's all about the slogans.
Listen guys - the stores say "Happy Holidays" because they want the Hannukah crowd to come in during December, too. Why is the wisdom of the marketplace trusted in every other instance, but not THIS instance?
The schools practice religious-neutral activities because if they didn't, they'd be sued. Ours is the most lawsuit-happy culture in history. The political-correctness issue, the zero-tolerance issue, and the no-nativity scene issue all stem from a bunch of cranks willing to file a $10 million suit if their child "perceives an inappropriate idea" in a public place.

Get over it guys. Before someone sues you.

Why Johnnie can't fight

2005-11-20T13:13:00.000-08:00

Despite its current reputation, the American army has never done well with tactics. Battles they have won have, for the most part, been grinding affairs, with heavy casualties.

The Revolutionary War started out very poorly for the Americans, with loss after loss. They were almost ready to throw in the towel at Valley Forge. Other than a few bright spots, such as the battle of Cowpens, American generals produced no great victories during the war. Meanwhile, the British, who declared war on France, will also face Spain, who will declare war in 1779 as an ally of France, and the Dutch, who have been engaging in profitable trade with the French and Americans. In addition to America, the British will fight in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas, while facing possible invasion of England itself by the French. In 1782, Parliament, tired of all the fighting, and demoralized by the loss at Yorktown, decides not to pursue the war any longer.

The War of 1812 was a non-starter. After a few naval actions, the Continental Army invaded over the Niagara River, met the Canadians at Lundy's Lane, and the two sides shot each other to pieces.

Then there was the Civil War. America's one great shining light, Robert E. Lee, along with a more than competent staff, kept the South in the game years longer than they should have been able to. They were helped in no small measure by the Generals of the Union, and it helps us in our understanding of the mindset of the the American general to look at them. McClellan, who was loved by the troops - on both sides, since he was an overcautious tactician. Burnside, one of the worst generals in human history. Sherman, master of the Army Ant School of warfare, whose only tactical innovation was the willingness to kill and burn everything in his path. Many later US generals would take a page from his book. Grant, the old drunk who was able to finally make use of his army's numerical and material advantages to bring the war to an end.

The pattern was set, and has been followed ever since. Casualties be damned, finesse be damned. Git there fastest with the mostest. Use numerical and material superiority to grind your opponent into the dirt.
Every war the US Army has ever fought has been fought the same way. And when that basic tactic hasn't worked, the US Army hasn't won.

There was WW1. After sitting as a neutral for three years, presumably getting reports on the fighting, the United States entered the war in 1917. They had no aircraft; they bought French planes. One year after Cambrai, they had no tanks. Two years after the Somme, their first battle had them go over the top into German machine gun fire, causing them to join the stalemate. One year later, a fed-up German army essentially went on strike, and the war ended.

WW2. Again, the US sat out the fight until the Japanese convinced them of the folly of isolationism - a lesson that the US would have to relearn 60 years later. Again, the US went to war with no modern tanks or aircraft. They won their early victories by overwhelming their German opponents - and defeated the Japanese by technical innovation. There was no tactical innovation by the Americans in this war. Patton read Rommel's book; Nimitz copied what the Japanese were doing, and beat them at their own game. The Sherman tank beat the Tigers by numbers, sacrificing 3 out of 4 tanks to kill their opponent, and counting on the fact that they had 5 Shermans for every Tiger the Germans had.

Korea saw the Americans armed with WW2 weapons try to beat the Chinese. With the UN's help, America managed a draw. MacArthur's Inchon invasion stands out amidst a lackluster performance by American generals. However, the Chinese were too numerous to overwhelm, and America eventually just sealed off the border and went home.

Vietnam showed off America's weaknesses to the world. The US Army had learned nothing since The Battle of the Bulge. They fought a blitzkrieg in the jungle, and lost, unable to bring their enemy to bear. This was only a few years after the French had lost to the same army in the same way - and only a few years after the Australians had beaten a similar army using more practical tactics. Tactics that America failed to learn.

Finally, after years of Cold War, America was presented with the perfect conflict - the Gulf War. Textbook tank terrain, an opponent inferior in numbers, technology, and training, a noble cause, no outside allies for the enemy. Bush Senior's army rolled over the Republican Guard.

Then came the 21st Century, and the neo-chickenhawks. They had been chafing since Bush Sr. had left Saddam untouched. They decided to go over and do things right.
For a while, it was the Gulf War all over again. The precision missile strikes, the tank attacks.
Then the war changed, from blitzkrieg to guerilla. And the army faltered.
With tactics still unchanged from the streets of Berlin, 60 years ago, the men of the United States army now attempts to fight a 21st Century war. At the platoon level, the troops are first rate. Barring an ambush, they can take on all comers - and they can usually deal with ambushers, too.
It's at the staff level that it all breaks down. The generals cannot seem to get their head around the problem of an enemy that plants bombs along the road, or sends suicide bombers against their troops.
They say that they cannot leave until the job is done.
Then go back to their war of attrition.

We need a Guderian. A Napoleon. Someone to think of a whole new way of making war.
Something the United States has never had - a military genius. Robert E., where are you, now that we need you?

War/Pieces

2005-11-19T19:10:00.000-08:00

Why is the army still in Iraq?
Think about it. The most powerful military machine in the world, for that matter the most powerful military machine of all time, is still fighting 4 years later against a 3rd world power. Less than that, since Saddam, his army, and his followers are toast.
Why?
Well, believe it or not, it's because of liberal ideas.
Since the Vietnam War, the idea of the army as peacekeeper has become standard. Soldiers are urged to "be all that you can be", and the weary dogface has become a policeman-at-arms. The new army stands tall, protecting the public and standing between harm and the innocent.
Sorry, Kofi.
The army is what it has always been - The Fourth Horseman incarnate. Its job is to break things - armies, countries, dictators. They shoot people. In any terrain, at any time, in all weather.
Unfortunately, in both Democratic and Republican circles, this image is verboten. The US invaded Iraq with the notion that the army was the perfect tool for rebuilding, policing, and reempowering the populace.
It wasn't. It isn't. Peace is NOT their profession. You want to run a war, they're your man. You want to run a peace, you call the Peace Corp.

The House was able to make $50 billion of reductions in the rate of growth of the budget over the next five years. Those cuts will affect poor and middle class families. At the same time, the Senate passed legislation granting $60 billion in tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy, on Thursday.
Pardon me? Isn't this a little silly?
On second thought, strike the "little". And the "silly". This is insulting.