Mike DeLong is one of two men (the other being Tommy Franks) who can give us the best picture of Don Rumsfeld as a SECDEF in charge of running a war.
Read his op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. Buy his book, Inside Centcom, if you want even more detail.
Suffice it to say, I will take his word, and that of General FRanks on the matter.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Casting the gauntlet...
That is, in essence, what is happening with the ad featured in the Wall Street Journal on Monday. The civil disobedience campaign is continuing, and it is starting to have an effect, as AJ-Strata has revealed. Quite properly, the Republicans are retreating from part of the horrendous House bill, much to the anger of the hard-liners. In essence, the GOP is finally standing up to Tom Tancredo, albeit too late to do much except kill the provisions in the conference committee.
This is a big step. In essence, the business owner in that ad has dared the hard-liners to demand the law be enforced. It is, in essence, the start of a major offensive by proponents of a bill along the lines of the Senate compromise that includes some key portions of the Republican coalition (small-L libertarians like Grover Norquist, pro-business elements like the Chamber of Commerce, and people who are Bush/Republican loyalists). This bill is largely opposed by other key portions of the Republican coalition (law-and-order conservatives, traditionalists, and populists).
I think that Hugh Hewitt has grossly understated what is happening on this issue. This is a full-blown civil war on the right - and one that has been brewing for some time under the surface. We've seen glimpses of it earlier, during the debate over the prescription drug program for Medicare, over relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and even over No Child Left Behind, but within the past two months, it has become obvious that this civil war was inevitable.
The "Fort Sumter" of this civil war was the controversy over the Dubai Ports World acquisition of P&O. The resulting betrayal turned immigration into a "must-win" battle for President Bush, who would have otherwise been faced with a serious decline in the relationship with one of America's most crucial allies in the war on terror (before you think I'm reaching, ask yourself how valuable it is to have an ally whose intelligence service can infiltrate human intelligence sources into Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia - the UAE can do that). A number of those who sabotaged the deal have also opposed the President on immigration.
This meant that President Bush had to choose between preserving a vital strategic alliance in the war on terror, and risking losses in the 2006 mid-terms, or keeping internal GOP harmony, and risking a vital alliance. Anyone who has watched George W. Bush over the four-and-a-half years the war on terror has been going on does not need to guess at what he would choose.
That meant that these two factions of the Republican coalition were going to have to fight. It meant that they might be fighting all the way until the 2008 Republican Convention. But that was not his choice. He did not start this Republican Civil War, but he will end it, and he intends to win it. It will be good for the GOP, and good for the country.
This is a big step. In essence, the business owner in that ad has dared the hard-liners to demand the law be enforced. It is, in essence, the start of a major offensive by proponents of a bill along the lines of the Senate compromise that includes some key portions of the Republican coalition (small-L libertarians like Grover Norquist, pro-business elements like the Chamber of Commerce, and people who are Bush/Republican loyalists). This bill is largely opposed by other key portions of the Republican coalition (law-and-order conservatives, traditionalists, and populists).
I think that Hugh Hewitt has grossly understated what is happening on this issue. This is a full-blown civil war on the right - and one that has been brewing for some time under the surface. We've seen glimpses of it earlier, during the debate over the prescription drug program for Medicare, over relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and even over No Child Left Behind, but within the past two months, it has become obvious that this civil war was inevitable.
The "Fort Sumter" of this civil war was the controversy over the Dubai Ports World acquisition of P&O. The resulting betrayal turned immigration into a "must-win" battle for President Bush, who would have otherwise been faced with a serious decline in the relationship with one of America's most crucial allies in the war on terror (before you think I'm reaching, ask yourself how valuable it is to have an ally whose intelligence service can infiltrate human intelligence sources into Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia - the UAE can do that). A number of those who sabotaged the deal have also opposed the President on immigration.
This meant that President Bush had to choose between preserving a vital strategic alliance in the war on terror, and risking losses in the 2006 mid-terms, or keeping internal GOP harmony, and risking a vital alliance. Anyone who has watched George W. Bush over the four-and-a-half years the war on terror has been going on does not need to guess at what he would choose.
That meant that these two factions of the Republican coalition were going to have to fight. It meant that they might be fighting all the way until the 2008 Republican Convention. But that was not his choice. He did not start this Republican Civil War, but he will end it, and he intends to win it. It will be good for the GOP, and good for the country.
Sometimes a joke just writes itself...
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice tosses Playboy and Penthouse out of the State Department newsstands.
The Beastie Boys need to re-write that line from their song, "Fight for Your Right (to Party)" to:
The Beastie Boys need to re-write that line from their song, "Fight for Your Right (to Party)" to:
Working at State is such a drag...
Since SecState threw away the best porno mags.
MySpace...
MySpace has taken the step of hiring a security chief. This is a good step, given the online predators out there. But what is disturbing is how Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal can investigate a company that is not based in his state.
A company that, in fact, conducts most, if not all, of its "business" online... and which has users across the country (including myself).
Mr. Blumenthal needs to re-read the Constitution - particularly Article I, Sections 8 and 9. State attorneys general have no business meddling in interstate commerce.
A company that, in fact, conducts most, if not all, of its "business" online... and which has users across the country (including myself).
Mr. Blumenthal needs to re-read the Constitution - particularly Article I, Sections 8 and 9. State attorneys general have no business meddling in interstate commerce.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Still more on immigration...
There's a lot to say about immigration still.
First, let's discuss the Powerline poll. This is a poll that can only be described as having been stacked in favor of the results wanted via the choices offered. You could only pick one option out of the eight offered. What's more, there was no entry in the poll that came remotely close to the President's comprehensive proposal. This has been typical of what has passed for conservative criticism of the President's plan: Phony claims of "amnesty" and "no serious enforcement", repeated often and loudly. This is doubly disappointing given this blog's superb work to expose the blatantly dishonest reporting of Dan Rather. I expected better. I sent them an e-mail about the poll, and pointing them to my blog. I await their response.
Second, we go to Captain's Quarters, and a disturbing propsoal from Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia. Short version: He wants to repeal the portion of the 14th Amendment that states that all those who are born to persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are consdiered citizens. In other words, he wants to take up to citizenship that is largely along the lines of France and Germany. The concept of "blood citizenship" can only be described as latently bigoted, if not worse. It simply tells people that because of who their parents are, they do not have what it takes to be an American. This not only flies in the face of the constitutional prohibition on "corruption of blood" (for treason, I might add), it also is in conflict with the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal").
In addition to the objections on principle, there is a practical effect. France and Germany have had huge problems with unassimilated minorities. Why? Because for generations, they have not been given a stake in that country, and they have been effectively told that there is no hope whatsoever for their children to become members of that country. Thus, they congregate among themselves, and have no reason to assimilate - because the country they are in has summarily precluded the chance that they or their children can become French or German.
The third piece of news is much better. It is a column at TCSDaily covering the recent protests in DC against the abominable House bill. The author noted a lot of citizens there - and you can bet that if they are motivated to protest such a stupid bill, they will also be motivated to vote on this issue. Perhaps some of the House Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, and others need to take a good look at this. There are a lot of people who object to the House bill. And for good reason. More horror stories emerge of people caught in the immigration morass. One was a caller to Rush Limbaugh's program who was given bad information. CNN covered an Irish couple who is also technically "illegal" because of an all-too-typical bureaucratic screw-up (no link available, sorry). Add this to what Dafydd at Big Lizards reported at 1:28 PM on March 28 (scroll down for the comment), and the Colombian family I am aware of, and the pattern is emerging of a law that has gone so far wrong it is receiving the same level of civil disobedience that ultimately ended racial segregation in the South.
At this point, what more is there to be said?
First, let's discuss the Powerline poll. This is a poll that can only be described as having been stacked in favor of the results wanted via the choices offered. You could only pick one option out of the eight offered. What's more, there was no entry in the poll that came remotely close to the President's comprehensive proposal. This has been typical of what has passed for conservative criticism of the President's plan: Phony claims of "amnesty" and "no serious enforcement", repeated often and loudly. This is doubly disappointing given this blog's superb work to expose the blatantly dishonest reporting of Dan Rather. I expected better. I sent them an e-mail about the poll, and pointing them to my blog. I await their response.
Second, we go to Captain's Quarters, and a disturbing propsoal from Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia. Short version: He wants to repeal the portion of the 14th Amendment that states that all those who are born to persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are consdiered citizens. In other words, he wants to take up to citizenship that is largely along the lines of France and Germany. The concept of "blood citizenship" can only be described as latently bigoted, if not worse. It simply tells people that because of who their parents are, they do not have what it takes to be an American. This not only flies in the face of the constitutional prohibition on "corruption of blood" (for treason, I might add), it also is in conflict with the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal").
In addition to the objections on principle, there is a practical effect. France and Germany have had huge problems with unassimilated minorities. Why? Because for generations, they have not been given a stake in that country, and they have been effectively told that there is no hope whatsoever for their children to become members of that country. Thus, they congregate among themselves, and have no reason to assimilate - because the country they are in has summarily precluded the chance that they or their children can become French or German.
The third piece of news is much better. It is a column at TCSDaily covering the recent protests in DC against the abominable House bill. The author noted a lot of citizens there - and you can bet that if they are motivated to protest such a stupid bill, they will also be motivated to vote on this issue. Perhaps some of the House Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, and others need to take a good look at this. There are a lot of people who object to the House bill. And for good reason. More horror stories emerge of people caught in the immigration morass. One was a caller to Rush Limbaugh's program who was given bad information. CNN covered an Irish couple who is also technically "illegal" because of an all-too-typical bureaucratic screw-up (no link available, sorry). Add this to what Dafydd at Big Lizards reported at 1:28 PM on March 28 (scroll down for the comment), and the Colombian family I am aware of, and the pattern is emerging of a law that has gone so far wrong it is receiving the same level of civil disobedience that ultimately ended racial segregation in the South.
At this point, what more is there to be said?
More on the "rule of law" argument...
Again, I have to disagree with RangerMac.
When a system has become as broken as our immigration system is, (see my earlier posts on the subject here and here), we have to fix it, and admit we screwed up.
A good portion of the 12 million illegal immgirants are victims of this system, just as much as other people have been victimized by the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and eminent domain. Conservatives have acted to address these other abuses by bureaucrats. Why do they not do so when it is a messed-up application of immigration law? Isn't reforming the law, and cutting the victims of that law (even if they have not followed the letter of the law) some slack the right thing to do?
When a system has become as broken as our immigration system is, (see my earlier posts on the subject here and here), we have to fix it, and admit we screwed up.
A good portion of the 12 million illegal immgirants are victims of this system, just as much as other people have been victimized by the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and eminent domain. Conservatives have acted to address these other abuses by bureaucrats. Why do they not do so when it is a messed-up application of immigration law? Isn't reforming the law, and cutting the victims of that law (even if they have not followed the letter of the law) some slack the right thing to do?
Monday, April 10, 2006
Conservative no more?
Increasingly, that is what it is looking like I will be saying in the wake of this immigration debate.
The immigration debate has become that bad. It seems that on the right, if one does not agree with the positions of a Michelle Malkin or a Michael Savage, you are for "open borders" or worse. Furthermore, they seem determined to sabotage any compromise that features what they have come to call "amnesty".
To be blunt, this is the right's version of "Medicare cuts". There is no amnesty. Those who are here illegally pay a penalty. It is merely not the penalty that is sought by Malkin, Savage, and Tancredo. Furthermore, they are claiming there is no serious enforcement. Well, what have CBP and ICE been doing all this time, playing tiddlywinks?! This has to be an insult to the personnel of both agencies who put their lives on the line. Not to mention who are already deporting dangerous criminals (1,300 in soxth months by the Buffalo, New York, Field Office). No enforcement? That claim ranks right up there with "Medicare cuts" in terms of whoppers told for political advantage.
It is just getting impossible to continue to associate myself with a movement that is embracing these lies. And that is leading me to openly question whether my beliefs can really be pegged into one particular movement. Hugh Hewitt said that immigration was an issue that could cause a civil war in the Republican Party. In this, he is wrong. The civil war is already upon us. It now remains to be decided whether the vision that triumphs is Ronald Reagan's or Tom Tancredo's.
The immigration debate has become that bad. It seems that on the right, if one does not agree with the positions of a Michelle Malkin or a Michael Savage, you are for "open borders" or worse. Furthermore, they seem determined to sabotage any compromise that features what they have come to call "amnesty".
To be blunt, this is the right's version of "Medicare cuts". There is no amnesty. Those who are here illegally pay a penalty. It is merely not the penalty that is sought by Malkin, Savage, and Tancredo. Furthermore, they are claiming there is no serious enforcement. Well, what have CBP and ICE been doing all this time, playing tiddlywinks?! This has to be an insult to the personnel of both agencies who put their lives on the line. Not to mention who are already deporting dangerous criminals (1,300 in soxth months by the Buffalo, New York, Field Office). No enforcement? That claim ranks right up there with "Medicare cuts" in terms of whoppers told for political advantage.
It is just getting impossible to continue to associate myself with a movement that is embracing these lies. And that is leading me to openly question whether my beliefs can really be pegged into one particular movement. Hugh Hewitt said that immigration was an issue that could cause a civil war in the Republican Party. In this, he is wrong. The civil war is already upon us. It now remains to be decided whether the vision that triumphs is Ronald Reagan's or Tom Tancredo's.
Sy Hersh...
Both Mac's Mind and Austin Bay discuss Seymour Hersh's "expose" in the New Yorker.
What I think they both miss is that Mahmoud Ahamdinejad is the mullah's way of committing the geopolitical equivalent of "suicide by cop". Iran is a very young country (median age 24.8). Most of the youth do not care for the theocracy. The writing is clearly on the wall for where Iran is going to go barring a drastic event (say, a bunch of nukes turning Iran into a self-lighting parking lot).
The mullahs have decided that rather than see Iran go democratic, they will destroy it. It's an evil decision made by evil men who have decided that if they cannot have Iran, then nobody shall.
What I think they both miss is that Mahmoud Ahamdinejad is the mullah's way of committing the geopolitical equivalent of "suicide by cop". Iran is a very young country (median age 24.8). Most of the youth do not care for the theocracy. The writing is clearly on the wall for where Iran is going to go barring a drastic event (say, a bunch of nukes turning Iran into a self-lighting parking lot).
The mullahs have decided that rather than see Iran go democratic, they will destroy it. It's an evil decision made by evil men who have decided that if they cannot have Iran, then nobody shall.
On immigration...
Macsmind has a great post on the immigration debate in the GOP.
I wish to add a few thing further to the debate. I have long disliked Michelle Malkin - particularly through who she chose to associate with on the immigration issue. I've written about this twice before. Suffice it to say she has cited Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer to bolster her arguments on immigration. Both Sailer and Auster have been called out - and by two of the founders of Redstate.com (tacitus and Ben Domenech), no less. When conservatives are calling people racists, she ought to take note - and not hide behind claims that people are crying xenophobia the way she did when people (many on the right) forcefully disagreed with her on the UAE ports deal. Yet she still lets her column run on a site that not only features Sailer, but which also runs stuff from Jared Taylor as well. In the Age of Google, is there any real excuse to not know who one is working with? I say no.
Sadly, she has allies. As Newsweek reports in a profile of Congressman Tom Tancredo, who has aligned himself with Pat Buchanan on the issue:
"So be it" is not an appropriate answer to possibly handing the White House to a Democratic Party that has demonstrated time and time again it is incapable of taking the war on terror seriously. And yet, Tancredo has a following. A big one, particularly at places like FreeRepublic (which is ultimately why I decided to cease participation at that site). The conservative movement's tolerance of Malkin and Tancredo is why it's rapidly leaving me. This country was founded on the premise that all men are created equal. Malkin and Tancredo seem to be hanging out with people who apparently think otherwise.
EDIT: Correcting a link that I messed up earlier.
EDIT 2 (4/2/06): It seems that the link to the denunciation of Lawrence Auster has been hacked.
EDIT 3 (4/10/06): The link appears to have been fixed.
I wish to add a few thing further to the debate. I have long disliked Michelle Malkin - particularly through who she chose to associate with on the immigration issue. I've written about this twice before. Suffice it to say she has cited Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer to bolster her arguments on immigration. Both Sailer and Auster have been called out - and by two of the founders of Redstate.com (tacitus and Ben Domenech), no less. When conservatives are calling people racists, she ought to take note - and not hide behind claims that people are crying xenophobia the way she did when people (many on the right) forcefully disagreed with her on the UAE ports deal. Yet she still lets her column run on a site that not only features Sailer, but which also runs stuff from Jared Taylor as well. In the Age of Google, is there any real excuse to not know who one is working with? I say no.
Sadly, she has allies. As Newsweek reports in a profile of Congressman Tom Tancredo, who has aligned himself with Pat Buchanan on the issue:
Tancredo may not be a household name yet, but he's doing everything he can to change that. As the House and Senate debate the nation's immigration and border-security laws, the four-term Coloradan has positioned himself as the loudest, angriest voice against the estimated 11 million illegal aliens now living in the United States. They are "a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation," he says. He laments "the cult of multiculturalism," and worries about America's becoming a "Tower of Babel." If Republican presidential candidates don't put the problem atop the agenda in 2008, he says he'll run himself, just to force the front runners to talk about it. Not that he thinks he'd win the White House. He declares himself "too fat, too short and too bald" to be president. If the Republicans lose the election because he's too tough on the issue, he says, "So be it."
"So be it" is not an appropriate answer to possibly handing the White House to a Democratic Party that has demonstrated time and time again it is incapable of taking the war on terror seriously. And yet, Tancredo has a following. A big one, particularly at places like FreeRepublic (which is ultimately why I decided to cease participation at that site). The conservative movement's tolerance of Malkin and Tancredo is why it's rapidly leaving me. This country was founded on the premise that all men are created equal. Malkin and Tancredo seem to be hanging out with people who apparently think otherwise.
EDIT: Correcting a link that I messed up earlier.
EDIT 2 (4/2/06): It seems that the link to the denunciation of Lawrence Auster has been hacked.
EDIT 3 (4/10/06): The link appears to have been fixed.
Spambots stink...
Austin Bay discusses some recent tribulations with spambots.
There are lower forms of life than spammers. Child molesters, trial lawyers, and terrorists spring to mind very quickly. But spammers rank very low on the scale.
There are lower forms of life than spammers. Child molesters, trial lawyers, and terrorists spring to mind very quickly. But spammers rank very low on the scale.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Overdue Presidential Hardball
President Bush has drawn a line - saying he opposes a fence on the border with Mexico. In one sense, I do not like fences, since they work both ways. But, on the other hand, this is precisely the kind of hardball that is needed. Particularly after 15,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 3,000 additional ICE inspectors, tougher penalties for forging documents and alien smuggling, a mandatory emplyoment verification program, and other measures was not sufficient.
I have no problem with the construction of a virtual fence using surveillance technology and UAVs, and adding more agents to CBP and ICE. The use of MQ-1 Predators may make drug gangs think twice about trying to shoot it out with the Border Patrol.
But a real fence... a 1,951-mile Berlin Wall on the border with Mexico? No way, at least not without serious concessions from the proponents of a wall. Where to start?
* Increase legal immigration by at least 50%.
* Add a guest worker program.
* Provide a way for the 12,000,000 people to come out of the shadows in return for a reduced penalty (a fine and repayment of back taxes). Calling this an amnesty (which is a general pardon granted by a government) is no more truthful than calling the reductions in the rate of growth in spending for Medicare "cuts" as the Democrats did in 1995. There is punishment present in this proposal - it is just not the punishment hard-liners like Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo want.
* Pass into law clear and objective conditions for entry into this country as a tourist , a guest worker, a student, and a permanent resident. No more will there be any basis in law for stories like the ones Dafydd posted as a comment at 1:28 PM on this post at Big Lizards. Similar objective and clear requirements for citizenship (with a bare minimum being command of the English language, American history, and civics at a high school level, at least eight years in this country with no serious legal problems, and employment) need to be placed into effect. If people meet these qualifications (or if it cannot be proven they do not meet them within a reasonable time period), then the government should be told to issue the visa on a first-come first-served basis, with exceptions for those who might be in physical danger.
If they want to deal, they can accept these terms, and then we can discuss what kind of fence goes up. This probably sounds harsh, but there seems to be no other way for President Bush to get through to House Republicans, who have already taken part in the disgusting betrayal of a reliable ally in the war on terror, and who have no desire to reform a law that has gone wrong.
Well, maybe if there is a veto or two, and if the business community speaks out enough, the obstinancy of the House Republicans will change. either that, or maybe they will head back to the minority until they learn to address real problems with reasonable solutions, as they largely did in 1995.
I have no problem with the construction of a virtual fence using surveillance technology and UAVs, and adding more agents to CBP and ICE. The use of MQ-1 Predators may make drug gangs think twice about trying to shoot it out with the Border Patrol.
But a real fence... a 1,951-mile Berlin Wall on the border with Mexico? No way, at least not without serious concessions from the proponents of a wall. Where to start?
* Increase legal immigration by at least 50%.
* Add a guest worker program.
* Provide a way for the 12,000,000 people to come out of the shadows in return for a reduced penalty (a fine and repayment of back taxes). Calling this an amnesty (which is a general pardon granted by a government) is no more truthful than calling the reductions in the rate of growth in spending for Medicare "cuts" as the Democrats did in 1995. There is punishment present in this proposal - it is just not the punishment hard-liners like Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo want.
* Pass into law clear and objective conditions for entry into this country as a tourist , a guest worker, a student, and a permanent resident. No more will there be any basis in law for stories like the ones Dafydd posted as a comment at 1:28 PM on this post at Big Lizards. Similar objective and clear requirements for citizenship (with a bare minimum being command of the English language, American history, and civics at a high school level, at least eight years in this country with no serious legal problems, and employment) need to be placed into effect. If people meet these qualifications (or if it cannot be proven they do not meet them within a reasonable time period), then the government should be told to issue the visa on a first-come first-served basis, with exceptions for those who might be in physical danger.
If they want to deal, they can accept these terms, and then we can discuss what kind of fence goes up. This probably sounds harsh, but there seems to be no other way for President Bush to get through to House Republicans, who have already taken part in the disgusting betrayal of a reliable ally in the war on terror, and who have no desire to reform a law that has gone wrong.
Well, maybe if there is a veto or two, and if the business community speaks out enough, the obstinancy of the House Republicans will change. either that, or maybe they will head back to the minority until they learn to address real problems with reasonable solutions, as they largely did in 1995.
Immigration bill shelved...
The "Big Lie" technique as applied to the McCain-Kenendy bill and the Senate compromise, worked. The bill is being shelved for at least the Congressional recess.
I think the set of used golf clubs I got will be getting a fair bit of use this fall.
I think the set of used golf clubs I got will be getting a fair bit of use this fall.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
A quick round-up...
An article I wrote summarizing some of the documents recovered after the liberation of Iraq is at TCSDaily.com. Another good article there discusses immigration and civil disobedience. In essence, Michelle Malkin, Tom Tancredo, and other hard-liners have just had been called to put up or shut up. As I discussed earlier, citing a comment at Big Lizards, this law has problems.
Captains Quarters has translated another recently released document from the archives of Saddam's regime.
Strata-Sphere has two good posts. One discusses the collapse of the case against Scooter Libby. The other is pure common sense on people we don't want in this country.
My colleague from Strategypage, Austin Bay, also has discussed immigration.
Captains Quarters has translated another recently released document from the archives of Saddam's regime.
Strata-Sphere has two good posts. One discusses the collapse of the case against Scooter Libby. The other is pure common sense on people we don't want in this country.
My colleague from Strategypage, Austin Bay, also has discussed immigration.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Opening Day, 2006...
Baseball season starts today.
The Brewers bring a superb trio of young players (JJ Hardy, Rickie Weeks, and Prince Fielder). They have a great rotation, and Ned Yost has settled in as manager...
They are probably better than any team in the NL Central, except St. Louis. I believe they will finish no worse than 2nd, and they have a 50/50 shot to take the wild card (if they do not win the division outright). Last year, as the playoffs started, my colleague at Strategypage, Austin Bay, predicted the Astros would finish ahead of the Brewers. I think he is mistaken.
The Brewers bring a superb trio of young players (JJ Hardy, Rickie Weeks, and Prince Fielder). They have a great rotation, and Ned Yost has settled in as manager...
They are probably better than any team in the NL Central, except St. Louis. I believe they will finish no worse than 2nd, and they have a 50/50 shot to take the wild card (if they do not win the division outright). Last year, as the playoffs started, my colleague at Strategypage, Austin Bay, predicted the Astros would finish ahead of the Brewers. I think he is mistaken.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
When does a law become wrong?
Thinking more on the BigLizards blog entry of March 28, particularly his comment at 1:28 PM, I have come to the conclusion that "rule of law" can be grossly misused - as it was when Janet Reno used that phrase during the Elian Gonzalez case (for an interesting take, see WeeklyStandard.com). This phrase is often used by the critics of the President's guest worker plan - and often without a response.
Well, Big Lizards has shown some situations which show that maybe there is a response.
Quoting his 1:28 PM comment:
Now, for the next story:
Sixteen years. No real problems with the law. A perfectly law-abidign citizen who bought a house, was taking part in the American dream. Then one health issue - and we're booting him out. No reason whatsoever.
I have heard a second-hand story in all of this. A family from Colombia found out their oldest son's school was slated for a "recruitment drive" by one of the rebel groups (I'm told the method reflects that used by FARC). They did everything they could within the law to protect their son's life (these kids are often used as cannon fodder). Finally, they came to the US on tourist visas and overstayed them. They are "illegals" - and if Malkin, Tancredo, and the rest of that crowd had their way, they'd be sent back forthwith. No ifs, ands, or buts. And all along, we are supposed to accept this in the name of the "rule of law".
It's like the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. States imposed to to keep their highway funds, but it became a joke. Montana, for instance, made the penalty for exceeding it a very small fine - with no repercussions for one's driving record. Other states gave a bit of leeway, depending on the situation. Others would ticket anyone going over 55, using the speeding tickets to enhance revenue. It became a racket that was so bad that eventually, the national limit was repealed. But the deleterious effects are present today, as a national speedtrap database is online, telling people where police try to enforce the speed limit (or enhance revenue even further).
There comes a point when the law just doesn't do the job. Then it becomes time to change it, and to also make it right to the people caught up in the mess that resulted from the failures of the original laws. On immigration, that tipping point has passed.
Well, Big Lizards has shown some situations which show that maybe there is a response.
Quoting his 1:28 PM comment:
Bureaucratic slowdowns, with no concept of the fact that there are people in this country. They could fall "out of status" due to misplaced or uncompleted paperwork. These are not the hardened criminals or threats to our country that Michelle Malkin or Tom Tancredo would have us believe they are.I didn't get into the story (because the post was long enough as it was), but my wife is a naturalized citizen. She had her green card for a long time; when she was trying to become a citizen, she jumped through all the hoops, checked off all the boxes, and finally got to the point where she was told she would be a citizen as soon as she took the oath.
But then they simply refused to set a date for her to take the oath. Weeks passed, months, and they wouldn't set a date, wouldn't tell her why, wouldn't tell he if there were any problem. Nothing.
Most of the people she talked to simply said they had no idea, she should just wait a few more weeks. But after those weeks, they told her the same thing.
It finally took a direct intervention from our then-congressman. It turns out the "problem" was that her file was sitting on somebody's desk, buried under a bunch of other papers that Mr. or Ms. Somebody also wasn't bothering to handle.
The reason they couldn't find it was -- they hadn't even bothered to look. It was nobody's responsibility to find it. Had it not been for our representative, she would still, six years later, be waiting for her bloody swearing-in ceremony... and would still not yet be a citizen.
Now, for the next story:
A few years ago, a friend of ours, who was here completely legally, lost his job because of a medical problem. Mind, he had been here for sixteen years trying to get a green card. During that time, he was totally legal, he was working, he owned a condo, he had health insurance, spoke perfect English, never committed any crime (it's possible he may have gotten a traffic ticket), everything that should have qualified him.
But because he couldn't get a green card (again, he never found out why), when he lost his job, he was simply told to get out. No discussion, no appeal: since his legal status was still tied to his job (as an accountant at a hotel), he was simply ordered back to Japan after sixteen years trying to become an American.
Sixteen years. No real problems with the law. A perfectly law-abidign citizen who bought a house, was taking part in the American dream. Then one health issue - and we're booting him out. No reason whatsoever.
I have heard a second-hand story in all of this. A family from Colombia found out their oldest son's school was slated for a "recruitment drive" by one of the rebel groups (I'm told the method reflects that used by FARC). They did everything they could within the law to protect their son's life (these kids are often used as cannon fodder). Finally, they came to the US on tourist visas and overstayed them. They are "illegals" - and if Malkin, Tancredo, and the rest of that crowd had their way, they'd be sent back forthwith. No ifs, ands, or buts. And all along, we are supposed to accept this in the name of the "rule of law".
It's like the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. States imposed to to keep their highway funds, but it became a joke. Montana, for instance, made the penalty for exceeding it a very small fine - with no repercussions for one's driving record. Other states gave a bit of leeway, depending on the situation. Others would ticket anyone going over 55, using the speeding tickets to enhance revenue. It became a racket that was so bad that eventually, the national limit was repealed. But the deleterious effects are present today, as a national speedtrap database is online, telling people where police try to enforce the speed limit (or enhance revenue even further).
There comes a point when the law just doesn't do the job. Then it becomes time to change it, and to also make it right to the people caught up in the mess that resulted from the failures of the original laws. On immigration, that tipping point has passed.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Calling BS on Howard Dean...
Howard Dean is telling a real whopper.
If any Republican is trying to reach out to Hispanics, it is George W. Bush, who has called for civility in the debate - a call that some conservatives have not heeded. He has been standing up to all sorts of conservatives by promoting his guest-worker plan, which these conservatives have falsely called an amnesty.
On immigration, conservatives have tolerated some very ugly people like Lawrence Auster, Michael Savage, and Steve Sailer. All too often, when their ugliness has been questioned - and not by the usual suspects (NAACP, La Raza, etc.), but by conservative outlets/individuals like the Wall Street Journal's editorial page or people who founded Redstate.com, the "race-baiting" card is the first to be played to avoid scrutiny. It's happened often enough that I really no longer consider myself a conservative.
That said, when Howard Dean shows he is this divorced from reality, the Democrats are not really an option. Oh, well, I have some new golf clubs - I can spend time learning how to use them.
If any Republican is trying to reach out to Hispanics, it is George W. Bush, who has called for civility in the debate - a call that some conservatives have not heeded. He has been standing up to all sorts of conservatives by promoting his guest-worker plan, which these conservatives have falsely called an amnesty.
On immigration, conservatives have tolerated some very ugly people like Lawrence Auster, Michael Savage, and Steve Sailer. All too often, when their ugliness has been questioned - and not by the usual suspects (NAACP, La Raza, etc.), but by conservative outlets/individuals like the Wall Street Journal's editorial page or people who founded Redstate.com, the "race-baiting" card is the first to be played to avoid scrutiny. It's happened often enough that I really no longer consider myself a conservative.
That said, when Howard Dean shows he is this divorced from reality, the Democrats are not really an option. Oh, well, I have some new golf clubs - I can spend time learning how to use them.
Ugliness...
Michael Savage's comments on the Catholic Church reinforce my earlier criticism of Michelle Malkin.
Short version, we seem to have a lot of bigots who are welcome among the critics of the President's immigration plan. Something is wrong here.
Short version, we seem to have a lot of bigots who are welcome among the critics of the President's immigration plan. Something is wrong here.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
I got tagged, so...
I got tagged by Crystal, so I guess I gotta play.
The rules:
How does the world see you? - Margaritaville (Jimmy Buffett)
Will I have a happy life? - Chasing the Wind (Chicago)
What do my friends really think of me? - Overprotected (Britney Spears)
What do people secretly think of me? - Only the Good Die Young (Billy Joel)
How can I be happy? - Be Good to Yourself (Journey)
What should I do with my life? - Let's Go Bang (Jennifer Love Hewitt)
Will I ever have children? - When You Love a Woman (Journey)
How will I be remembered? - Rhymin' and Stealin' (Beastie Boys)
What is my signature dancing song? - Dontcha Want Me Now (Debbie Gibson)
What do I think my current theme song is? - Avenue of the Stars (Jennifer Love Hewitt)
What does everyone else think my current theme song is? - Chasin' the Wind (Chicago)
What song will play at my funeral? - Genie in a Bottle (Christina Aguilera)
What type of men/women do you like? - Beautiful Disaster (Kelly Clarkson)
What is my day going to be like? - Out in the Parking Lot (Body Count)
Now, I suppose I need to tag someone...
I'll tag my mother. *Smiles sweetly*
The rules:
So you take your mp3 player, you put it on shuffle mode, and then you ask yourself the question in bold, out loud. The song that pops up is the answer. Give it a try.
How does the world see you? - Margaritaville (Jimmy Buffett)
Will I have a happy life? - Chasing the Wind (Chicago)
What do my friends really think of me? - Overprotected (Britney Spears)
What do people secretly think of me? - Only the Good Die Young (Billy Joel)
How can I be happy? - Be Good to Yourself (Journey)
What should I do with my life? - Let's Go Bang (Jennifer Love Hewitt)
Will I ever have children? - When You Love a Woman (Journey)
How will I be remembered? - Rhymin' and Stealin' (Beastie Boys)
What is my signature dancing song? - Dontcha Want Me Now (Debbie Gibson)
What do I think my current theme song is? - Avenue of the Stars (Jennifer Love Hewitt)
What does everyone else think my current theme song is? - Chasin' the Wind (Chicago)
What song will play at my funeral? - Genie in a Bottle (Christina Aguilera)
What type of men/women do you like? - Beautiful Disaster (Kelly Clarkson)
What is my day going to be like? - Out in the Parking Lot (Body Count)
Now, I suppose I need to tag someone...
I'll tag my mother. *Smiles sweetly*
What do you call the latest bill from South Carolina?
A good start.
There are some people you don't take chances with. Leaders of states that sponsor terrorism, serial killers, cop-killers, and child molesters are no-brainers to fall into this category.
What would make it perfect would be if South Carolina made a deal with the GRU for a blast furnace...
There are some people you don't take chances with. Leaders of states that sponsor terrorism, serial killers, cop-killers, and child molesters are no-brainers to fall into this category.
What would make it perfect would be if South Carolina made a deal with the GRU for a blast furnace...
More on immigration
Big Lizards has a series of good posts on immigration. His comment here (at 1:28 PM on March 28) shows that the system has gone haywire. A system that features the kind of arbitrary and capricious whims or decisions by bureaucrats is one that is going to be defied.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Card resigns...
Andy Card has resigned as White House Chief of Staff. If Ankle-Biting Pundits is correct, could this be a preview of who wins the "Karl Rove" primary? I think it is a sign. President Bush has found his successor, and it's going to be a one-term Governor of Massachusetts.
Think about it. Mitt Romney has a few things in common with President Bush. Both got MBAs from Harvard. Both come from political families (albeit Romney's father topped out as governor of Michigan, while President Bush's father was also President). Both are seen as somewhat "heretical" for the GOP (Romney has been seen as pro-choice by some conservatives, President Bush tends to be pro-immigration).
That said, Romney is not a clone of President Bush. He also has had a track record that was more successful in the business world (Did you ever go to Staples? Well, he helped provide the financing to turn it from one store to the giant it is today.). He also is better at speaking to the public. Romney also made it as a Republican governor in Massachusetts.
If Card is heading to Romney, could Karl Rove follow? If so, then romney will have yet another boost in addition to a strong second-place finish in a straw poll in Memphis - among religious conservatives. His supporters got to this straw poll, without much involvement on his part of his campaign. Against Frist (who has been unimpressive this Congress), McCain (who gets a lto of prss for trashing other Republicans), and Allen (who fell flat in this one), he could win the nomination - and the White House.
Think about it. Mitt Romney has a few things in common with President Bush. Both got MBAs from Harvard. Both come from political families (albeit Romney's father topped out as governor of Michigan, while President Bush's father was also President). Both are seen as somewhat "heretical" for the GOP (Romney has been seen as pro-choice by some conservatives, President Bush tends to be pro-immigration).
That said, Romney is not a clone of President Bush. He also has had a track record that was more successful in the business world (Did you ever go to Staples? Well, he helped provide the financing to turn it from one store to the giant it is today.). He also is better at speaking to the public. Romney also made it as a Republican governor in Massachusetts.
If Card is heading to Romney, could Karl Rove follow? If so, then romney will have yet another boost in addition to a strong second-place finish in a straw poll in Memphis - among religious conservatives. His supporters got to this straw poll, without much involvement on his part of his campaign. Against Frist (who has been unimpressive this Congress), McCain (who gets a lto of prss for trashing other Republicans), and Allen (who fell flat in this one), he could win the nomination - and the White House.
Monday, March 27, 2006
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
Michelle Malkin asks:
Well, Michelle, you are sitting in a glass house and throwing stones. It is one thing for claims of racism to come from suspect sources (like Julian Bond or others from the NAACP when people oppose racial quotas). It is another when two out of the three founders of Redstate.com are raising concerns about people you have cited (specifically, Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer). And did you know that Jared Taylor, whose stuff is often run on VDARE.com, the website you've promoted, happens to be very chummy with some other folks, including Don Black... the webmaster of a place called Stormfront.org.
Your crying about the White House seems to be more about the fact that trhey are simply telling the truth about the people you have cited, linked to, and have endorsed as a "great resource", not malice on their part. Particulalry on the DPW deal, when you chose to falsely describe the UAE as "demonstrably unreliable", and in the process, fuelled the betrayal of an ally.
Sorry, but I find your complaints - and your question - to be an effort to keep people from asking the questions that naturally arise from your own decisions. Time to suck it up, Michelle. Maybe you should have done a better job picking your friends.
Is the White House capable of responding to these realities without accusing its critics of xenophobia, racism, and immigrant-bashing?
Well, Michelle, you are sitting in a glass house and throwing stones. It is one thing for claims of racism to come from suspect sources (like Julian Bond or others from the NAACP when people oppose racial quotas). It is another when two out of the three founders of Redstate.com are raising concerns about people you have cited (specifically, Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer). And did you know that Jared Taylor, whose stuff is often run on VDARE.com, the website you've promoted, happens to be very chummy with some other folks, including Don Black... the webmaster of a place called Stormfront.org.
Your crying about the White House seems to be more about the fact that trhey are simply telling the truth about the people you have cited, linked to, and have endorsed as a "great resource", not malice on their part. Particulalry on the DPW deal, when you chose to falsely describe the UAE as "demonstrably unreliable", and in the process, fuelled the betrayal of an ally.
Sorry, but I find your complaints - and your question - to be an effort to keep people from asking the questions that naturally arise from your own decisions. Time to suck it up, Michelle. Maybe you should have done a better job picking your friends.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Digital thuggery wins...
The end of Red America after less than a week, after what can only be described as a week of digital thuggery from the likes of DailyKos, MyDD, and Atrios (no links - such thuggery deserves no support), is a sign of just how far the Left will go. Many were disgusted by some of the vicious personal attacks on the author, Ben Domenech, including AJ-Strata.
There were some allegations of plagarism, which I will not link to, as I am very suspicious of their source. But I will say that I am convinced by Domenech's explanation. I've been writing for Strategypage.com since November, 2003, and in the course of that timeframe, some of my pieces were edited. The same has happened with my pieces at TCSDaily.com. That is an editor's perogative. I will not claim perfection - no human being is perfect. I've made some mistakes in my life - and I expect I will make others. I fully expect that at some point, I may run into attacks of this nature, and in a sense, already have. Last May, I was a victim of identity theft after I took on a person who left bigoted comments on Austin Bay's blog (he's been on hiatus for knee surgery, and I hope he is recovering quickly). It was quickly dealt with and condemned, but recently, I found at least one comment that troll left elsewhere. Well, I'm not the type to cut and run from a fight.
It is clear to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the netroots of the Democratic Party have gone off their rockers. Rather than debate on the field of ideas, they resort to threats, character assassination, and personal destruction. More than just a blog is at stake. Freedom of speech is at stake. Disagreeing with someone's views on any political issue is no justification for trying to destroy their life. Even more so if you disagree with them in a public forum, or prove effective in advancing your political views.
One other thing is worth noting: Some conservatives decided it was easier to throw Domenech under the bus than to stand by him. I don't like that attitude. In this country, it's innocent until proven guilty, particularly in the presence of numerous scurrilous attacks from digital thugs like Atrios, MyDD, and DailyKos. I think one of the biggest explanations for Republican "spinelessness" is the fact that they have all too often been tossed under the bus by people who felt that somehow, the Republicans "compromised principles" by not getting everything in one fell swoop, or by passing a bill that contained an item they found objectionable in order to get other items of their agenda. Loyalty is a two-way street - and the best way to guarantee loyalty from someone is to show similar loyalty. Yeah, you risk getting burned sometimes, but it's always worth being known to your friends as someone they can count on.
There were some allegations of plagarism, which I will not link to, as I am very suspicious of their source. But I will say that I am convinced by Domenech's explanation. I've been writing for Strategypage.com since November, 2003, and in the course of that timeframe, some of my pieces were edited. The same has happened with my pieces at TCSDaily.com. That is an editor's perogative. I will not claim perfection - no human being is perfect. I've made some mistakes in my life - and I expect I will make others. I fully expect that at some point, I may run into attacks of this nature, and in a sense, already have. Last May, I was a victim of identity theft after I took on a person who left bigoted comments on Austin Bay's blog (he's been on hiatus for knee surgery, and I hope he is recovering quickly). It was quickly dealt with and condemned, but recently, I found at least one comment that troll left elsewhere. Well, I'm not the type to cut and run from a fight.
It is clear to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the netroots of the Democratic Party have gone off their rockers. Rather than debate on the field of ideas, they resort to threats, character assassination, and personal destruction. More than just a blog is at stake. Freedom of speech is at stake. Disagreeing with someone's views on any political issue is no justification for trying to destroy their life. Even more so if you disagree with them in a public forum, or prove effective in advancing your political views.
One other thing is worth noting: Some conservatives decided it was easier to throw Domenech under the bus than to stand by him. I don't like that attitude. In this country, it's innocent until proven guilty, particularly in the presence of numerous scurrilous attacks from digital thugs like Atrios, MyDD, and DailyKos. I think one of the biggest explanations for Republican "spinelessness" is the fact that they have all too often been tossed under the bus by people who felt that somehow, the Republicans "compromised principles" by not getting everything in one fell swoop, or by passing a bill that contained an item they found objectionable in order to get other items of their agenda. Loyalty is a two-way street - and the best way to guarantee loyalty from someone is to show similar loyalty. Yeah, you risk getting burned sometimes, but it's always worth being known to your friends as someone they can count on.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Let us hope... (UPDATED 8:34 PM EST)
That we will not need to kick a door in for the forseeable future. Because as of March 17, we don't have the tools necessary to do so. Talk about backwards logic.
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB61.htm
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB64.htm
EDIT: Time for some elaboration.
In November, 2004, a GAO report estimated that reactivation of both Iowa-class battleships would cost roughly $610 million ($500 for the ships, $110 million to replace the powder). The United States Naval Fire Support Association estimates that the total cost for modernization and eleven years of operations and maintenance for two Iowa-class ships would be $2.5 billion (see presentation here). The estimates to build a DD(X) range anywhere from $2.5 billion to $7 billion. Cut one hull from DD(X), get two ships - if DD(X) comes in at the low end of the spectrum. If it's on the high end, you might get even more (say, all four Iowa-class battleships and a dozen ships built around the Mk 71 MCLWG). This would be in addition to twenty-two DD(X)s. A total of 38 ships capable of providing various types of fire support from 155mm to the 16-inch guns - with very little changed in financial terms for the budget, versus twenty-four DD(X)s as the Navy wants - which gives only the 155mm shells. Who wouldn't take fourteen extra hulls?
My co-blogger's comment centers primarily on logistics, which is where professionals tend to think. Page 80 of the USNFSA report indicates that while logistics might have some problems, they will not be impossible to deal with. Plenty of barrel liners are still available at Picatinny Arsenal and Dahlgren. As late as 2001, the Navy commissioned the USS Iwo Jima with a steam propulsion plant. The turbines from USS Kentucky (an Iowa-class ship that was partially completed, then scrapped) have served on two of the Navy's fast replenishment ships (Sacramento and Camden) for over 30 years. The Midway and Coral Sea used steam turbines for over 50 years. Keep in mind, the battleships have been mostly sitting around - their turbine plants have at least two decades of service left, possibly three. And there are sailors who can operate them. They can safely steam. Powder is the big issue - and then, not that much of one. New powder can be manufactured - and the GAO estimate came in at $110 million.
The 1989 turret explosion on the Iowa also warrants discussion. After that accident, a great deal of research was done, and the accident is highly unlikely to be repeated if enough training is provided (the accident being apparently due to an inexperienced crew carrying out an overram), and corrective measures were taken on Missouri and Wisconsin. And the chance of an explosion is 1 in 38,000 on a high-speed overram (and virtually impossible on a low-speed overram - one in 1 times 10 to the -47th power).
The logistics and training might be somewhat difficult to set up, but the cost in DOD buidget terms is again pretty small. And setting up the schools for training the gun crews is not so hard when one considers that the schools closed in 1992 (according to the US Navy) after being open for about a decade. Not as hard as getting them reopened after 25 years of inactivity as was done in the 1980s.
In other words, these ships are not done yet - there's a lot of life left in them.
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB61.htm
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/BB64.htm
EDIT: Time for some elaboration.
In November, 2004, a GAO report estimated that reactivation of both Iowa-class battleships would cost roughly $610 million ($500 for the ships, $110 million to replace the powder). The United States Naval Fire Support Association estimates that the total cost for modernization and eleven years of operations and maintenance for two Iowa-class ships would be $2.5 billion (see presentation here). The estimates to build a DD(X) range anywhere from $2.5 billion to $7 billion. Cut one hull from DD(X), get two ships - if DD(X) comes in at the low end of the spectrum. If it's on the high end, you might get even more (say, all four Iowa-class battleships and a dozen ships built around the Mk 71 MCLWG). This would be in addition to twenty-two DD(X)s. A total of 38 ships capable of providing various types of fire support from 155mm to the 16-inch guns - with very little changed in financial terms for the budget, versus twenty-four DD(X)s as the Navy wants - which gives only the 155mm shells. Who wouldn't take fourteen extra hulls?
My co-blogger's comment centers primarily on logistics, which is where professionals tend to think. Page 80 of the USNFSA report indicates that while logistics might have some problems, they will not be impossible to deal with. Plenty of barrel liners are still available at Picatinny Arsenal and Dahlgren. As late as 2001, the Navy commissioned the USS Iwo Jima with a steam propulsion plant. The turbines from USS Kentucky (an Iowa-class ship that was partially completed, then scrapped) have served on two of the Navy's fast replenishment ships (Sacramento and Camden) for over 30 years. The Midway and Coral Sea used steam turbines for over 50 years. Keep in mind, the battleships have been mostly sitting around - their turbine plants have at least two decades of service left, possibly three. And there are sailors who can operate them. They can safely steam. Powder is the big issue - and then, not that much of one. New powder can be manufactured - and the GAO estimate came in at $110 million.
The 1989 turret explosion on the Iowa also warrants discussion. After that accident, a great deal of research was done, and the accident is highly unlikely to be repeated if enough training is provided (the accident being apparently due to an inexperienced crew carrying out an overram), and corrective measures were taken on Missouri and Wisconsin. And the chance of an explosion is 1 in 38,000 on a high-speed overram (and virtually impossible on a low-speed overram - one in 1 times 10 to the -47th power).
The logistics and training might be somewhat difficult to set up, but the cost in DOD buidget terms is again pretty small. And setting up the schools for training the gun crews is not so hard when one considers that the schools closed in 1992 (according to the US Navy) after being open for about a decade. Not as hard as getting them reopened after 25 years of inactivity as was done in the 1980s.
In other words, these ships are not done yet - there's a lot of life left in them.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
A two-way street...
Macsmind's disclaimer on his blog warrants some comment. It seems my earlier post might have been misinterpreted.
I am not asking him - or anyone - to compromise their faith or principles. One's decision to affiliate with a particular religion (or no religion at all) is a highly personal matter - it's how one views their relationship with God. It's something the Founders of this country (many of them religious men) enshrined as the first freedom they protected. As a country, we have decided that there should be no interference with a person's religious beliefs so long as it is not harming another person.
This is one reason I had to take issue with his post that used of the picture of the Shiite pilgrims. There is another reason as well. The United States government, as well as numerous bloggers on the right, have been highly critical of the Afghan government's decision to put a man on trial for converting to Christianity from Islam. I'm not thrilled with any government putting someone to death on the basis of what church he goes to. But how can we credibly ask the Afghan government to respect religious freedom - namely, a person's right to convert to Christianity from Islam, when there is no respect for a decision to continue practicing Islam (or any other faith) from our end? This is not exactly an abstract matter for me - I had ancestors who were the subject of an extermination order in the state of Missouri about 170 years ago.
It's about being consistent. It's why I have commented on the selective outrage of Isaac Hayes. It's why I have a hard time buying calls from tolerance from the same people who refuse to show tolerance for the beliefs of Catholic Charities and the Boy Scouts of America. Are we willing to practice what we preach, even when we disagree with how they worship? There was once a saying, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." For matters of religion, also protected by the First Amendment, the same standard should be a no-brainer.
I am not asking him - or anyone - to compromise their faith or principles. One's decision to affiliate with a particular religion (or no religion at all) is a highly personal matter - it's how one views their relationship with God. It's something the Founders of this country (many of them religious men) enshrined as the first freedom they protected. As a country, we have decided that there should be no interference with a person's religious beliefs so long as it is not harming another person.
This is one reason I had to take issue with his post that used of the picture of the Shiite pilgrims. There is another reason as well. The United States government, as well as numerous bloggers on the right, have been highly critical of the Afghan government's decision to put a man on trial for converting to Christianity from Islam. I'm not thrilled with any government putting someone to death on the basis of what church he goes to. But how can we credibly ask the Afghan government to respect religious freedom - namely, a person's right to convert to Christianity from Islam, when there is no respect for a decision to continue practicing Islam (or any other faith) from our end? This is not exactly an abstract matter for me - I had ancestors who were the subject of an extermination order in the state of Missouri about 170 years ago.
It's about being consistent. It's why I have commented on the selective outrage of Isaac Hayes. It's why I have a hard time buying calls from tolerance from the same people who refuse to show tolerance for the beliefs of Catholic Charities and the Boy Scouts of America. Are we willing to practice what we preach, even when we disagree with how they worship? There was once a saying, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." For matters of religion, also protected by the First Amendment, the same standard should be a no-brainer.
Calling it as I see it...
As much as I admire Macsmind for being willing to stand up to the nativist/xenphobic wing of the conservative movement, and properly describe them as "uglies," I have to call him on one of his posts yesterday. The photo used is kind of scary - a bunch of Moslems with big knives. One can imagine all sorts of nigthmarish scenarios (terrorists in training, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, etc.) from just looking at the photo. But those impressions are grossly mistaken
Now, for the rest of the story: The photo in question is of Shiite pilgrims observing the Day of Ashurah, commemorating the death of the grandson of Mohammed - Husayn ibn Ali - during the Battle of Karbala, which was the source of the Shiite/Sunni split in Islam. It's different from what we are used to here (and as a slightly-lapsed Mormon, I can point out that my religion has its own practices that could be characterized as different/unusual), but one of the things that should be noted was that during Saddam's reign of terror, those who wished to observe this holy day had to sneak in past the Republican Guard. Now, the new government of Iraq had the troops out - to protect them from thugs like Abu Musab Zarqawi. It's worth noting.
Macmind's post isn't one of his better ones, and it will make his efforts to deal with uglies in the conservative movement that much harder.
Now, for the rest of the story: The photo in question is of Shiite pilgrims observing the Day of Ashurah, commemorating the death of the grandson of Mohammed - Husayn ibn Ali - during the Battle of Karbala, which was the source of the Shiite/Sunni split in Islam. It's different from what we are used to here (and as a slightly-lapsed Mormon, I can point out that my religion has its own practices that could be characterized as different/unusual), but one of the things that should be noted was that during Saddam's reign of terror, those who wished to observe this holy day had to sneak in past the Republican Guard. Now, the new government of Iraq had the troops out - to protect them from thugs like Abu Musab Zarqawi. It's worth noting.
Macmind's post isn't one of his better ones, and it will make his efforts to deal with uglies in the conservative movement that much harder.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
No excuse for this...
If what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her speech in South Africa about being threatened is 25% of the truth, then there need to be some chat rooms facing Federal prosecution ASAP.
I do not think courts should rely on foreign judicial opinions when deciding domestic cases (such as Simmons v. Roper). I disagree with Justice Ginsberg on that front. However, there is no excuse for advocating political assassination. These folks are going outside the boundaries of the law, and our political system, and need to be put away for a long time.
Yet there are going to be some people who make excuses for them the way excuses have been made for other unacceptable conduct on the part of people on the right. It's one of the reasons that I no longer consider myself a conservative.
Although I doubt the current measures will garner sufficient votes to pass, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support. And one not-so-small concern - they fuel the irrational fringe. A personal example. The U.S. Supreme Court's Marshal alerted Justice O'Connor and me to a February 28, 2005, web posting on a "chat" site. It opened:Okay commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment . . . an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use [foreign] laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases.
This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. . . . If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.
Nearly a year has passed since that posting. Justice O'Connor, though to my great sorrow retired just last week from the Court's bench, remains alive and well. As for
me, you can judge for yourself.
I do not think courts should rely on foreign judicial opinions when deciding domestic cases (such as Simmons v. Roper). I disagree with Justice Ginsberg on that front. However, there is no excuse for advocating political assassination. These folks are going outside the boundaries of the law, and our political system, and need to be put away for a long time.
Yet there are going to be some people who make excuses for them the way excuses have been made for other unacceptable conduct on the part of people on the right. It's one of the reasons that I no longer consider myself a conservative.
A quick re-cap...
Macsmind has been doing an excellent series of posts on the UAE ports deal.
He has accurately described the conduct of some conservatives as well.
He has accurately described the conduct of some conservatives as well.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Evil...
There is just no word that fits what American and Canadian authorites announced breaking up today. By law, a person can get 15 years for making the stuff - possession is good for five years. That's good enough for a felony, but folks who molest children have proven they cannot be rehabilitated. Those who make child pornography are even lower on the scale.
What ought to be done is an increase in the penalties. Twenty years for a first offense of possession of child porn - life without parole for the second offense. For makers of child porn - the first offense is a capital one, and the condemned is executed via the old-school GRU method.
Any questions?
What ought to be done is an increase in the penalties. Twenty years for a first offense of possession of child porn - life without parole for the second offense. For makers of child porn - the first offense is a capital one, and the condemned is executed via the old-school GRU method.
Any questions?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Selective Outrage...
That's really the only way one can describe the decision of Isaac Hayes to quit South Park.
This is a show that has lampooned Christians, Mormons, Moslems, and virtually anyone else on the planet (is there someone who hasn't been lampooned?). He had no problem with taking part in the humor then, and cashing the checks for ten seasons.
So, when it's Scientology's turn to take the jokes at its expense after it gets in the news (TomKat), Hayes suddenly gets sensitive.
Matt, Trey, I'm throwing in a twenty-year-old Brewers cap into the ring to replace Mr. Hayes. ;)
This is a show that has lampooned Christians, Mormons, Moslems, and virtually anyone else on the planet (is there someone who hasn't been lampooned?). He had no problem with taking part in the humor then, and cashing the checks for ten seasons.
So, when it's Scientology's turn to take the jokes at its expense after it gets in the news (TomKat), Hayes suddenly gets sensitive.
Matt, Trey, I'm throwing in a twenty-year-old Brewers cap into the ring to replace Mr. Hayes. ;)
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Whew...
Ben Sheets gave Brewers fans like me a scare Thursday. The good news, at least according to the Talking Brewers show (link to Brewerfan.net thread here), is that it's not that lat muscle he tore last August. Instead, another muscle is straining - overcompensating for Ben being on the shelf for a while.
A setback, but nothing serious. Thankfully.
EDIT: MLB.com has a more permanent link.
A setback, but nothing serious. Thankfully.
EDIT: MLB.com has a more permanent link.
Friday, March 10, 2006
An ally has been betrayed...
There is no other way to describe what has happened to the United Arab Emirates over this port deal.
The elected representatives of the people have just told an ally, "It doesn't matter that you sent troops to Afghanistan, aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, provided us logistical support in the Persian Gulf, and provided us valuable intelligence prior to the liberation of Afghanistan, we're going to call you 'demonstrably unreliable' anyway."
They did so in the face of a coordinated campaign from pundits like Michelle Malkin and Frank Gaffney, who waged a campaign of fear-mongering that was largely fact-free. When I did my piece for Strategypage.com, I found information that disproved the "demonstrably unreliable" statement in a few simple searches via Google, the State Department's web site, and the Defense Department's web site. The United Arab Emirates is a good ally (but that may change given the recent attacks). The troops they sent to Afghanistan would have been as dead as Pat Tillman if the Taliban has attacked. The US owed the UAE loyalty in return. Congress instead betrayed the UAE.
I’ve think I’ve been consistent in that regard, being willing to criticize Colin Powell for blacklisting Carlos Castano’s United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, criticizing the decision to dump on Uzbekistan, in addition to hammering critics of the port deal for their comments about the UAE. When people assist the United States of America - and take risks doing so, they are owed loyalty. In the case of the UAE, al-Qaeda threatened to attack them. Uzbekistan assisted us despite the fact that al-Qaeda had managed to assassinate Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance two days prior to 9/11 (which had to be in the back of any Central Asian leader's mind in late 2001). All Carlos Castano did was to take on Pablo Escobar's Medellin drug cartel on its own turf and terms, then launch a similar effort against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
There is only one real winner in this ports controversy - Iran's nascent Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And he owes a great deal of credit to Michelle Malkin and Frank Gaffney for his victory.
EDIT: Bogus Gold also comments on how some flew off the handle, naming Malkin. AJ-Strata also fires off a pair of great posts blasting the opponents and explaining what we lost.
The elected representatives of the people have just told an ally, "It doesn't matter that you sent troops to Afghanistan, aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, provided us logistical support in the Persian Gulf, and provided us valuable intelligence prior to the liberation of Afghanistan, we're going to call you 'demonstrably unreliable' anyway."
They did so in the face of a coordinated campaign from pundits like Michelle Malkin and Frank Gaffney, who waged a campaign of fear-mongering that was largely fact-free. When I did my piece for Strategypage.com, I found information that disproved the "demonstrably unreliable" statement in a few simple searches via Google, the State Department's web site, and the Defense Department's web site. The United Arab Emirates is a good ally (but that may change given the recent attacks). The troops they sent to Afghanistan would have been as dead as Pat Tillman if the Taliban has attacked. The US owed the UAE loyalty in return. Congress instead betrayed the UAE.
I’ve think I’ve been consistent in that regard, being willing to criticize Colin Powell for blacklisting Carlos Castano’s United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, criticizing the decision to dump on Uzbekistan, in addition to hammering critics of the port deal for their comments about the UAE. When people assist the United States of America - and take risks doing so, they are owed loyalty. In the case of the UAE, al-Qaeda threatened to attack them. Uzbekistan assisted us despite the fact that al-Qaeda had managed to assassinate Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance two days prior to 9/11 (which had to be in the back of any Central Asian leader's mind in late 2001). All Carlos Castano did was to take on Pablo Escobar's Medellin drug cartel on its own turf and terms, then launch a similar effort against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
There is only one real winner in this ports controversy - Iran's nascent Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And he owes a great deal of credit to Michelle Malkin and Frank Gaffney for his victory.
EDIT: Bogus Gold also comments on how some flew off the handle, naming Malkin. AJ-Strata also fires off a pair of great posts blasting the opponents and explaining what we lost.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Why Webb is Wrong...
If Thomas Jocelyn's reporting at WeeklyStandard.com is correct, then we have what may be the start of a pattern of conduct that I'd be ready to call casus belli. We have reports of Iranian-manufactured IEDs in Iraq, as well as Iranian support of al-Qaeda. It seems bin Laden had a lot of friends who figured he would be a nice cut-out to attack the United States of America.
This dovetails nicely into the announced candidacy of James Webb for the United States Senate. Webb seems to have a lot of criticism of the administration's policies. But where, pray tell, are his alternatives? How would he propose that the United States handle a regime that was trying to acquire chemical and biological weapons, sent an intelligence officer with an al-Qaeda operative to launch a chemical mortar attack on American and British targets, and also brought an al-Qaeda envoy (representing Osama bin Laden) to Baghdad to discuss "the future of our relationship with him"? What would it take for Webb to finally decide to do something about state sponsors of terrorism, New York vanishing in a mushroom cloud? These evil regimes need to be taken out - and something will have to replace them. Why not democracy? Why not our ideology?
Suffice it to say, I think Webb needs to explain exactly what he would have done instead, and to explain why he thinks leaving Saddam Hussein in power was an acceptable alternative. Will he answer the questions, or will he retreat behind the cries of "swift-boating"that Democrats seem to prefer when they try to cut off debate?
Webb owes the people of Virginia answers.
Cross-posted at NoEndButVictory.com.
This dovetails nicely into the announced candidacy of James Webb for the United States Senate. Webb seems to have a lot of criticism of the administration's policies. But where, pray tell, are his alternatives? How would he propose that the United States handle a regime that was trying to acquire chemical and biological weapons, sent an intelligence officer with an al-Qaeda operative to launch a chemical mortar attack on American and British targets, and also brought an al-Qaeda envoy (representing Osama bin Laden) to Baghdad to discuss "the future of our relationship with him"? What would it take for Webb to finally decide to do something about state sponsors of terrorism, New York vanishing in a mushroom cloud? These evil regimes need to be taken out - and something will have to replace them. Why not democracy? Why not our ideology?
Suffice it to say, I think Webb needs to explain exactly what he would have done instead, and to explain why he thinks leaving Saddam Hussein in power was an acceptable alternative. Will he answer the questions, or will he retreat behind the cries of "swift-boating"that Democrats seem to prefer when they try to cut off debate?
Webb owes the people of Virginia answers.
Cross-posted at NoEndButVictory.com.
Blackstar...
If Aviation Leak - I mean, Aviation Week - is to be believed, the United States developed a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle. The first stage involved a modified B-70 airframe. The second stage was one of two small orbiters. Reportedly, it was operational in the 1990s.
This certainly would explain why the SR-71 was retired in 1990. This sounds an awful lot like the Aurora program that was also widely discussed in that timeframe. Funding probably was hidden inside the X-30 project (the NASP/COPPER CANYON), and some may have been diverted from the A-12 as well.
This certainly would explain why the SR-71 was retired in 1990. This sounds an awful lot like the Aurora program that was also widely discussed in that timeframe. Funding probably was hidden inside the X-30 project (the NASP/COPPER CANYON), and some may have been diverted from the A-12 as well.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Deal with it, Michelle...
AJ Strata notes that Michelle Malkin is having a hard time with some of the criticism heading her way. It's not like she didn't have the criticism coming after her factually-challenged description of the United Arab Emirates as "demonstrably unreliable" was blown out of the water.
It's not like it was that hard to look. We live, for good or for ill, in the Age of Google. There really is no excuse for a professional pundit like Michelle Malkin to get things this wrong. A few simple searches were enough for me to find the information for my piece at Strategypage.com. Information about the UAE's general atmosphere of religious tolerance, their support of the United States in the war on terror, and how that country has helped us out in time of need.
But what makes me even angrier is how Michelle Malkin won't admit she might have made mistakes. Instead, she has chosen to cry race-baiting. For Michelle to cry race-baiting is like the Menendez brothers begging the court for mercy on the grounds that they are orphans.
It's not like it was that hard to look. We live, for good or for ill, in the Age of Google. There really is no excuse for a professional pundit like Michelle Malkin to get things this wrong. A few simple searches were enough for me to find the information for my piece at Strategypage.com. Information about the UAE's general atmosphere of religious tolerance, their support of the United States in the war on terror, and how that country has helped us out in time of need.
But what makes me even angrier is how Michelle Malkin won't admit she might have made mistakes. Instead, she has chosen to cry race-baiting. For Michelle to cry race-baiting is like the Menendez brothers begging the court for mercy on the grounds that they are orphans.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Re-thinking my association...
It is impossible to really go through the last year and not to begin to re-think my decision to consider myself a conservative and to continue associating with that movement.
Perhaps my first clue was the fact that nobody in that movement seems ready to question some of Michelle Malkin's highly questionable friends that I commented on earlier. To wit, she has endorsed a web site that runs stuff from the likes of Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, and Steve Sailer. She's endorsing a site that seems to have no problem with some out-and-out racists, and gives it a one-day head start on her columns. She's endorsing something that is, to put it bluntly, evil. And nobody in the conservative movement is even stopping to ask her, "What's up with this?"
Then there was Terri Schiavo. I did not think pulling the feeding tube was the right thing to do. Not by a long shot. I had questions about whether Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest, to put it mildly. But some people went beyond that - they demanded that efforts outside the law be taken - to include murdering Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Sorry, but that is something I won't support - murder is still wrong.
Then there's Harriet Miers. She never got a chance for a hearing. It was a classic case of a verdict being reached, and inconvenient facts being ignored. It was a feeding frenzy that used some of the tactics of the left (Hugh Hewitt's piece in the New York Times - registration required), they threw out common decency, not just to Miers, but to some supporters. Ultimately, she withdrew, and Samuel Alito got the slot, but Alito's successful confirmation was a matter of luck - the Democrats overreached and tried a despicable piece of character assassination, rather than focus on the hypocrisy of the anti-Miers conservatives.
Now, there's this UAE ports deal. I've written about it here. But some of the same people (Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and National Review) who jumped to conclusions on Miers are now jumping to conclusions on this deal. And some of the same slimy rhetoric is flying at those who object to the feeding frenzy.
I'm probably someone who conservatives would agree with on some issues. I want to win the war on terror (of which Iraq is but a campaign). I oppose terminating a pregnancy except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger (under the same standards for the use of deadly force in self-defense), and in cases of rape or incest - and there might be other situations where terminating a pregnancy is appropriate, albeit not in as sweeping a generalization as I have for the three examples above there. I favor cutting taxes (ideally, a flat tax like the one Steve Forbes supports). I support the death penalty - and probably to a larger extent than most conservatives (I'd include involvement in the production of child pornography as a capital offense - and favor the old-school GRU method of execution for such offenses).
But I'm not willing to stick around the kind of stuff I have seen from conservatives over the last year or so. I'm not voting for a Democrat, not just because they raise taxes even when there is a budget surplus (as was the case in Virginia a couple years ago), and because the entire party leadership had shown a level of incompetence on the war on that makes me fear for my country's security. The other issues facing this country don't matter if we're all dead.
What is to be done about this? I'm not sure. I'm still willing to vote for Republicans, but I'm not so sure that I trust conservatives any more.
Perhaps my first clue was the fact that nobody in that movement seems ready to question some of Michelle Malkin's highly questionable friends that I commented on earlier. To wit, she has endorsed a web site that runs stuff from the likes of Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, and Steve Sailer. She's endorsing a site that seems to have no problem with some out-and-out racists, and gives it a one-day head start on her columns. She's endorsing something that is, to put it bluntly, evil. And nobody in the conservative movement is even stopping to ask her, "What's up with this?"
Then there was Terri Schiavo. I did not think pulling the feeding tube was the right thing to do. Not by a long shot. I had questions about whether Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest, to put it mildly. But some people went beyond that - they demanded that efforts outside the law be taken - to include murdering Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Sorry, but that is something I won't support - murder is still wrong.
Then there's Harriet Miers. She never got a chance for a hearing. It was a classic case of a verdict being reached, and inconvenient facts being ignored. It was a feeding frenzy that used some of the tactics of the left (Hugh Hewitt's piece in the New York Times - registration required), they threw out common decency, not just to Miers, but to some supporters. Ultimately, she withdrew, and Samuel Alito got the slot, but Alito's successful confirmation was a matter of luck - the Democrats overreached and tried a despicable piece of character assassination, rather than focus on the hypocrisy of the anti-Miers conservatives.
Now, there's this UAE ports deal. I've written about it here. But some of the same people (Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and National Review) who jumped to conclusions on Miers are now jumping to conclusions on this deal. And some of the same slimy rhetoric is flying at those who object to the feeding frenzy.
I'm probably someone who conservatives would agree with on some issues. I want to win the war on terror (of which Iraq is but a campaign). I oppose terminating a pregnancy except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger (under the same standards for the use of deadly force in self-defense), and in cases of rape or incest - and there might be other situations where terminating a pregnancy is appropriate, albeit not in as sweeping a generalization as I have for the three examples above there. I favor cutting taxes (ideally, a flat tax like the one Steve Forbes supports). I support the death penalty - and probably to a larger extent than most conservatives (I'd include involvement in the production of child pornography as a capital offense - and favor the old-school GRU method of execution for such offenses).
But I'm not willing to stick around the kind of stuff I have seen from conservatives over the last year or so. I'm not voting for a Democrat, not just because they raise taxes even when there is a budget surplus (as was the case in Virginia a couple years ago), and because the entire party leadership had shown a level of incompetence on the war on that makes me fear for my country's security. The other issues facing this country don't matter if we're all dead.
What is to be done about this? I'm not sure. I'm still willing to vote for Republicans, but I'm not so sure that I trust conservatives any more.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Cut and run by any other name...
The Democrats are calling for a "strategic redeployment". They claim this is not "cut and run", but I'm not sure I buy their claim. They would have us pull out of Iraq before the job is done. The only way we can leave Iraq without risking a Somalia-esque aftermath is to have destroyed the enemy. There is no other way out of this.
What is very clear is the Democrats have decided they want to be back in power, and they're willing to hand al-Qaeda a strategic victory to get it. There is a clear disregard for the past consequences of retreat. There is also the craven subordination of national security for political gain.
I'm sorry, but this is a big issue for me. I'll admit that I am a Republican, but if the Republicans were acting this way, I would be equally harsh on them. I place my country over my political ideology and certainly over a political party. The survival of the United States of American has to be paramount. It used to be that both political parties believed in this. Now, one of these parties is willing to gain political power regardless of cost to the country. What is very clear is the Democrats have decided they want to be back in power, and they're willing to hand al-Qaeda a strategic victory to get it. There is a clear disregard for the past consequences of retreat. There is also the craven subordination of national security for political gain. In my book, that is reckless endangerment.
Cross-posted at No End But Victory.
What is very clear is the Democrats have decided they want to be back in power, and they're willing to hand al-Qaeda a strategic victory to get it. There is a clear disregard for the past consequences of retreat. There is also the craven subordination of national security for political gain.
I'm sorry, but this is a big issue for me. I'll admit that I am a Republican, but if the Republicans were acting this way, I would be equally harsh on them. I place my country over my political ideology and certainly over a political party. The survival of the United States of American has to be paramount. It used to be that both political parties believed in this. Now, one of these parties is willing to gain political power regardless of cost to the country. What is very clear is the Democrats have decided they want to be back in power, and they're willing to hand al-Qaeda a strategic victory to get it. There is a clear disregard for the past consequences of retreat. There is also the craven subordination of national security for political gain. In my book, that is reckless endangerment.
Cross-posted at No End But Victory.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Surviving the 14th...
My secret? Bittersweets, the Dragnet radio show from Live365 (also a second channel), and comfort food from Buon Appetito. And I made sure the comfort food was dolphin-safe. I kinda feel bad, because my favorite "comfort food" really upsets a very good friend of mine, and I promised to give it up fourteen months ago (after I nearly got my head taken off). It's just that that day wasn't very good, and to be honest, it was a little worse than usual due to a bit of a break-up (it turns out she was never that interested in me).
Still, I survived. Next year, maybe I will do more than just survive, but I doubt it.
Still, I survived. Next year, maybe I will do more than just survive, but I doubt it.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Unacceptable...
There is just no other word to describe the use of a racial epithet by Ann Coulter at CPAC.
This is not about race-baiting. This is not about being politically correct. This is about civility. This is about common decency. This is about thinking before saying something that ticks off a large number of people, the bulk of whom have nothing to do with terrorism.
This has been tolerated for a while among conservatives, particularly with Michelle Malkin's links to VDARE that I discussed earlier. This is just unacceptable conduct that deserves nothing but condemnation.
If the conservative movement will not deal with this unacceptable conduct, then it is unworthy of my support.
This is not about race-baiting. This is not about being politically correct. This is about civility. This is about common decency. This is about thinking before saying something that ticks off a large number of people, the bulk of whom have nothing to do with terrorism.
This has been tolerated for a while among conservatives, particularly with Michelle Malkin's links to VDARE that I discussed earlier. This is just unacceptable conduct that deserves nothing but condemnation.
If the conservative movement will not deal with this unacceptable conduct, then it is unworthy of my support.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
YANKEE GOLF BRAVO SIERRA MIKE
That is the approved way to transmit over the airwaves my reaction to Pat Buchanan's latest screed. (It is short for "You Gotta Be S******* Me.") Pat Buchanan somehow pretends to be relevant in conservative circles as he expresses support for foreign aid to Hamas. This latest piece of dreck simply confirms that Pat Buchanan supports anyone who is at war with Israel.
Then again, we should feel sorry for Pat Buchanan. After all, he did lose an uncle at Auschwitz.
Poor bastard fell out of a guard tower.
Then again, we should feel sorry for Pat Buchanan. After all, he did lose an uncle at Auschwitz.
Poor bastard fell out of a guard tower.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
A new link...
There is a new link on this blog, Malkin(s)Watch. It comes more from the left than where I sit (I consider myself a center-right Republican with libertarian leanings).
Here is why I am putting it up there: Malkin has some highly questionable friends at VDARE.com. Her columns run there one day ahead of Townhall or Creators Syndicate. She has defended a racialist. She also has defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens.
The fact is, she has shown at best, very poor judgement. At worst, she has sympathies towards attitudes that were rightfully rejected forty years ago. What is equally intolerable is that when this has been questioned, people get shouted down. For all intents and purposes, I'm being told that to be in the good graces of the conservative movement, I need to accept what I find to be clearly unacceptable.
I'm not going to. Some things are wrong. Bigotry and racism are two of them. That is why I am linking to Malkin(s)Watch, knowing that it will anger some people. But I cannot in good conscience remain silent about this cancer that has found a home among the conservative movement.
Here is why I am putting it up there: Malkin has some highly questionable friends at VDARE.com. Her columns run there one day ahead of Townhall or Creators Syndicate. She has defended a racialist. She also has defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens.
The fact is, she has shown at best, very poor judgement. At worst, she has sympathies towards attitudes that were rightfully rejected forty years ago. What is equally intolerable is that when this has been questioned, people get shouted down. For all intents and purposes, I'm being told that to be in the good graces of the conservative movement, I need to accept what I find to be clearly unacceptable.
I'm not going to. Some things are wrong. Bigotry and racism are two of them. That is why I am linking to Malkin(s)Watch, knowing that it will anger some people. But I cannot in good conscience remain silent about this cancer that has found a home among the conservative movement.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Maybe Michael Brown was a scapegoat...
It seems that Louisiana turned down assistance from the Federal government prior to Katrina. This just speaks volumes about the way that Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco made Frank Jack Fletcher and George C. McClellan look like competent leaders.
If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is a person who gets turned into a scapegoat. And the new documents being recovered make it look more and more like Michael D. Brown and George W. Bush were turned into scapegoats. I wonder who will be apologizing to these two men for heaping blame that rightfully belonged to Nagin and Blanco, particularly President Bush, who was subjected to accusations that are now seen to have no basis.
If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is a person who gets turned into a scapegoat. And the new documents being recovered make it look more and more like Michael D. Brown and George W. Bush were turned into scapegoats. I wonder who will be apologizing to these two men for heaping blame that rightfully belonged to Nagin and Blanco, particularly President Bush, who was subjected to accusations that are now seen to have no basis.
Response to Hamas...
My response to the deputy political bureau chief of the Islamic Resistance Movement (better known as Hamas) will be short and sweet.
Yob tvoyu maht, punk.
Yob tvoyu maht, punk.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Insanity on display...
The title is all that can really be said about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
This is a guy who is hosting a "scientific" conference on the Holocaust. In reality, it is nothing more than state-sanctioned Holocaust denial that is drawing the attention of a number of creeps.
Ahmadinejad has made other statements that make it obvious that he is not a rational person. That's bad enough. But it gets much much worse. Ahmadinejad is President of a country seeking nuclear weapons.
A lunatic with nuclear weapons can only be described as a recipe for disaster. Particularly a country that is training terrorists and which has a history of sponsoring terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hizballah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
I have to go further than the Strata-Sphere: This man is a danger to the world.
This is a guy who is hosting a "scientific" conference on the Holocaust. In reality, it is nothing more than state-sanctioned Holocaust denial that is drawing the attention of a number of creeps.
Ahmadinejad has made other statements that make it obvious that he is not a rational person. That's bad enough. But it gets much much worse. Ahmadinejad is President of a country seeking nuclear weapons.
A lunatic with nuclear weapons can only be described as a recipe for disaster. Particularly a country that is training terrorists and which has a history of sponsoring terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hizballah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.
I have to go further than the Strata-Sphere: This man is a danger to the world.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Thoughts on a rumor...
There has been some blog discussion on the rumor that Jennifer Love Hewitt is considering posing for Playboy. Both Galley Slaves and Outside the Beltway have talked about this, along with What Would Tyler Durden Do (the last one being somewhat tasteless, in my opinion).
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not entirely objective about Ms. Hewitt. One of her songs, "Avenue of the Stars", was a source of inspiration and encouragement as I have pursued a dream. Some people complain about songs being stuck in their heads - well, "Avenue of the Stars" is stuck in a place a little lower than that, but with the first three letters being the same.
In a very real sense, I owe her a huge debt - a debt of honor, you could say. All I will say is that it is one that I do have some idea of how to repay in large part, which is a lot more than I can say for another debt of honor I owe a person whom I consider not just a literary influence, but also a friend (it is something I am somewhat ashamed of).
Personally, I hope she doesn't take the offer from Playboy. She's a wonderful singer and actress, with a current show that has done very well (first or second in its timeslot each week). From what I have heard, she's also a decent person. That said, the decision about Playboy is her decision to make - and I will back whatever decision she makes 100%. I owe her that much at the very least.
I hope Ms. Hewitt has a successful run with Ghost Whisperer, and that all of her future endeavors go well for her.
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not entirely objective about Ms. Hewitt. One of her songs, "Avenue of the Stars", was a source of inspiration and encouragement as I have pursued a dream. Some people complain about songs being stuck in their heads - well, "Avenue of the Stars" is stuck in a place a little lower than that, but with the first three letters being the same.
In a very real sense, I owe her a huge debt - a debt of honor, you could say. All I will say is that it is one that I do have some idea of how to repay in large part, which is a lot more than I can say for another debt of honor I owe a person whom I consider not just a literary influence, but also a friend (it is something I am somewhat ashamed of).
Personally, I hope she doesn't take the offer from Playboy. She's a wonderful singer and actress, with a current show that has done very well (first or second in its timeslot each week). From what I have heard, she's also a decent person. That said, the decision about Playboy is her decision to make - and I will back whatever decision she makes 100%. I owe her that much at the very least.
I hope Ms. Hewitt has a successful run with Ghost Whisperer, and that all of her future endeavors go well for her.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
A cool site...
I usually hang out with the Dragnet channel at live365.com. I love listening to this show.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Thoughts on Justices...
With the pending Senate confirmation of Judge Alito, some thoughts on the recent nominations are in order.
Chief Justice John Roberts: This was a grand slam home run. Roberts was a brilliant lawyer who handled one very bad situation (representing clients who benefited from gross judicial misconduct) quite well ("I have no brief to defend the District Judge's decision to discuss this case publicly while it was pending on appeal, and I have no brief to defend the judge's decision to discuss the case with reporters while the trial was proceeding, even given the embargo on any reporting concerning those conversations until after the trial."). He was good - he took a situation where the entire case should have been re-started from square one, and he managed to keep some of the findings intact. He's a good justice, although I would have preferred to see Clarence Thomas promoted to Chief Justice, with Roberts as an Associate.
Harriet Miers: The darkest chapter in the recent history of the conservative movement. The opposition started when a New Republic reporter misreported Miers' work with the ABA. Then, those who did not join the effort to torpedo her nomination were insulted. Why? Because President Bush had earned the trust of conservatives on judicial nominations. Instead, his pick was borked. The principles of a fair hearing, and an up-or-down vote onthe Senate floor after the committee made its recommendation - campaigning on which meant a net gain six seats in the Senate for Republicans in the 2002 and 2004) were abandoned. And you can bet that smart folks on the left were taking notes. Conservatives had just handed the Democrats a big weapon for the next battle. They did so because they not only failed to think outside the box, but they also did not think through the consequences of attacking Harriet Miers the way they did.
Judge Samuel Alito: This pick also looks very good, even though Alex Kozinski was my favorite. The real risk was that Michael Luttig, who is about as First Amendment friendly as John McCain, would have been the pick. Alito got through the committee, but it was really a matter of luck. The Democrats resorted to character assassination over Concerned Alumni of Princeton, rather than to use the excuse that some conservatives had created for them in the Miers fiasco (namely, they were afraid that Miers would not pass their litmus tests). The Democrats came across as real jerks, and that meant enough people in the Gang of 14 were willing to break a filibuster. Conservatives got lucky in this battle - had the Democrats played their hand better, I think they would have been able to sustain a filibuster of Alito.
For this Congress, the Gang of 14 has worked pretty well. John McCain got stuff done, and he's going to get the credit for it. All too often conservatives seem to have been more interested in having a fight as opposed to obtaining the objective. If most of the objectives can be obtained without a battle - then take them, and fight the battle later, when the situation is better. It's Strategy and Tactics 101. All too often a frontal attack by conservatives against the left has led to a media pounding, usually followed by an electoral loss - at which point they can thump their checsts and say, "We stood on principle," while conveniently omitting the fact that the other side is all too often in a position where it is implementing their agenda.
The positives: We got two very good justices out of the deal. Roberts and Alito are going to do a fine job - and they will be around for a while.
The negatives: The Miers nomination still has left the Democrats with a weapon - albeit their actions during the Alito hearing has lessened its impact. I no longer trust the judgement of the people at National Review (both online and paper) who led the charge. The same is true for most of the others who resorted to condescension and name-calling because they had already made up their minds on Miers. One notable exception was my colleague at Strategypage.com, Austin Bay, who in his discussion of the nomination, unfailingly respected those who disagreed with him and did not stand for personal insults. This loss of trust among beltway establishment conservatives will remain with me for a long time.
Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Only the next nomination will tell. Stevens and Ginsburg would be the most likely vacancies, and that's where things will get very nasty and difficult. As for me, I'm more interested in the new baseball season at this point.
Chief Justice John Roberts: This was a grand slam home run. Roberts was a brilliant lawyer who handled one very bad situation (representing clients who benefited from gross judicial misconduct) quite well ("I have no brief to defend the District Judge's decision to discuss this case publicly while it was pending on appeal, and I have no brief to defend the judge's decision to discuss the case with reporters while the trial was proceeding, even given the embargo on any reporting concerning those conversations until after the trial."). He was good - he took a situation where the entire case should have been re-started from square one, and he managed to keep some of the findings intact. He's a good justice, although I would have preferred to see Clarence Thomas promoted to Chief Justice, with Roberts as an Associate.
Harriet Miers: The darkest chapter in the recent history of the conservative movement. The opposition started when a New Republic reporter misreported Miers' work with the ABA. Then, those who did not join the effort to torpedo her nomination were insulted. Why? Because President Bush had earned the trust of conservatives on judicial nominations. Instead, his pick was borked. The principles of a fair hearing, and an up-or-down vote onthe Senate floor after the committee made its recommendation - campaigning on which meant a net gain six seats in the Senate for Republicans in the 2002 and 2004) were abandoned. And you can bet that smart folks on the left were taking notes. Conservatives had just handed the Democrats a big weapon for the next battle. They did so because they not only failed to think outside the box, but they also did not think through the consequences of attacking Harriet Miers the way they did.
Judge Samuel Alito: This pick also looks very good, even though Alex Kozinski was my favorite. The real risk was that Michael Luttig, who is about as First Amendment friendly as John McCain, would have been the pick. Alito got through the committee, but it was really a matter of luck. The Democrats resorted to character assassination over Concerned Alumni of Princeton, rather than to use the excuse that some conservatives had created for them in the Miers fiasco (namely, they were afraid that Miers would not pass their litmus tests). The Democrats came across as real jerks, and that meant enough people in the Gang of 14 were willing to break a filibuster. Conservatives got lucky in this battle - had the Democrats played their hand better, I think they would have been able to sustain a filibuster of Alito.
For this Congress, the Gang of 14 has worked pretty well. John McCain got stuff done, and he's going to get the credit for it. All too often conservatives seem to have been more interested in having a fight as opposed to obtaining the objective. If most of the objectives can be obtained without a battle - then take them, and fight the battle later, when the situation is better. It's Strategy and Tactics 101. All too often a frontal attack by conservatives against the left has led to a media pounding, usually followed by an electoral loss - at which point they can thump their checsts and say, "We stood on principle," while conveniently omitting the fact that the other side is all too often in a position where it is implementing their agenda.
The positives: We got two very good justices out of the deal. Roberts and Alito are going to do a fine job - and they will be around for a while.
The negatives: The Miers nomination still has left the Democrats with a weapon - albeit their actions during the Alito hearing has lessened its impact. I no longer trust the judgement of the people at National Review (both online and paper) who led the charge. The same is true for most of the others who resorted to condescension and name-calling because they had already made up their minds on Miers. One notable exception was my colleague at Strategypage.com, Austin Bay, who in his discussion of the nomination, unfailingly respected those who disagreed with him and did not stand for personal insults. This loss of trust among beltway establishment conservatives will remain with me for a long time.
Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Only the next nomination will tell. Stevens and Ginsburg would be the most likely vacancies, and that's where things will get very nasty and difficult. As for me, I'm more interested in the new baseball season at this point.
Monday, January 23, 2006
An important article on immigration.
Tamar Jacoby had a great article in the last Weekly Standard (January 23, 2006) on immigration - an issue that generates a lot of heat and very little light among conservatives.
She explains it well:
Let's be honest - there is a very unsavory element (Jared Taylor is a regular contributor to VDARE.com) among those who have opposed President Bush's proposals on solving the present situation. We're talking what is, at best, winking at the unacceptable (somehow, Michelle Malkin lets VDARE run her columns a day earlier than Townhall.com or Creators' Syndicate). Samuel Francis was not even admitted as a racist, despite clear evidence of his bigotry. Reading President Bush's speech on his proposal, I get the impression that he has thought this problem through, and that he wants a real solution to the problem - not a political slogan or a band-aid. He's not favoring amnesty (despite many claims to the contrary from his opponents).
The fact is, we are at nearly full employment (unemployment is at 4.9%), and we have a lot of jobs that need doing. Dirty jobs, jobs involving outdoor work, jobs involving a low level of skills. And we've had one to one and a half million abortions per year since 1972 (over 34 years - that's as many as 51 million abortions), which also effects the potential labor force. In essence, it is largely an economic problem - and a problem of America's own making. In a sense, it is cultural - we have allowed abortion a foothold of at least three deacdes and probably longer, much to our nation's discredit. But in addition to that moral problem, the 34-51 million abortions have also created a huge economic problem. These are people who would be potentially doing the dirty/low-skill jobs.
What makes it worse, in my opinion, is that the anti-immigration approach costs the GOP at the polls. Not just the aftermath of Pete Wilson and Prop 187 (which turned California into a solid blue state), but the recent gubernatorial campaign in Virginia (Kilgore went from parity among Hispanic voters before his anti-illegal immigration campaign to losing 58-42). It also ticks off the business community - which is the only counterweight for the labor unions (those who support Tancredo should keep in mind that the business community can sit out elections, too).
Very simply, this issue gains some support among the base, but loses a lot among Hispanic voters, the business community (which wants to be left alone), and those who do not care for the blatant use of wedge issues. On the other hand, a constructive solution could not only provide secure borders, meet the needs of business, and it will strengthen the Republican party politically. If, that is, the Republicans can stand up and solve the problem rather than fall for the usual routines from the usual suspects. But that is going to take a very bloody fight.
It's a fight that is worth it.
She explains it well:
The issue appeals to a range of dark emotions: economic insecurities, fear of terrorism, and resentment about spending tax revenues on people who have no right to be here in the first place. Then there are the cultural concerns. According to Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center, some 40 percent of the public think the growing number of newcomers "threaten traditional American customs and values."The thing is - nobody has really defined "traditional American customs and values". What exactly are they? How are they threatened by people immigrating from Latin America? It is a vague phrase - and one that can easily lead to shifting goalposts.
Let's be honest - there is a very unsavory element (Jared Taylor is a regular contributor to VDARE.com) among those who have opposed President Bush's proposals on solving the present situation. We're talking what is, at best, winking at the unacceptable (somehow, Michelle Malkin lets VDARE run her columns a day earlier than Townhall.com or Creators' Syndicate). Samuel Francis was not even admitted as a racist, despite clear evidence of his bigotry. Reading President Bush's speech on his proposal, I get the impression that he has thought this problem through, and that he wants a real solution to the problem - not a political slogan or a band-aid. He's not favoring amnesty (despite many claims to the contrary from his opponents).
The fact is, we are at nearly full employment (unemployment is at 4.9%), and we have a lot of jobs that need doing. Dirty jobs, jobs involving outdoor work, jobs involving a low level of skills. And we've had one to one and a half million abortions per year since 1972 (over 34 years - that's as many as 51 million abortions), which also effects the potential labor force. In essence, it is largely an economic problem - and a problem of America's own making. In a sense, it is cultural - we have allowed abortion a foothold of at least three deacdes and probably longer, much to our nation's discredit. But in addition to that moral problem, the 34-51 million abortions have also created a huge economic problem. These are people who would be potentially doing the dirty/low-skill jobs.
What makes it worse, in my opinion, is that the anti-immigration approach costs the GOP at the polls. Not just the aftermath of Pete Wilson and Prop 187 (which turned California into a solid blue state), but the recent gubernatorial campaign in Virginia (Kilgore went from parity among Hispanic voters before his anti-illegal immigration campaign to losing 58-42). It also ticks off the business community - which is the only counterweight for the labor unions (those who support Tancredo should keep in mind that the business community can sit out elections, too).
Very simply, this issue gains some support among the base, but loses a lot among Hispanic voters, the business community (which wants to be left alone), and those who do not care for the blatant use of wedge issues. On the other hand, a constructive solution could not only provide secure borders, meet the needs of business, and it will strengthen the Republican party politically. If, that is, the Republicans can stand up and solve the problem rather than fall for the usual routines from the usual suspects. But that is going to take a very bloody fight.
It's a fight that is worth it.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
James Webb got it wrong...
There have been a lot of arguments raised against going into Iraq. What is probably the most arrogant is the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. One of those making the claim is James Webb.
He says:
* A memo recovered from the wreckage of the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi Intelligence Service) by Mitch Potter, a journalist with the Toronto Star, in April, 2003. This memo discussed bringing an envoy of bin Laden's to Baghdad to "discuss the future of our relationship with" bin Laden.
* A document recovered during Operation Iraqi Freedom points to Iraqi assistance with al-Qaeda's chemical warfare plans.
* The case of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir.
* The evidence summary against a Guantanamo Bay detainee.
How much more is needed?
Clearly, Secretary Webb either has no idea what he is talking about - or he's chosen to ignore these easily located (in the age of Google) pieces of information. Saddam Hussein's regime was clearly a state sponsor of al-Qaeda.
He says:
I was an early voice saying we shouldn't go in, that it was not connected to the war against international terrorism, that it was not among the highest national security concerns that we should be considering.This is in spite of:
* A memo recovered from the wreckage of the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi Intelligence Service) by Mitch Potter, a journalist with the Toronto Star, in April, 2003. This memo discussed bringing an envoy of bin Laden's to Baghdad to "discuss the future of our relationship with" bin Laden.
* A document recovered during Operation Iraqi Freedom points to Iraqi assistance with al-Qaeda's chemical warfare plans.
* The case of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir.
* The evidence summary against a Guantanamo Bay detainee.
How much more is needed?
Clearly, Secretary Webb either has no idea what he is talking about - or he's chosen to ignore these easily located (in the age of Google) pieces of information. Saddam Hussein's regime was clearly a state sponsor of al-Qaeda.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Austin Bay on the indictment...
Austin Bay discusses the indictment of Scooter Libby. What is interesting, besides Joe Wilson's shifting story (which he comments on), is the irregularities that appear to have occured in Wilson's trip to Niger.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Serious WMD stuff...
Austin Bay reminds everyone that the United States takes weapons of mass destruction seriously. Here's the reason why, which he didn't quite touch on:
The policy of the United States is that we will respond in kind if weapons of mass destruction are used against the United States. Here's something to consider: We joined the Biological Warfare Convention in 1972. We got rid of our bioweapons. We joined the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997. Guess where our chemical weapons (including the non-lethal agent BZ) went? Yep, they're gone, too. What WMD does the United States have? They operate on principles of physics as opposed to biology or chemistry - they're nuclear weapons.
Think this through carefully, folks. If we get hit with a chemical weapons attack in Madison Square Garden, we'll be responding with nukes once we identify the culprit. We have to, because if we don't, then there is no chance of deterring future attacks. Restraint would not be an option.
This is why we get very touchy when we hear someone nasty is trying to get weapons of mass destruction - and we also get information that they may provide them to terrorists. This is why Saddam Hussein's regime was taken down. He was clearly trying to get weapons of mass destruction, and at least one recovered memo indicates that there was a relationship with al-Qaeda. Also, one of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay was supposed to work with an officer of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi intelligence service) to carry out a chemical mortar attack against the American embassies in Pakistan. Had that attack been carried out, we would have traced it to Iraq and al-Qaeda - and shortly after that, there's a very good chance that parts of Iraq would not be pleasant places to be. The resulting death toll would be well over the 100,000 that opponents of the liberation of Iraq cite at present.
Think that over the next time you see a news report of how bad things in Iraq are. It could have been worse. A lot worse.
EDIT: I wanted to add one more thought to all of this. The decision made by President Bush to liberate Iraq needs to be viewed with our policy concerning attacks with weapons of mass destruction in mind. I know that knowing what he knew at the time he made the decision to go into Iraq, that I would have made that decision - not just to save the lives of Americans, but also to save the lives of the tens of thousands of Iraqis (at a minimum) who would have died had we been forced to retaliate to a WMD attack that Saddam Hussein was complicit in.
The policy of the United States is that we will respond in kind if weapons of mass destruction are used against the United States. Here's something to consider: We joined the Biological Warfare Convention in 1972. We got rid of our bioweapons. We joined the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997. Guess where our chemical weapons (including the non-lethal agent BZ) went? Yep, they're gone, too. What WMD does the United States have? They operate on principles of physics as opposed to biology or chemistry - they're nuclear weapons.
Think this through carefully, folks. If we get hit with a chemical weapons attack in Madison Square Garden, we'll be responding with nukes once we identify the culprit. We have to, because if we don't, then there is no chance of deterring future attacks. Restraint would not be an option.
This is why we get very touchy when we hear someone nasty is trying to get weapons of mass destruction - and we also get information that they may provide them to terrorists. This is why Saddam Hussein's regime was taken down. He was clearly trying to get weapons of mass destruction, and at least one recovered memo indicates that there was a relationship with al-Qaeda. Also, one of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay was supposed to work with an officer of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi intelligence service) to carry out a chemical mortar attack against the American embassies in Pakistan. Had that attack been carried out, we would have traced it to Iraq and al-Qaeda - and shortly after that, there's a very good chance that parts of Iraq would not be pleasant places to be. The resulting death toll would be well over the 100,000 that opponents of the liberation of Iraq cite at present.
Think that over the next time you see a news report of how bad things in Iraq are. It could have been worse. A lot worse.
EDIT: I wanted to add one more thought to all of this. The decision made by President Bush to liberate Iraq needs to be viewed with our policy concerning attacks with weapons of mass destruction in mind. I know that knowing what he knew at the time he made the decision to go into Iraq, that I would have made that decision - not just to save the lives of Americans, but also to save the lives of the tens of thousands of Iraqis (at a minimum) who would have died had we been forced to retaliate to a WMD attack that Saddam Hussein was complicit in.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Bashir Assad's mind has taken a walk off the map...
Austin Bay discusses the UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.
One thing needs to be kept in mind: What Syria did was a patently irrational action. If Bashir Assad was trying to keep Lebanon as a vassal state, he has utterly failed now. In fact, his regime has to be considered at risk at this point. This is a huge black mark on Syria's present regime, and isn't something that can be ignored.
I will not pretend to know what Bashir Assad was thinking - if he was thinking. Nor do I know what the person who doctored the report was thinking. But it is just par for the course... the UN covering up for dictators and jerks again.
One thing needs to be kept in mind: What Syria did was a patently irrational action. If Bashir Assad was trying to keep Lebanon as a vassal state, he has utterly failed now. In fact, his regime has to be considered at risk at this point. This is a huge black mark on Syria's present regime, and isn't something that can be ignored.
I will not pretend to know what Bashir Assad was thinking - if he was thinking. Nor do I know what the person who doctored the report was thinking. But it is just par for the course... the UN covering up for dictators and jerks again.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Sonar lawfare...
Lawfare is something that Jim Dunnigan, a colleague of mine at Strategypage.com, has written about extensively. Usually, it focuses on the war on terrorism.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has taken this lawfare to a new level. After lengthy legal action that has stunted the development of SURTASS LFA (see the first article, dated December 31, 2003) and which has tied up a sonar range (see the July 20, 2004 article) off the Carolinas, they are now trying to restrict use of the medium-frequency active sonars (the SQS-53 and SQS-56) - which are used on every surface combatant.
Active sonar has become a big factor these days as fuel cells are replacing diesel engines on the advanced non-nuclear submarines (see the French Scorpene, the German Type 212/214, and the Russian Lada/Amur classes as prime examples of this). Active sonar is probably the best way to detect these subs before they can danage (or sink) one of our ships.
Now, the NRDC is conceding that the Navy could use active sonar in wartime, but their lawsuit is placing our sailors at risk by threatening to cut back on the training. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines fight like they train. If the training is restricted or eliminated, their effectiveness in combat decreases sharply.
The NRDC's lawfare against the Navy could get some sailors killed one of these days.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has taken this lawfare to a new level. After lengthy legal action that has stunted the development of SURTASS LFA (see the first article, dated December 31, 2003) and which has tied up a sonar range (see the July 20, 2004 article) off the Carolinas, they are now trying to restrict use of the medium-frequency active sonars (the SQS-53 and SQS-56) - which are used on every surface combatant.
Active sonar has become a big factor these days as fuel cells are replacing diesel engines on the advanced non-nuclear submarines (see the French Scorpene, the German Type 212/214, and the Russian Lada/Amur classes as prime examples of this). Active sonar is probably the best way to detect these subs before they can danage (or sink) one of our ships.
Now, the NRDC is conceding that the Navy could use active sonar in wartime, but their lawsuit is placing our sailors at risk by threatening to cut back on the training. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines fight like they train. If the training is restricted or eliminated, their effectiveness in combat decreases sharply.
The NRDC's lawfare against the Navy could get some sailors killed one of these days.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Memo for Joe Wilson: Cover Your Anatomy
CYA. It's one of the first things anyone in government service--military or civilian, government employee or contractor--learns: Cover Your Anatomy. (To my salty Marine Corps brethren and sistren: I am using the sanitized version deliberately, so take a chill pill.)
That means that, whenever there is the slightest chance of controversy regarding what happened, you make records of everything you do on behalf of Uncle. You write things down, preferably on real paper. That goes for anyone, be s/he be a Marine NCO recording that s/he had counseled a subordinate on his or her problematic behavior, or a former ambassador sent to Niger to investigate whether or not uranium was making its way to Saddam Hussein.
Mark Levin raises the question peripherally here:
When Wilson returned from Niger, he never got around to filing a written report. After all, why produce a written report that would be circulated to real professionals and policymakers, who would subject it to serious scrutiny.
So far, so bad. When I participated in meetings with government clients, I always wrote down my thoughts immediately afterward, while the memories were still fresh. (If you didn't write it down, it never happened.) But it gets worse in the next sentence:
However, Wilson was debriefed by the CIA and his debriefers did take notes.
The second sentence raises an interesting point. Mr. Wilson never gave the government his primary recollections; instead, they received his observations filtered through the prism of whoever debriefed him and whatever they chose to write down. That's very bad form when dealing with something that could help decide, one way or another, whether America goes to war. It is a sign of either laziness or moral cowardice. Neither is the sort of trait that engenders trust in one's judgement.
Even more interesting is the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. There is an interesting statement on page 43 of Section II, Niger:
(U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief.
I never discuss classified information in my house; it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a secure facility, and it cannot be made into one without truly astonishing amounts of remodeling, followed by having the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency come out to look over the work and certify it, a process that generates truly astonishing amounts of paperwork. As Mr. Wilson does not reside in the White House or the Naval Observatory, it is safe to assume that his house is, like mine, not a secure facility. Therefore, any information from his debriefing should have been unclassified. However, the report prepared by the debriefers is classified. Either the debriefers grossly violated basic procedures for handling classified material, or they grossly abused the security classification process. Which one is it? That's a question for an attorney who specializes in Freedom of Information Act litigation.
So, what happened? We don't know the full details. We probably never will know the full details. But what we do know is that Joe Wilson, supposedly an expert in national security matters, didn't even bother writing anything down at the time regarding what he heard and saw, and violated either security classification guidelines or procedures for protecting classified information...and he then asks us to trust his judgement.
Sorry, Joe, I didn't get that memo.
That means that, whenever there is the slightest chance of controversy regarding what happened, you make records of everything you do on behalf of Uncle. You write things down, preferably on real paper. That goes for anyone, be s/he be a Marine NCO recording that s/he had counseled a subordinate on his or her problematic behavior, or a former ambassador sent to Niger to investigate whether or not uranium was making its way to Saddam Hussein.
Mark Levin raises the question peripherally here:
When Wilson returned from Niger, he never got around to filing a written report. After all, why produce a written report that would be circulated to real professionals and policymakers, who would subject it to serious scrutiny.
So far, so bad. When I participated in meetings with government clients, I always wrote down my thoughts immediately afterward, while the memories were still fresh. (If you didn't write it down, it never happened.) But it gets worse in the next sentence:
However, Wilson was debriefed by the CIA and his debriefers did take notes.
The second sentence raises an interesting point. Mr. Wilson never gave the government his primary recollections; instead, they received his observations filtered through the prism of whoever debriefed him and whatever they chose to write down. That's very bad form when dealing with something that could help decide, one way or another, whether America goes to war. It is a sign of either laziness or moral cowardice. Neither is the sort of trait that engenders trust in one's judgement.
Even more interesting is the Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. There is an interesting statement on page 43 of Section II, Niger:
(U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief.
I never discuss classified information in my house; it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a secure facility, and it cannot be made into one without truly astonishing amounts of remodeling, followed by having the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency come out to look over the work and certify it, a process that generates truly astonishing amounts of paperwork. As Mr. Wilson does not reside in the White House or the Naval Observatory, it is safe to assume that his house is, like mine, not a secure facility. Therefore, any information from his debriefing should have been unclassified. However, the report prepared by the debriefers is classified. Either the debriefers grossly violated basic procedures for handling classified material, or they grossly abused the security classification process. Which one is it? That's a question for an attorney who specializes in Freedom of Information Act litigation.
So, what happened? We don't know the full details. We probably never will know the full details. But what we do know is that Joe Wilson, supposedly an expert in national security matters, didn't even bother writing anything down at the time regarding what he heard and saw, and violated either security classification guidelines or procedures for protecting classified information...and he then asks us to trust his judgement.
Sorry, Joe, I didn't get that memo.
Returning...
This blog, mostly inactive for six months will return soon with something very interesting...
Stand by.
Stand by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)